Disabled could be helped back into work with new right similar to maternity law
A new right to reintegration for workers on sick leave could see firms prevented from dismissing someone unless it is shown the employer has made sufficient efforts at reintegrating the person, the Resolution Foundation think tank said.
They said such a right would 'would clarify and strengthen existing legal protections' under the the Equality Act and 'provide a much stronger message to workers about what they are entitled to'.
The report warned that the Government risks failing to meet its aim to raise the employment rate to 80% without a 'serious strategy to shift employer behaviour' and argues employers must be incentivised to reintegrate existing workers back into jobs.
The report comes in the same week as the Universal Credit Bill cleared the House of Lords, aimed at rebalancing the benefit 'to remove work disincentives', according to a Government minister, while giving existing claimants 'the security and certainty they need'.
Separately during the debate, Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who sits in the Lords, said disabled people have been portrayed as 'benefit scroungers and a drain on society' in the conversation on welfare reform.
In its report, the Resolution Foundation said around 12% of disabled staff leave work each year – consistently 1.5-times the rate of non-disabled workers.
It added that twice as many people move from work into inactivity due to ill health – around 304,000 each year – than those moving the other way (around 151,000).
But the think tank said despite there being 'strong' legal obligations in place already on employers, they are 'simply not doing enough to retain existing workers', with fewer than half of disabled workers who request a reasonable adjustment – which can include a change to working arrangements or provision of equipment, services or support – having this granted in full.
With 15% of disabled people reporting workplace discrimination relating to their disability in 2022, the report said this remains a 'pressing issue'.
The think tank said: 'Boosting disability employment is not straightforward: it will involve improvements to the health system, benefits system and world of work. But action to incentivise and support employers is a vital piece of the puzzle.'
Louise Murphy, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: 'The Government should do more to incentivise firms to employ disabled people – especially those who have been out of work for long periods – but employers need to do more in return.
'A new right to reintegration could help disabled workers back into work in the same way that maternity rights transformed women's employment prospects a generation ago.'
The foundation said the new right could be enforced through employment tribunals, but urged the Government to also consider 'more proactive enforcement mechanisms, whether via the Equalities and Human Rights Commission or connected to a new system of caseworkers that are expected to be covered in the forthcoming Mayfield Review'.
Former John Lewis boss, Sir Charlie Mayfield, is undertaking a review to investigate how Government and businesses can work together to support ill and disabled people into work, with a report expected in autumn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The staggering wait for dementia diagnosis laid bare in alarming report
A report by charity Care England reveals patients are waiting up to two years for a dementia diagnosis, describing the situation as a "government failure". The review, titled 'The Current State Of Dementia Diagnosis & Care In England', highlights significant gaps in diagnosis, regional disparities, and challenges in care coordination. Waiting times from referral to diagnosis have drastically increased, now reaching two years in some instances, compared to a maximum of 34 weeks in 2019. Care England is calling for a unified national strategy, enhanced dementia-specific workforce training, and sufficient sustainable funding to address the growing demand. The report proposes specific changes including a national standardised diagnostic pathway and a nationally mandated standard of care across every stage of the dementia care pathway.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Pay doctors more – by slashing the salaries of useless bureaucrats
British state dysfunction is so all-encompassing that working out where one problem begins and another ends is a time-consuming activity all on its own. Take the threatened resident doctors' strikes. It's not an unreasonable stance to point out that salaries are below their 2008 peak, and ask for a pay rise to make up for this. It is difficult to hand these out, however, when NHS productivity is down somewhere between 5pc and 11pc on 2019/20 levels, making pay awards hard to justify. This is particularly so when the Government is spending £111bn on debt interest this year alone, local council budgets have already been shredded and social care is a mess. If you're confused about how these things tie together, bear with me. Let's start with the doctors. The British Medical Association (BMA) claims that below-inflation pay rises means that resident (junior) doctors are worse off in pay terms today than they were 17 years ago. This is hard to dispute: whether you prefer to measure inflation with the Consumer Price Index or the Retail Price Index (RPI), the broad thrust is that prices have risen faster than pay for residents. In a market system, this would simply be how supply is matched to demand. In the UK healthcare system, however, there is no real market. The NHS is by far the largest provider of medical services in the country, which gives it an enormous degree of power over the wages of trained doctors. For those starting out, the deal is even worse. In order to qualify to practice in Britain, med school graduates must complete two years of training. This, in turn, takes place with NHS employers. It's not particularly difficult to see how this might lead to unwelcome compression of the wage premium for people who've just slogged through years of strenuous education: foundation year one doctors earn above median but below mean UK wages, with foundation year two still falling below the 75th percentile for the economy as a whole. That there could be a relatively straightforward way to raise the pay of doctors: abolish the NHS, and let the market work. Unfortunately, given that Sir Keir Starmer has insisted that he would never, under any circumstances, pay for a loved one to be treated privately rather than wait their turn on an NHS list, this