|
|
|
|
Speech made to the TUDA AGM in May 2007 by Phil Madelin from the Public and Civil Services Union (PCS)
1. Improving Life Chances report: Early 2005
DWP to evaluate the likely impact of restricting
or removing the ability of central government departments to make use of AtW
funding for disabled employees - and to make any changes to AtW in the light
of this evaluation.
Encouraged idea that Government, and wider public sector had duty to promote
employment of disabled people and should therefore meet all of the associated
costs.
BUT also pointed out that: the practical implications of such a change need
to be carefully assessed - there must be no negative impact (even if only short-term)
on the employment prospects of disabled people. Government departments should
also continue to have access to the advice provided by AtW advisors.
2. May 2006 - heard rumours of letter from John Hutton to Government departments
heralding removal of ATW funding.
Council of Civil Service Unions wrote to Hutton, 15th May seeking confirmation
and an undertaking to suspend any such plans pending a full evaluation, as was
proposed in the Life Chances report.
3. Rumours continued to spread. Until, on 16th June,
Anne McGuire revealed the facts in a Parliamentary Written Answer - saying:
Last month I asked Jobcentre Plus to withdraw Access to Work funding in respect
of people directly employed by Government Departments. The Departments will
still be able to use Access to Work expertise in determining appropriate workplace
adjustments, however, the adjustments will be funded from their own resources.
This decision will take effect from October 2006 and is in line with practice
in my Department since 2003 and with the recommendations of the Prime Minister's
strategy unit report 'Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People'.
The savings realised by this change will be re-invested in the programme, and,
as a result of this change, support for disabled people will be more greatly
focused towards those disabled people who work for small and medium sized employers.About
a month later, in July, we found out that the date for this change was going
to be 1st October.
4. But almost immediately after the announcement, we started to see the potential
problems associated with this move - we were contacted by a couple of members
working for one major government department, who had asked their manager about
this and been told 'Well, we'll have to send you to Occupational Health to see
if you still need that support and, if so, whether we can do it some other way
that will be cheaper.
5. And it soon became clear that no-one really knew yet what was going to happen on 1st October.
6. In August, we heard that HM Revenue and Customs had been told that they were NOT going to lose Access to Work funding - despite being the second largest Government department, after DWP.
7. Also in August we finally got a response to the CCSU Letter to John Hutton, confirming that funding was going to be withdrawn from what he called 'Central Government Departments' from 1st October, But there was no comment on our questions about when the required Evaluation of the Likely Impact of this move had been carried out.
8. So, towards the end of August, PCS decided that
we would have to look at the possibility of a Judicial Review of Mr Hutton's
plans, to see if we could put a stop to them. Our Solicitor's sent a letter
of intent to the Minister, and asked for further details on the plans and safeguards.
9. Unfortunately, when the response was received and all the papers were placed
before Counsel, for a legal opinion, the view was that we had no practical chance
of getting an injunction to stop the withdrawal of Access to Work funding -
because, of course, there is no right in law to Access to Work funds.
10. What the DWP response did do, however, was to offer us a meeting with the key officials involved to discuss our concerns.
11. That meeting was quite an eye-opener.
12. Once their lead officials had finished their opening remarks, outlining how the withdrawal was being organised we asked them about the apparent failure of DWP to carry out the Evaluation that the Life Chances report had said was so vital before any decision on removing AtW funding was made.
13. They didn't seem to know about this part of the
Life Chances report;
14. We asked them what consultation they had had with disabled people, or their
representatives, in trade unions, about their plans, given that we were less
than 10 weeks away from the introduction of the Public Sector Duty to promote
Equality for Disabled People - and that their own Department was putting out
so much advice and guidance to employers on how important it was to 'Involve
disabled people' in decision that might affect them - they couldn't answer that
one either.
15. We also asked them about the Findings of the DWP- sponsored Evaluation of Access to Work that had been carried out in 2002 by the University of York Social Policy Research Unit. That report had looked at the question of having adjustments funded by the employer rather than through Access to Work and the vast majority of disabled people asked about this had said that they were against the idea, not least because of the negative impact it could have on the employment relationship. And many of the employers had basically said that without Access to Work funding they probably couldn't have made the adjustments that they had.
