House of Lords written question – answered at on 25 February 2003.
Lord Ashley of Stoke
Labour
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of any research showing whether employers are reluctant to retrain workers who become disabled or to take on new workers who are disabled because they believe there will be additional costs for their company.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
Research evidence suggests that cost is not a major factor in influencing employers' attitudes towards recruitment and retention of disabled people. In a recent survey of employers 1 , 49 per cent of respondents thought there were no difficulties or were unable to say what the difficulties might be in recruiting a disabled employee; this figure was higher in the case of retaining disabled people (72 per cent). Cost was not mentioned as a difficulty in recruitment. Only 2 per cent cited it as a difficulty in retention.
The experience of employers who have sought to retain disabled employees also suggests that cost does not play a major role. In the same survey, 78 per cent of employers with workers who had become disabled in post reported that they had made changes to retain the employee, including 19 per cent who said they had provided retraining for employees. Of those making adjustments, 20 per cent reported that the adjustment did not lead to any cost. A further 28 per cent stated that they regarded the cost as part of normal costs of the organisation.
Research has also examined the factors influencing whether employers recruit disabled people or not. A survey of small employers 2 showed that only a small minority (4 per cent) of employers said they would not consider recruiting a person with a disability. Of these, only 4 per cent said the reason related to the cost of adapting premises or equipment.
The department is currently undertaking further research on employers' attitudes towards the recruitment and retention of disabled employees under the Disability Discrimination Act. We anticipate that findings will be published in autumn 2003.
1 Goldstone, C (2002) Barriers to Employment for Disabled People, DWP In-House Report 95.
2 Meager, N. et al. (2001) Impact on Small Businesses of Lowering the DDA Part II Threshold, Disability Rights Commission, London.
Yes2 people think so
No1 person thinks not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
The house of Lords is the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It is filled with Lords (I.E. Lords, Dukes, Baron/esses, Earls, Marquis/esses, Viscounts, Count/esses, etc.) The Lords consider proposals from the EU or from the commons. They can then reject a bill, accept it, or make amendments. If a bill is rejected, the commons can send it back to the lords for re-discussion. The Lords cannot stop a bill for longer than one parliamentary session. If a bill is accepted, it is forwarded to the Queen, who will then sign it and make it law. If a bill is amended, the amended bill is sent back to the House of Commons for discussion.
The Lords are not elected; they are appointed. Lords can take a "whip", that is to say, they can choose a party to represent. Currently, most Peers are Conservative.
Full Act: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm
Simpler guide to what it all means in practice: http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/
