HL Deb 29 November 1993 vol 550 cc423-5

2.45 p.m.

Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they have received from disability organisations about their proposals for the employment of disabled people entitled Access to Work.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley)

My Lords, disability organisations have given a general welcome to Access to Work, which will help more disabled people in a much wider range of ways, while expressing concerns about the proposal for employers to make limited contributions to help their own established employees and, to some extent, about the proposal for a limit on an individual's entitlement to help in a five-year period.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, is the Minister aware that if anyone were so perverse as to wish to increase the unemployment of disabled people, one of the most effective ways in which to do that would be to force employers to pay 50 per cent. of the costs of special equipment for disabled employees? Why are the Government doing that?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that our aim is exactly the same as his; that is, to increase provision for disabled people. We believe that Access to Work, which has been broadly welcomed, will make available much more provision for many more people with disabilities.

I accept that there has been anxiety about employers' contributions. That is why they will be only 50 per cent., up to a certain ceiling. That ceiling has not yet been announced and we shall certainly listen to all representations from the noble Lord and others as regards where that ceiling should be set. Certainly I wish to make it clear that I should not like that ceiling to be set at a level which would discourage employers from retaining their established employees. I must stress that employers' contributions apply only to existing employees. New employees will not be affected at all.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are many forms of disablement and that there are many specialist organisations which are trying to help disabled people? All that such organisations feel is that they should be given acknowledgement, encouragement and the opportunity to show that almost every disabled person can do some form of work which can be to the benefit of that person and his family and, indeed, to the country.

Lord Henley

My Lords, the noble Lord and I are totally at one. Access to Work is really only to help people with particular special needs. A great many disabled people have no particular need for any help from the Government in the form of Access to Work. My department, through its various agencies, will certainly be glad to offer any help and advice that is needed.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Spastics Society, for example, is one organisation that has asked for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation as regards disabled people? Would that not be a better approach, rather than the more piecemeal approach that we have seen recently?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I believe that anti-discrimination legislation is another question, but it is one on which we have made our views clear on a number of occasions. We believe that Access to Work will provide a great deal of extra help for many people with disabilities, and it will certainly be an improvement on the rather scarce and varied schemes which we have at present.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that only 50 per cent. of employers responded to the department's research and less than 40 per cent. said that they were willing to pay more? That leaves a very large number of employers who are not prepared to pay the extra costs of disabled people and, consequently, that unemployment of disabled people is bound to rise. There is no point in the Minister speaking of Access to Work when many thousands will be denied access to work and a job unless that particular aspect of the policy is changed.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I do not believe that the research shows that to be so. We believe that it shows that employers are prepared to pay something to keep on existing employees. There is a perfectly good business case for paying a little—and I must stress that it will only be a small amount—to retain an employee that one already employs. After all, that saves the cost of recruiting and training a new employee. I must make clear that, as regards employers having to pay, the proposals will not apply to new employees. Therefore, in no way whatever can one say that they are a disincentive to employers taking on new disabled employees.