Change is painful, but the Government has got it right on Remploy and specialist employment support
Posted by Neil Crowther on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Under: Remploy
The reaction to today's announcement regarding the closure of 36 of the remaining 54 Remploy factories was predictable, coming hot on the heels of the Welfare Reform Act receiving Royal Assent.
However, the redeployment of resources presently tied up in Remploy factories to be used to support disabled people into open employment was and is the right course. Remploy factories employ around 2,800 disabled people, at an annual cost of around £22,700 per person (a total of around £63 million in 2009/10). This is because they all run at a loss. Compare this with Access to Work, which helped 37,300 people in 2009/10, at an average cost per person of around £2,600. It is estimated that for every £1.00 spent on Access to Work, the Exchequer reaps £1.48 in return. In the present economic climate, it is in disabled people's interests to use these resources more effectively.
Furthermore, sheltered employment of the type historically provided by Remploy is an anachronism. Arguably it was an anachronism before Remploy opened its doors. George Tomlinson, the Labour MP whose report initiated Remploy as a plank of the post-War welfare state had never intended it to be a stopping place for its disabled workers, many of whom had either returned injured from the war or were civilian casualties of bombing raids. He recognised that many disabled people could and should work in open employment. Remploy was intended as part of a national system of rehabilitation, enabling as many disabled people as possible to progress through it in to open employment.
For much of its 60 year history, Remploy failed to achieve its original mission. Only in recent years has it begun to make inroads in this area. Liz Sayce's report re-connected with the original intentions which lay behind Remploy, recognised the limitations and failings of the model it employed and proposed sensible alternatives. Importantly she did so on a strict condition that any savings made from closing down Remploy factories must be re-invested in supporting disabled people into open employment. This is the crucial test of what the government is proposing today.
In announcing its opposition to today's announced closures, the GMB managed to encapsulate everything that is wrong and outdated with the Remploy model. Did it describe the closure as an assault on disabled people's right to work? Or perhaps a failure of government to recognise the contributions and capabilities of disabled people? No, because it couldn't. Like those who defend institutional care, or special schools or keeping disabled people on benefits it resorted to claiming that the closures are 'an assault on the most vulnerable in society'.
On Remploy, the government has got it right.
However, the redeployment of resources presently tied up in Remploy factories to be used to support disabled people into open employment was and is the right course. Remploy factories employ around 2,800 disabled people, at an annual cost of around £22,700 per person (a total of around £63 million in 2009/10). This is because they all run at a loss. Compare this with Access to Work, which helped 37,300 people in 2009/10, at an average cost per person of around £2,600. It is estimated that for every £1.00 spent on Access to Work, the Exchequer reaps £1.48 in return. In the present economic climate, it is in disabled people's interests to use these resources more effectively.
Furthermore, sheltered employment of the type historically provided by Remploy is an anachronism. Arguably it was an anachronism before Remploy opened its doors. George Tomlinson, the Labour MP whose report initiated Remploy as a plank of the post-War welfare state had never intended it to be a stopping place for its disabled workers, many of whom had either returned injured from the war or were civilian casualties of bombing raids. He recognised that many disabled people could and should work in open employment. Remploy was intended as part of a national system of rehabilitation, enabling as many disabled people as possible to progress through it in to open employment.
For much of its 60 year history, Remploy failed to achieve its original mission. Only in recent years has it begun to make inroads in this area. Liz Sayce's report re-connected with the original intentions which lay behind Remploy, recognised the limitations and failings of the model it employed and proposed sensible alternatives. Importantly she did so on a strict condition that any savings made from closing down Remploy factories must be re-invested in supporting disabled people into open employment. This is the crucial test of what the government is proposing today.
In announcing its opposition to today's announced closures, the GMB managed to encapsulate everything that is wrong and outdated with the Remploy model. Did it describe the closure as an assault on disabled people's right to work? Or perhaps a failure of government to recognise the contributions and capabilities of disabled people? No, because it couldn't. Like those who defend institutional care, or special schools or keeping disabled people on benefits it resorted to claiming that the closures are 'an assault on the most vulnerable in society'.
On Remploy, the government has got it right.
In : Remploy
Tags: "remploy" "specialist employment support"
