Employer's Forum warn disabled people and employers could lose out

"Enforcement of equality law and employer centred welfare reform should not be undermined by spending cuts, otherwise disabled people and employers could lose out says Employer's Forum on Disability"

Tomorrow's Comprehensive Spending Review will affect the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Office for Disability Issues. The Chief Executive of the Employer's Forum on Disability, Susan Scott-Parker said;

"We fully support the government's intentions to get disabled people off benefits and into work. We know from working with hundreds of employers over nearly 20 years that it makes good business sense to employ disabled people. We also understand that the government has tough decisions to make.

Two proven ways to get disabled people into work are: credible enforcement of equality law by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and putting employers' recruitment needs at the heart of welfare reform. Government work after the Comprehensive Spending Review should build on, not duplicate, our experience in this area"



 Full article at eGov Monitor

Fate of disability quangos becomes slightly clearer

Last month, we posted that a number of vital disability quangos were facing the axe as part of the government's spending review. On Thursday 14 October, a list detailing the fate of all the quangos under review was published. Of those that affect disabled people, things are not much clearer.

Perhaps most importantly, the Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance Advisory Board is to be closed. It no longer qualifies as an NDPB*  and its functions are to be transferred to both the Department for Work and Pensions, with external specialist advice if required, and Equality 2025.

The Disabled Persons’ Transport Advisory Committee is also to be closed, as it too no longer has NDPB status. The government says it it is still "exploring options for continuing to gain the disability advice we need through a more flexible, accountable structure". This leaves our transport issues in limbo, as once the committee is shut down it could be months or even years before any announcement is made as to who or what will take over its function. And in the meantime, nothing will happen.

Equality 2025 will also take on responsibility for the functions of the Disability Employment Advisory Committee, which again no longer has NDPB status.

Both the Independent Living Fund and Remploy are officially "under consideration"** with options still being looked at. On the one hand, that might not be a bad thing - no decision has been made yet as to whether to keep them as they stand. On the other hand, if they do go, their replacements could be far worse, assuming they are actually replaced.

Lastly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is to be retained and substantially reformed, with "better focus on its core regulatory functions and improved use of taxpayers' money". Let's hope the changes will put finally disability equality on a par with racial and gender equality.

* Non-Departmental Public Body. NDPBs may have either an executive or advisory role.

** "Under consideration" means "part of an existing wider review, including the spending review, or under specific consideration as part of public bodies reforms".

Disability cuts - one opposition MP's perspective

Last week I emailed my MP, Gerald Kaufman (Manchester Gorton, Labour) to ask him to do a couple of things regarding the spending cuts and how they will affect disabled people.

First, I asked him to write to Iain Duncan Smith to push for assurances that the Department for Work and Pension's Comprehensive Spending Review proposals would be subjected to a full and robust disability impact assessment.

I also asked him to sign Early Day Motion 706.

EDM 706 says:

That this House welcomes the Coalition Government's commitment to ensuring that the public spending cuts will be fair; is concerned that the Government has not adequately assessed the impact that spending cuts will have on disabled people and their families; notes that nearly a quarter of individuals in families with at least one disabled member live in relative income poverty; further notes that only 50 per cent. of disabled people are in paid employment; recognises that millions of disabled people rely on state financial support to help meet their social care needs and the extra living costs associated with their impairment; seeks assurances that the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review proposals will be subject to a robust disability impact assessment; and urges the Government to take steps to ensure that spending cuts will not further compound poverty and social exclusion experienced by disabled people.

I've now received a reply and I hope Kaufman won't object to me sharing his comments widely.

He has promised to write to Duncan-Smith and keep me informed of the response, when it comes.

However, he has expressed reluctance to sign EDM 706 because:

[it] begins by welcoming a commitment by this government, since I do not welcome their whole approach to disability or other issues affecting vulnerable people.

I am torn. On the one hand, I applaud my MP's stance which seems based on sound principles and yet... apart from that opening line, the rest of the EDM is a strong plea for fair play regarding the cuts.

I think this is one for debate. Should I write back and ask him to reconsider? Or should I accept his position and wait, instead, for him to pile pressure on Duncan-Smith? What would you do?