Access To Work Schemes (Hansard, 21 July 1993)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)
My Lords, access to work constitutes a considerable improvement on the current help given to people with disabilities. It will enable us to bring in for the first time new forms of support such as communicators for 706 deaf people; support workers for people with severe physical disabilities, mental illness or learning disabilities; and funding for adaptations to vehicles. Many people who cannot now receive appropriate help to meet employment-related needs will be able to do so in future.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, is the Minister aware that if employers are asked to pay half the cost of access to work schemes, it is bound to act as a deterrent to the employment of disabled people who find it hard enough to obtain jobs anyway? If there is to be a limit over five years on the amount expended on each disabled person, what is to happen if the limit is reached before the end of the five years? Are disabled employees expected to make up the difference out of their already inadequate pay?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the principle of employer contribution is not at all new. As regards adaptations to premises, most employers contribute between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. Of course, we do not wish to discourage employers recruiting disabled people, so we are not asking for contributions for new recruits, for unemployed people and for those who become disabled in the first six months.
When individual ceilings are set—and the noble Lord will realise that they have not been set—they will be substantial. Again, ceilings are nothing new; there are already ceilings for three out of the four existing schemes being incorporated into access to work. We shall look carefully at the transitional arrangements for those already in existing schemes.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the improvements that he has announced are not only most welcome but show evidence of a greater desire on the part of employers to give help to disabled people where they can? Can my noble friend say to what extent, if at all, the taxpayer will contribute towards those improvements?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend welcomes these schemes. Access to work is a fairly substantial scheme. Some £12 million will be spent this year helping over 8,500 people. I am glad that he welcomes the new flexibility that we have built into the scheme. With reference to my noble friend's particular interests, the support workers for people who are mentally ill or who have learning difficulties will be of great benefit.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, what will be the taxpayers' contribution?

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what effect, if any, this will have on the quota scheme? As my noble friend Lord Carter has just pointed out, employers may feel discouraged from employing disabled people if they think that it will cost them extra money. Will the quota scheme still be in operation?

§ Viscount Ullswater
Yes, my Lords. We have no plans currently to amend the 1944 legislation, which means that the quota scheme will be in effect. My right honourable friend has said that we are reviewing the 707 quota scheme. That is the position. He also said to M embers in another place that he retains an open mind on it, which I think is very helpful.

§ Lord Rix
My Lords, can the Minister explain how people with disabilities, particularly those with learning disabilities, will be given the priority on training schemes which they have been promised? Does he agree that the NCVO stated: the pressure is on training organisations to select those who can be trained quickly and cheaply, whilst having to turn away those who need most help"? What do the Government propose to do to alleviate that situation?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, every training and enterprise council is contractually obliged to provide appropriate training to people with disabilities. That includes the provision of appropriate facilities and support to enable trainees who have disabilities to benefit from suitable training. We have also announced that people with disabilities will have priority, not just on one scheme but on every scheme that the TECs run.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, does my noble friend have the figures to answer the second half of the question put by my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, what will be the taxpayers' contribution to this scheme?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I thought that I had answered that question in saying that the scheme is worth £12 million of taxpayers' money.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the four residential colleges for training the disabled are in considerable difficulties this year because of the changes that the Government have made in their funding? Indeed, their future is in doubt. Can he give any assurance at all about the future of those colleges?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the future funding of these colleges was considered a year or two ago as being suitable for funding by the individual training and enterprise councils. That was done on a pilot scheme. However, the Government have since decided, and announced, that they will continue centrally to fund the four residential colleges.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, is it still true that the next instalment of money for the TECs depends on success, and that that success is defined in obtaining qualifications and getting places in employment? If that is so, the TECs will want disabled people like a hole in the head. Such people will be far more difficult to place and therefore will have a bad effect on the future funding of the TECs. Has that position, which has operated very badly in relation to disabled people, been corrected?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I do not believe that the arrangement is operating badly. The whole concept of output-related funding is that one can balance the funding according to the output. We have loaded the funding for TECs so that the outputs that they get for disabled people encourage them to train such people.

§ Lord Eatwell
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the article in the social protocol to the Maastricht Treaty which refers to people excluded from the labour market refers to people with disabilities? Can he explain why the Government resist helping disabled people by accepting the social protocol?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord's point is rather far from the Question on the Order Paper. What the Government resist is that Brussels should tell them how to operate such a scheme.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, I am sorry to return to the matter, but is the noble Viscount absolutely sure of his facts; namely, that the four residential colleges are still being funded centrally? My information is that the Government insist on their being funded through the TECs. The TECs, not unnaturally, send people to the cheapest colleges, which are not residential. Will the Minister look again at that matter?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I am happy to confirm that I have, so far as I know, got the facts right. I shall of course check them arid, if I have got them wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord. But I am quite certain that the four residential colleges he mentioned are centrally funded.