Access to Work Scheme (Hansard, 10 January 1994)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley)
My Lords, in reaching decisions about the details of the Access to Work Scheme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I are considering carefully all the representations made by the disability and employer groups whom we have met. My right honourable friend hopes to announce decisions soon.

§ Lord Rix
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Before I proceed to ask my supplementary question, perhaps I may, on behalf of the entire House, send our deepest sympathy to his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the terrible tragedy which has befallen his family over this weekend.

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

§ Lord Rix
My Lords, I am delighted to hear that consideration is still being given to the scheme. Are the Government aware that it is not just disabled people but the employers of disabled people who are worried by the possible levy, because they see it as a tax on good practice? I hope the Government will consider that before the announcement is made.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity on behalf of my noble friend to thank the noble Lord and to echo his words. I believe that I speak personally, and on behalf of the entire House, when I offer my condolences to my noble friend and his family and say that all our thoughts are with them as they come to cope with this dreadful tragedy.
As regards the noble Lord's supplementary question, I can reassure him that we have consulted a large number of employers' groups, and other groups of people both of and for disabled people, and we shall take on board all suggestions that they have to make before, as I said, we come to our final decisions.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, is not the proposed levy certain to reduce employment opportunities for the very people we all wish to help—the disabled who need special equipment to be able to work—and who are being helped now by the loan system? Is it correct that the modest budget for that has been underspent in recent years?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I should be the last to wish to reduce the employment prospects of disabled people. Everything that we are doing with regard to the Access to Work Scheme is designed to increase their employment prospects. My noble friend is right in that there has been considerable underspend in previous years on the various schemes that go to make up access to work. I offer a word of caution to the House as to whether that underspend will continue, because we should like to promote access to work as actively as possible, and we hope that that, in itself, will lead to a much greater take-up of the various forms of help on offer.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the Access to Work Scheme has some welcome innovations which reflect credit on the Government, but that this aspect of it—the charging of employers—is damaging? No one who believes in market economics, as the Minister presumably does, can reasonably or logically argue that the charge will not deter employers from keeping on disabled workers. The 3 wrong message is being sent to employers by the Government. It is, "If you employ disabled workers you pay more". That cannot be right. The message to the Secretary of State from this side of the House is, "If you do not press ahead with this charge you will get more credit from withdrawing than from pressing on regardless".

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord because he started by stressing that, in the main, the Access to Work Scheme has been welcomed broadly by all groups. But, as the noble Lord stressed, considerable reservations have been expressed by many groups, particularly employer groups, about the proposal that they should pay some small amount. We are proposing that they should pay only a small or reasonable amount which should not deter them from retaining existing employees, as the charges would not, under any circumstances, be levied on new employees. We believe that a reasonable level of contribution will not deter employers from retaining their existing employees.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, on that point about a small contribution, in the Commons Hansard Written Answer of 22nd June it was said that there would be a 50 per cent. contribution by the employer. Has that figure been changed? It was also said that there would be an upper limit on the amount of help to be received by any particular person, and that that upper limit would be announced shortly. Has that already been announced?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, final figures have not been announced. What was announced in the summer was that it would be 50 per cent. up to a certain ceiling. We propose that that ceiling, which will be considerably lower than 100 per cent. of the total amount that can be received, should not be high enough to deter employers from retaining their existing employees. As I said, final decisions have not been made about the total ceiling that will exist for individual employees or the ceiling that employers will have to pay.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, following the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on the Access to Work Scheme, was the 3 per cent. quota discussed with employers? Will that be included in the report back from the Government? Will the Government's reaction to those discussions on the 3 per cent. be reported to the House?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the quota scheme is under review. I cannot announce any final decision. However, as my right honourable friend made quite clear some time last year, the scheme is under review and we shall continue to keep it under review.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, is the Minister aware that obviously we on this side of the House applaud the intentions of the Government in regard to the Access to Work Scheme? As the levy is the controversial item, would it not be possible to postpone 4 it for at least a year while other ways of raising the money could be considered? The levy appears to be the only outstanding problem with the scheme.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall consider that particular point. However, I must stress that if we cease to take a contribution from the employers it could involve sacrificing funds which might be used to help people with disabilities in other fields. Our aim—and no doubt that of the noble Baroness—is to help as many people as possible. I can give an assurance that the scheme will be reviewed after a year and we will consider the suggestion of the noble Baroness that we should not impose the levy during the first year.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, the scheme is imaginative, but can it be borne in mind during the review that the net saving to public funds might at best be tiny if, to be realistic, the imposition of the levy results in fewer disabled people being employed? They will not then pay the taxes and national insurance contributions that they pay when in employment. Perhaps more significantly, is it not inevitable that there will be additional demands on social service moneys?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I said, final decisions have not been made. Our aim—and I am sure that the whole House will agree with it—is to help as many people as possible. We believe that if we can help more people, without others suffering, by asking for some small contribution from employers then that probably will be the right way forward. However, if we find that we can go ahead without an employers' contribution—and certainly we shall take on board the suggestions of the noble Lord—obviously that will be the best way forward.