New Petitions

I thank members for allowing me to address the committee.I realise that employment is a reserved matter, but procurement is devolved, and that is the impetus for the petition. In a debate in the Parliament in 2004, Allan Wilson, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, stated that the Executive would do all that it could to promote the cause of sheltered employers that bid for public contracts. Article 19 of the EU public procurement directive allows the reserving of contracts for sheltered workshops. However, to date, not a single contract in Scotland has been reserved under that article.At the same time, many such organisations are finding that local and central Government funding is increasingly being squeezed and that supporting workers who are disabled is becoming ever more difficult. For example, Remploy is the largest supported organisation in the United Kingdom, with 83 factories, 10 of which are in Scotland. Of those 10, three are under threat of closure. The trade union consortium that I represent is nearing the end of a consultation period on potential redundancies, which concludes on 19 October. As things stand, 125 skilled workers with disabilities will no longer be employed by January 2008. Obviously, the trade unions are resisting that outcome.As recently as 23 July 2007, John Swinney wrote to Jack McConnell stating:"We will be issuing guidance on social issues in public procurement in the near future, including information on this legislation, and suggest that public bodies consider having at least one contract with a supported business."It is tragic that the Executive has retreated over the past three years. In October 2004, Allan Wilson stated that the Executive was"able to give an undertaking that we will implement the provision in Scotland, consult Scottish sheltered employers on the terms of its implementation and implement it in a positive manner that will go as far as possible to assist our sheltered employers."He continued:"we … encourage public bodies to make full use of it."—Official Report, 6 October 2004; c 11070.However, in 2007, we have a commitment to publish information and to suggest to local authorities that they"consider having at least one contract with a supported business."I make it absolutely plain that I am not making party-political points. Our campaign, through the friends of Remploy in the Scottish Parliament, has wide cross-party support. As a comparison, a Northern Ireland Assembly report has stated:"We recommend that the Procurement Board should ensure that this scheme is well publicised and that procurement staff are instructed to apply it at every opportunity."That is the spirit that we are trying to get public procurement organisations in Scotland to take on board. We want them to work in partnership with sheltered employment organisations.In its response to the Executive's paper on sheltered workshops and public procurement, the National Association of Supported Employment's Scotland and Northern Ireland region said:"Government can lead the way by setting the standard by which other contracting authorities could be measured by fully subscribing to reserved contracts".It also said:"Supported businesses see a need for a national register of supported businesses including details of services offered."That would aid contracting and subcontracting arrangements.NASE felt that it was"important to seize the opportunity to define award criteria to … reflect the social inclusion agenda and wider issues related to the employment of disadvantaged groups".Finally, NASE said:"It would be beneficial to clarify the definition of a contracting authority and also produce guidelines for the promotion and use of reserved contracts. A target would also be useful e.g. 20% of Public Sector Contracts to be reserved."The consortium of trade unions concurs with NASE's view, although we accept that a target of 20 per cent might be a little ambitious in the immediate future.A first step would be for the Scottish Executive to establish a forum of public procurement bodies, sheltered organisation employers and trade unions to support proactively and positively the reserving of contracts under article 19. To fail to do that would consign many skilled workers with disabilities to low-paid, no-skill work experience, whereas now, many perform skilled technical jobs and make positive contributions both to their communities and to their own self-esteem.

The position that the Department for Work and Pensions has articulated is exactly what you described. The Westminster Government would prefer to have opportunities for disabled people in mainstream employment rather than in sheltered workshops or organisations. The problem is that moving from a sheltered workshop employer to the main stream is exceedingly difficult and a considerable proportion of disabled people will not wish to make that transition, whether or not they can.It is unfortunate that the idea is still abroad that people who work in sheltered workshops do something other than productive skilled labour. That is not the case. In the areas throughout Scotland that I look after for Remploy, we have technical factories that make specific products. We make the biological, nuclear and chemical warfare suit for the Ministry of Defence, which is a very high-spec garment. In Glasgow, wheelchairs are being manufactured for the national health service. A range of skills is used.There is a misunderstanding. The people to whom I refer are in mainstream employment and they fulfil a vital function. They supply the MOD and other bodies—in the public and private sectors—with goods and services. However, the attitude among some charities is that factory employment is ghettoisation. They do not go to the factories, speak to the factory workers or see the skills that are acquired. We are having two different conversations in parallel and never shall they meet. There is a view south of the border that supported factory workshops are no longer fashionable.

