Access to Work Scheme (Hansard, 20 February 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)
My Lords, when access to work was first launched the Government 974 undertook to review it after one year's operation. Discussions are currently being held with a number of organisations. An announcement will be made before the end of the financial year.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, does the Minister recall that he played a prominent part in the setting up of the scheme which has been successful and cost-effective, helping many thousands of disabled people to retain their jobs and thousands more to obtain jobs? If the Government go ahead with proposed cuts from £19 million to £12.9 million the jobs of many disabled people and their lives will be seriously affected. A realistic budget has been placed at £23 million. That money should be paid to keep the scheme.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I remember, as does the noble Lord, the launch of access to work. I agree with him that it has been successful. I reject his allegations that we are cutting the budget. We launched access to work with a budget, first, of some £14 million, and for subsequent years, as the noble Lord will remember—this was made clear—of some £12.9 million. The nature of the scheme caused it to grow beyond that figure and we were able to borrow money from other parts of the department. That cannot continue in the longer term. We are restricting it to its budget of £12.9 million. That is why we had to impose certain limitations on the scheme in December last year. As the noble Lord knows, we are committed to keeping the scheme. That is why we are reviewing it and ensuring that it is properly targeted upon those whom it can benefit most. I believe that the noble Lord will remember some figures that I quoted to him previously. Currently, about 80 per cent. of those being assisted by access to work were already in work. The aim of the scheme, as my right honourable friend Mr. Hunt made clear when we launched it, was to try to give priority to those out of work and to help them into work.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Royal British Legion naturally has an interest in the Question? Will he, as Ministers have done hitherto, keep us closely informed of any developments whereby former servicemen and women who were wounded and are now crippled can be helped by this House and by all those who have sympathy and understanding for British men and women disabled in wars?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I have the greatest respect for the Royal British Legion. I believe that the whole House has respect for the work done by the noble Lord in the Royal British Legion. As I believe I made clear, we will have discussions with all appropriate organisations as we consider the appropriate changes to access to work. If the Royal British Legion wishes to make any comments to me or to my ministerial colleagues, I shall be more than happy to listen to them. As it is, I do not believe that it has asked for a meeting, but again, should it wish to have such a meeting, I shall be more than happy to consider it.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the changes introduced since 975 December 1985 have had the effect of disadvantaging some people who want to change their jobs? Is he aware, for example, that the RNIB has a list of people who have been disadvantaged as a result of the changes? Is he prepared to look at those cases?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, what I am aware of is the rather scurrilous press release from the party opposite which claims that 7,500 people will lose their jobs as a result of the changes. There is no truth in that whatever. Obviously, we had to make changes because the budget was growing out of control. The programme was never supposed to be demand led. It was launched with a specific budget. We want to keep the programme within that budget.

§ Lord Addington
My Lords, as the programme has shown itself to be of benefit to the Treasury because it has resulted in getting into work people who now pay taxes, is it not illogical, even from the Treasury's point of view, that it should be restricted or cut back?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord did not listen to the figures I quoted earlier. I made clear that some 80 per cent. of those whom the programme helped were already in work and only 20 per cent. were out of work. We see it as more important to help people into work, and that is why we should like to target it in that respect. Whether the noble Lord can prove there were benefits to the Treasury as a result is another matter. It is arguable that many of those being helped were in work and would have retained their jobs whatever happened.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, does not the Secretary of State's recent announcement that government funding for the access to work scheme is to be given to the unemployed, as he said, mean that disabled people will inevitably suffer?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, that is not what we said. We said that in the first year or so of the scheme's operation there was a bias in favour of the employed. The original intention was that there should be a bias, although not a total bias, in favour of the unemployed. We want to ensure that the scheme is focused properly on the unemployed. We want access to work together with the many other schemes we have to help disabled people into work—I must stress that access to work is only one of many and only one part of our expenditure in this field—to assist people into work.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason for the overspend is that the original financial allocation was inadequate? In terms of pure public relations the Government should be careful because the volume of protests from disabled people and their organisations, if the cuts are made, will he so great that they will obscure the fine work the scheme has done. In pure public relations terms the Government should give the scheme more money.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the budget for access to work as launched was greater than that of the four schemes which make up access to work. So I believe 976 it was fair to think that access to work would be budgeted appropriately and that there would be sufficient money. I should make clear in terms of public relations, of which the noble Lord speaks, that, as I said earlier, this is just one of many schemes. On the employment side alone my department is spending jolly nearly £180 million on schemes designed to help disabled people in employment. There is further help from my department on the education side. Overall expenditure by the DSS for the long-term sick and disabled amounts to something of the order of £20 billion. A further £6.5 billion is spent on personal social services to help disabled people. Our commitment is pretty real.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, is the Minister prepared to look at the cases which the RNIB has advanced concerning people who have difficulties caused by their wish to change jobs as a result of the changes introduced in December 1995? I understand from the institute that there are a number of cases of people wanting to change jobs who are disadvantaged as a result of the changes.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, obviously I shall look at any cases the RNIB brings before me. I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be seeing the RNIB very soon.