Clause 1
Welfare Reform Bill
10:45 am
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Amess. That must be some kind of record.
The amendment relates to an important piece of language, on which the Government should be congratulated, as their approach is to get away from the notion of incapacity. In the 1990s, invalidity benefit was changed to incapacity benefit. In those days, which are not that long ago, it was seen as an advance; but to me, and to most of us in the 21st century, it seems a rather unfortunate phrase, which is not in tune with the times.
The question, however, is whether the phrase “limited capability for work”, which is an improvement, is necessarily the right one. In the spirit of probing, I wonder whether the word “restricted” might be better. I do not want to stray into semantics, nor do I want to take up the Committee’s time, but in the longer version of the Oxford English dictionary, “limited” is described as
“appointed; fixed; confined within definite limits”.
“Restricted” might therefore be an improvement, as it is described in the same volume as
“of a person; not allowed freedom of movement”.
There is a sense in which, if “restricted” is used, people are being limited, and not free to move. The reality is that if someone has a limited capability for work, they are not being written off, because the Bill makes it clear that if a person has a limited capability for work and draws the support element of the allowance, it is not the end of the story. It is explicit in the Bill and in what the Secretary of State said that there will be movement within the elements of the allowance.
We must be clear about the language: when I was considering amendments to the Bill, “limited capability” struck me as being not quite right. The concept is fine, and the emphasis on capability is tremendous; I am not talking about what people cannot do, but about what they can do.
I am drawn inevitably to the other amendments, but I shall not list all of them for fear of trying your patience, Mr. Amess. There are attractions in the amendments that relate to “labour market disadvantage”, which I believe the Government will reject, but we need to explore the issue because it is important. It is not just about mental and physical conditions, which are mentioned in the amendments, being a limiting factor, but about labour market disadvantage. In that respect, we need to reflect on the debate among the many groups outside the House that are watching this Bill carefully. One thing that my hon. Friends and I—and Ministers, too—have picked up on is the fact that there is a demand side in the labour market—which is what the amendment refers to—and also a supply side. On the supply side, individuals are getting support. As we have heard, at least 1 million—probably more—out of the 2.7 million want to work. With the appropriate support, they are getting better and work ready.
What about the demand side? If the employees are not up for—to put it colloquially—employing those with limited capability or even severe disability, it does not matter how well they make themselves, what training they get, rehabilitation they do or support they get from Jobcentre Plus or third sector bodies. Therefore, the words “labour market disadvantage” in the amendment lead me inexorably, and I hope validly, for the purposes of this clause, to explore employment attitudes. One can have a limited capability if the employer does not take on disabled people even though they are work ready.
The Bill has great aims and ambitions and we want to try and ensure that the clauses work to deliver those policy objectives. However, has enough attention been given in the clause and elsewhere to encouraging employers to employ people with disabilities in the workplace? I am not suggesting for one second that this is an issue that Ministers have not thought about. They have; I have spoken to them. I know that this is a big issue. However, there does not yet appear to be enough on that in the Bill. That is why the “labour market disadvantage” amendment that we are speaking to is important.
There are some interesting statistics that I would like to share with the Committee. In 2005, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development took a large sample of employers drawn from all sectors. One in three employers responded that they deliberately excluded people with a history of long-term sickness or incapacity when recruiting staff. On the face of it, we all know that that looks like straightforward unlawful discrimination that would be covered in other Acts of Parliament and that deservedly should be stamped on. However, when it comes to people who have been on incapacity benefit—and, should it go through, the logic would apply to the new employment and support allowance—the picture is more complicated. Rather than being concerned about prospective employees’ health per se, many employers are concerned about the possibility that long-term claimants may lack up-to-date skills. They may have been on incapacity benefit for five years or even longer and lost the habit of working in a socialised work environment. Those were the findings of the CIPD, and 43 per cent. of the employers surveyed thought that long-term IB claimants would be less productive at work.
Recruitment conveys risk for any employer. They have the bottom line to worry about and they say—we know what the employers’ arguments are—that if the wrong person is hired, it can be costly to the whole enterprise. However, when we are looking at labour market disadvantage, it is not good enough in this day and age to say that employers’ attitudes do not matter or that we will just try and exhort them generally. We know that employers prefer to play safe, but that is not good enough.
The Royal National Institute of the Blind has also done research on this subject which shows that nine out of 10 employers thought that a blind or partially sighted person was either difficult or impossible to employ. It has said that the
“DWP needs to address evidence highlighted in Report no. 202 ‘Employers’ and service providers’ responses to the Disability Discrimination Act in 2003 and preparation for 2004 changes’ highlighting that nine out of ten employers think blind and partially sighted people are ‘difficult’ or ‘impossible’ to employ.”
The Department for Work and Pensions research report No. 139 on employers’ attitudes said that 37 per cent. of employers would take on people with mental health conditions, whereas 62 per cent. would take on physically disabled people. A poll commissioned by the Disability Rights Commission indicated that 25 per cent. of non-disabled people would not tell their employer if they acquired a disability or long-term health problem, for fear of dismissal—partly because of such attitudes, which will restrict a proper labour market for those with limited capabilities.
I support those findings—one goes out there, so one knows that that kind of thing goes on. Nevertheless, the CBI produced a survey that showed that 84 per cent. of firms now offer rehabilitation schemes to assist staff to return to work. However, the CBI also acknowledged that 35 per cent. of employers feel that they need more support from employees’ GPs, and/or want assistance with costs.