The situation with progressions, which is what moves to mainstream employment are called in sheltered workshop organisations, is that the reward of financial aid is based on the number of people who progress—I disagree heartily with that term—from sheltered workshops into mainstream employment. Pressure is being put on sheltered workshop organisations to progress the disabled worker—or rather, the worker who is disabled—rather than the worker making the decision that they now wish to move from a sheltered workshop organisation into the mainstream. There is nothing to prevent an employee in any of the sheltered organisations from saying, "I now feel sufficiently confident to move into mainstream employment." That would be encouraged—it is also the way to a grant. However, the current situation is quite the reverse: people who are content and productive and who do meaningful jobs are being encouraged—the word "forced" is perhaps too harsh—to move away from the sheltered environment into mainstream employment.Time and again when I go into sheltered workshops, I see that particular groups of disabled people have entirely separate communities. For example, the non-speaking deaf community is exclusive in its language and behaviour. Imagine saying to that group, "We are now closing this factory and wish to move you into mainstream employment," where they know they will not be able to relate to anyone because of language problems. The demand that they always make of us is, "If we're going to go, we must go as a group because we have not just a work network but a social network built around our use of language and our exclusion from mainstream employees."Although those are problems to consider, there is no problem—instead there is encouragement—for people who choose to take their skills into the mainstream. There are numerous progressions every year. We are concerned about the lack of choice for those who wish to stay in supported employment and, in particular, for those people whose disabilities would disadvantage them in mainstream employment.

I did not say that a 20 per cent target was too high; I said that it was slightly ambitious at the moment. Based on the figures that we received from public procurement organisations in Scotland, there is approximately £8 billion of public procurement in Scotland, of which about 35 per cent can be influenced; no one knows what the other 65 per cent is spent on. Remploy is currently campaigning for a national public procurement contract reserve of 5p in each £100. If we were to start with that reserve in Scotland, we would do exceedingly well.One of my other concerns is about the view that a particular percentage of such contracts should be designated for and contained within supported organisations. Supported organisations can grow. Currently, about 3 million people are on incapacity benefit and it is hoped that they will be progressed into some form of employment. Therefore, there is no problem in growing the workforce in sheltered organisations; they have huge training schemes and the best-equipped learning centres of any organisations in the country. For example, every Remploy factory has a learning station with five or six computers and links with local colleges for training. Those resources could be utilised to grow the workforce.If we could get more public procurement contracts—the current figure is nil—there is a workforce or, if you like, a reserved army of labour, which everyone claims that they wish to utilise but which should be utilised by the organisations that can use it most effectively: sheltered organisations.

It is unfortunate that the Wishaw factory that Mr Harper mentioned is listed for closure. Potentially, 65 of those skilled workers will be unemployed come the end of the year. Remploy has stated that it does not have a compulsory redundancy policy, but there are strings attached to that. The jobs of those 65 skilled disabled workers are under threat.Percentages are always a difficult issue. Nil is the percentage of public sector procurement contracts that we obtain at the moment. Any figure higher than that must be an improvement. A figure of 10 per cent would be more than the sheltered organisations in Scotland could handle at the moment, without utilising the spare labour capacity that consists of people who are currently on incapacity benefit. I take your point that if we started by setting a specific figure, we could maximise the existing throughput in the plants and then expand it, which has never happened in sheltered workshops. Through expansion, retraining and utilising the spare capacity, we could reach the 10 per cent in a relatively short period.The figure from NASE is somewhat optimistic. A target of 20 per cent of the 35 per cent of the £8 billion that is available in Scotland alone would represent a huge commitment. I would be delighted if the Scottish Executive went that far. My concern is that the permissive nature of the legislation is such that although we may reserve a percentage of public sector procurement for sheltered organisation employers, experience tells us that we do not.As I said, I would like the committee to ask the Executive to set up a forum whereby we can advertise the skills, goods and services that supported organisations have to offer, examine what is required in public procurement through the economic cycle, bring the two together and start reserving contracts. The reservation of a contract does not mean that it will go to a particular support organisation. It means that all those support organisations that can supply the goods or services in question are allowed to tender exclusively within the supported employment world.