16. Worryingly, the DWP officials who were responsible
for this decision to remove access to work funding from central government didn't
even seem to know that this report existed - despite the fact that I had found
it on their own web site.
17. One of the things that Hutton had promised when he eventually responded to the CCSU letter was that his officials would be keeping a close eye on the impacts of the removal of funding and would also carry out a formal review. So we pressed the officials at the meeting for information about what they intended to do on this.
18. To say we were concerned at the answers would be an understatement. They seemed to be planning to keep an eye on the employment monitoring statistics that government departments produce, to see if the numbers of disabled staff went down.
19. We challenged them on this and demanded a far more rigorous and proactive review of the impact and, after taking this away and thinking about it, we were slightly reassured when they agreed to this.
20. But, unfortunately, on 1st October, 2006, 15
Central Government Departments lost access to Access to Work funding - and the
16th was granted a 6 month delay before they too lost it, from 1st April this
year.
21. There are (or were) some 250 civil Servants who were directly affected by
this change. And I have got to admit that, so far, we have heard no horror stories
of people being denied the funding that they need.
22. But of course that was never likely to happen - there is a key interest from Ministers in making sure that this is seen to work. So it is unlikely that any Permanent Secretary worth his or her pension is going to start cutting back on the funding - yet.
23. My real problem with this, apart from the way it was done, which was chaotic, and the very idea that you can treat people less favourably simply because the Government is their employer, is that a lot of the needs that Access to Work is really good at paying for FALL OUTSIDE of the scope of the DDA.
24. If an employer refuses to fund a chair for someone, I am fairly confident that we can use the DDA to say that's a failure to make a reasonable adjustment - I can't see any Tribunal letting a major Government department plead poverty in those circumstances.
25. But my concerns are for those who need more sustained
and more costly support: those who need to have travel to and from work paid
for; those who require support workers and those who need interpreter support.
26. We already have the Kenny against Hampshire Constabulary case - from 1999
where the EAT ruled that reasonable adjustments are only those that relate to
things needed to do the job.
27. We have also dealt with a case for one of our own members, working for the DWP, who have not used Access to Work funding since 2003 - where he was denied the ongoing support of a sign language interpreter for weekly team meetings. Instead he was left alone on the section whilst all his hearing colleagues went off for the meeting and then his line manager had a one-to-one meeting with him afterwards.
28. Despite our best efforts in the Tribunal, they decided that this was a reasonable approach to meeting his needs - but we know full well that under the Access to Work scheme he would almost certainly have been funded to have that interpreter support provided.
29. If the DDA does not compel the employer to fund
adjustments, and the employee cannot get Access to Work funding - where does
that leave people?
30. We are now approaching another critical moment in this saga.
31. DWP are now setting up an Evaluation Steering Group for Access to Work. The first meeting is scheduled for 24th May.
32. This will be the group that oversees the evaluation of the withdrawal of Access to Work funding from the 17 Government departments that currently exist without it.
33. But that is not the full scope of their remit.
34. The terms of reference for this Group includes an Overall Evaluation of Access to Work. What that means and what the outcomes could be are still unclear.
35. What I do know, however, is that the existence of Access to Work support for every Public Sector worker is under threat.
36. And over and above that, I know that DWP are
wondering, now that the DDA requires employers to fund adjustments, whether
they can find a way of shifting the burden of funding away from Government and
putting far greater onus, especially on larger employers, to meet the additional
costs associated with employing disabled people.
37. All of this is happening at a time when:
a. benefit entitlement is being reviewed; and
b. we have the Freud report, suggesting that the private and voluntary sectors
are brought in to deliver job finding services;
It seems to me that we are in danger of ending up in a situation where the state
is not only threatening those who don't work with cuts in their support but
at the same time they are making it far more difficult for disabled people to
find employers who will take them on.
And all without any focus on the duty on employers to tackle the discrimination
that keeps disabled people out of work.
I have been lucky enough (if that's the phrase) to be invited to sit on the
Access to Work Evaluation Steering Group.
I think I've got a major task ahead of me, trying to ensure that this vital
area of support is not unilaterally removed from all public servants.
Any assistance that TUDA can offer, in highlighting those who have suffered
as a result of a lack of access to work funding would be greatly appreciated.
THANK YOU.
Using this site: A word in bright blue indicates a link that you can access by clicking on it; a word in orange indicates that you have followed this link already.