I am working with the shop steward, the manager and a regional director of Remploy to see whether we can come up with a business plan that will allow us to keep the plant open. I realise that the issue is not directly within the remit of the Scottish Executive, but the Department for Work and Pensions has stated that, if we can get supported employees' subsidy down to £9,500, it is prepared to pay £9,500 per subsidised employee. That is our objective in our business plan. However, I find it extremely callous that we are putting such prices on the value of somebody's job.

Is it possible for me to pick up the point that Rhoda Grant has just made? It is important to bear in mind the way in which procurement is structured. The tender exercise is covered by the EU, but within that are three different formats: the framework agreement; a dynamic purchasing agreement; and special contract arrangements. Unfortunately, most sheltered workshop employers do not have the resources to get involved in the creation of framework agreements with public bodies. If we had such a forum, we could use it as a clearing house to ensure that framework agreements, dynamic purchasing agreements and SCAs could be set up without unduly pushing the resources of supported employers.

Thank you for separating the petitions.

I recently sent Richard Hough a copy of my final report and a copy of a report that was commissioned in December 1999, which the committee should have. My report outlines the obstacles that I have come across in attempting to get homeworking opportunities for disabled people even considered, let alone looked at as part of the normal recruitment process for business. I will read a short statement that is not in the report; the statement was sent to me recently by the National Group on Homeworking. The group has enough kudos to have the ear of parliamentary persons, and so on.They state:"Our ultimate aim is to improve working conditions for all home workers, so that home working becomes a real employment opportunity option for those who wish to work at home. NGH therefore supports the call to ‘encourage employers to provide home working opportunities for those with disabilities which prevent them from accessing the workplace'. We believe Job Centres should be better informed and better able to advise those looking for work from home. We would like to see a wider range of jobs available to those who wish to work from home, provided that these jobs offer decent rights and protections. Home working does not suit everyone, but for some it is the ideal, or even the only solution to their personal circumstances. Homeworking is, therefore, an important option in a growing range of ‘flexible working' arrangements, and the greater promotion of decent home working jobs would be to the benefit of individuals, the economy and society as a whole."Unfortunately, the popular misconception is that disabled people cannot do things for themselves and so must be pitied. That myth, which has been perpetuated over the years, comes from a bygone era. Last week, I visited my consultant and spoke to him about this. He told me that vocational rehabilitation was probably one of the most important ways of preventing a disabled person from sliding down the slippery slope of despair and despondency. The British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine has published a 117 page document on the subject, called "Vocational Rehabilitation—The Way Forward".It is too easy for people like me, who suddenly find that they cannot do everything they could once do, to become morose and full of self-pity. It is too easy to get on the slippery slope to depression and simply give up on life. Make no bones about it: when you suddenly find that you have to depend on other people more than you once did, it is a real jolt to the system and you are forced to make a lot of changes in your life. It took me a long time to come to terms with it, not least because of the drop in my income and the worries that came with it. I have been fortunate because I have had my family around me and a wife who has given up a lot to help me.That said, we have a daughter who is not allowed to work in the workplace. She has been given low levels of care allowance and mobility allowance, and has to rely on income support to top up her incapacity benefit. She has all those allowances and benefits, but I would challenge any committee member to try to manage on her weekly income. She is lucky because she lives at home with us, but think of those who are on their own and for whom trying to survive each week is not a hobby but a necessity. When counting the pennies is a way of life, is it any wonder that so many people simply give up? What have they got to look forward to?I remind the committee that because of the complex rules and regulations that are in place, once someone is on the benefit road, it is extremely difficult for them to get off. Furthermore, think of the cost to the national health service and to social services of having to support someone who has reached that stage. What savings could be made to the benefits bill, the tax concessions bill, the income support bill, the national insurance contributions bill and so on if such people could compete fairly in the job market? Think of the benefits to their self-esteem if they could earn their own living. In addition—and to be a little cynical—think of the income that the Treasury would gain if people like me could pay our taxes and national insurance contributions.It is not rocket science to appreciate the importance of the issue, but the committee must ask why I have to petition Parliament to get the subject on the Government's agenda. Take a look at the official side of my road map: the DWP, Jobcentre Plus, Careers Scotland and the Department of Trade and Industry. All those departments are too willing to pass the buck and none has the capacity, the capability or the willingness to get off its backside and get involved. I admit that those are harsh words, but unfortunately the facts speak for themselves.I was recently in correspondence with a group called the Disabled Workers Co-operative—a charity organisation that was set up to increase independence among disabled people who want it and to promote the benefits to the economy and society that could be made by disabled people—but, unfortunately, the organisation has run out of funds and is reliant on its members for contributions. Its project manager keeps the organisation alive by working unpaid from home. For me, that raises the question why such organisations are necessary. Why do we have to depend more on such organisations than on the so-called official departments? At the risk of repeating myself, I refer members to my earlier statement about the latter organisations' unwillingness to get involved.Remember when disabled issues were first highlighted in the workplace? Remember, even, the new deal being introduced? There was much opposition at the time from business, but arrangements for disabled people are now accepted as part of the norm and are factored in to business plans. Unfortunately, however, neither business nor Government departments will do anything unless they are told to do so. That is not conjecture—it is fact. It will probably take legislation and/or amendment of, or addition to, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to get the recognition that home-based employment for disabled people should be considered part of the normal recruitment process, and that so many benefits could arise from such employment.I have with me a four-page list of jobs that can be done from home. Not all of them are suited to disabled people, but the vast majority are. With the existing infrastructure, it would not cost business any more to incorporate home-based employment in its day-to-day working patterns and to consider it as part of the normal recruitment process. Such employment should, however, certainly not be regarded as an alternative but as an addition.I will mention that the DWP was extremely quick to tell me that the issue comes under the DDA and that business must make every effort et cetera, et cetera, when it comes to employing disabled people. If the DDA is not adhered to, penalties are imposed. Is Parliament above the law? Certainly, by not offering inclusion for the whole disabled community, it can be accused of being discriminatory. Not all disabled people, because of the nature of their disabilities, are capable of doing any type of work. However, there are many who would—given the opportunity—jump at the chance. Unfortunately, from their perspective there are too many barriers to negotiate and too many attitudes to contend with, and the infrastructure to which they could go for help is non-existent.I ask that Parliament set a precedent and take the initiative to raise awareness by debating the issue and taking constructive action. In doing so, it would once more lead the way and enable the rest of the United Kingdom to follow.

What I am advocating is about more than just that issue. I would like to see us being able to compete fairly. At the moment we often cannot go to work, because we are not allowed to. Health and safety is one issue. I know that under the law it is no longer possible for an employer to get rid of someone on health and safety grounds, but if it is too dangerous for someone to work in the workplace they will not be allowed to do so. It is as simple as that. The people concerned have no choice. I would like to see such choice being made available; they should be given a flexible option.My daughter worked in a call centre. It does not take a lot to envisage her doing the same job from a laptop at home. I am an administrator: I can type, do data entry and all sorts. Why cannot I do that as part of the normal workforce? It should be an addition to the normal recruitment process rather than an alternative.

It costs a lot of money for an employer to set up a disabled station in the workplace, as he must provide specialist equipment—chairs and so on. If he were able to employ a person from home, he would not have that cost.

The initial problem is the attitude of Government departments. The Department for Work and Pensions is downright rude when we phone it about the matter. It is quick to pass the buck and to say, "It's not our problem. Speak to Jobcentre Plus." If we ask Jobcentre Plus, we are told that it knows nothing about the issue and cannot help us. Where the hell should we go for help and advice? When I visited Careers Scotland, I was able to tell my interviewer more than she could tell me: that speaks volumes. It is obvious that the issue will be ignored because it is too difficult—Government departments are not prepared even to take it on board. If that is the case, what hope do we have of progressing further and getting employers to be more inclusive?

Government could start by getting its house in order and making Government departments aware of the issue. It could also help by promoting flexible working arrangements under the DDA. The key issue is flexibility. If employers can be brought on board and told that they must incorporate flexibility into their recruitment patterns, they will not like that, but they will do it. In doing so, they will give more people a fairer opportunity to compete in the job market. At the moment, employers are unwilling to accept flexibility in working patterns.

An employer might have 1,000 people on his staff, but there is never enough time in the day to get everything done, such as archiving and other jobs that his workplace-based employees might think mundane. Perhaps we would not think such work was mundane. Why not farm those jobs out? The employer could utilise the staff on the premises more productively and efficiently and keep them happy. I am not a businessman, but it is not rocket science.