option is probably off the table. This same opposition to reform and private sector involvement makes it hard to see a clean route to restoring lost productivity in the health service in the near future. In other words, if we're going to give doctors a pay rise, the money will have to come from other budgets. Quite a lot of money, as it happens. The BMA wants 'pay restoration' to 2008 levels. So do many others: it is a testament to almost two decades of economic mismanagement that private sector wages earlier this year were also below their 2008 peak. With the BMA increasingly aggressive in its negotiating stance, its critics are entitled to note that countries like Australia and Canada are far more stringent in restricting the ability of doctors to strike. Carry on in this vein, and they may well lose the sympathies of the public altogether. Assume for a moment though that we choose to grant this rise. The increase the resident doctors are asking for is enough to make up for a 21pc fall in wages, so a raise in the region of 27pc. According to the Nuffield Trust, each 1pc uptick in resident doctors' pay costs around £51m. The total cost of a 27pc rise would be somewhere in the region of £1.4bn. This is excessive, but it's a fair point that doctors may well feel undervalued relative to other jobs. It can't feel particularly good for resident doctors on £46,000, for instance, to see the NHS hiring in diversity commissars on salaries of £122,000. And it doesn't seem quite right for highly skilled workers who work long hours in unpleasant conditions, risking exposure to dangerous infectious diseases, to be paid less than unemployable Whitehall apparatchiks dialling into Zoom calls in their dressing gowns. Here, then, is a modest proposal. The total public sector pay bill was £270bn in 2023/24. If we can cut it by 0.5pc, then the doctors can have their pay rise. Figures from the Taxpayers' Alliance suggest that local government spending on diversity roles cost roughly £23m in 2023, alongside £13 million in the NHS. Thirty-six million towards a £1.4bn black hole is not a promising start. In fact, even taking the maximal savings implied by one estimate of public sector spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jobs – £557m a year – would still only get us a third of the way towards paying for it. And not all of these savings would be free to spend. Local government finances are in a shambolic state, with real budgets down 9pc on their 2010 levels. The slow squeeze of rising social care, school transport and housing costs, meanwhile, is eroding waste simply by erasing discretionary spending. Any savings made on woke waste might have to go towards social care, or if it does go to the NHS, it may actually risk making it worse. How, you ask? The single biggest productivity challenge facing NHS executives is discharging patients on time. Blocked beds stymie the flow of patients through hospitals, in turn slowing the flow of patients off waiting lists. These delays are most often caused by waiting for support for the patient at home – often adult social care arranged by local government bodies scrabbling for cash. Spending more on social care might be better for NHS productivity than actually spending on the NHS itself. At this point, however, I have some good news: we can do this, and still restore doctors' pay in real terms. The BMA's calculation of the fall in doctors' pay since 2010 is fundamentally flawed. It uses the now discredited RPI measure of inflation which is known to overestimate rises in the price level (among other problems, when prices rise and then fall back to their starting level, the RPI can still show prices as having risen). This is obviously absurd, and after years of dragging its heels, the Government conceded as much. As a result, from 2030 onwards the RPI is set to simply mirror an alternative, better-calculated measure of inflation, saving the Government a couple of billion each year in the process. In other words, the doctors' pay demands seemed excessive because they were excessive. If the BMA had used better measures of inflation, they would be looking for a 5pc pay rise, or £255m – less than half of the estimated DEI spend. And this, in turn, gives us our desired outcome: we can give the doctors actual pay restoration, pay for it by cutting public sector jobs that shouldn't exist in the first place, and have some money leftover to ease the strain on social care into the bargain, improving NHS productivity – an all-round win for taxpayers.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Calls for Scottish disability payment to be simplified
Led by charity leader Edel Harris, the review calls for automatic entitlement to the benefit in some cases. An independent review of the Scottish disability payment has called for the benefit to be simplified and made more accessible. The report, commissioned by the Scottish Government, found while the adult disability payment is more 'compassionate' than the UK benefit it replaced, some people still face barriers and distress when applying. Ms Harris welcomed several changes from the previous assessments carried out by the UK Department for Work and Pensions, but said there is more to be done to deliver a human rights-based approach to the benefit that delivers for disabled people. The chairwoman of the Adult Disability Payment Review made more than 50 recommendations to improve the service. They include embedding a 'trauma-informed, stigma-free' approach to assessments, simplifying the application process, improving communication from staff, and reviewing the eligibility criteria. The report recommends the application process is made easier for those with fluctuating conditions and mental health problems, and calls for welfare advice services to be sustainably funded. Ms Harris said: 'Adult disability payment has been described by many as a step-change – kinder in tone and more dignified in approach. 'But too often, disabled people still find the system difficult to navigate, time-consuming, and anxiety-inducing. 'I heard consistently that if we are to realise social security as an investment in people, it is important to ensure that the eligibility criteria fulfil this goal. 'This review highlights the importance of a system that is not only compassionate, but practical and accessible. 'The recommendations are based on real experiences and a shared commitment to making adult disability payment work better for everyone who needs it.' Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: 'The Scottish Government's approach to providing social security is a compassionate one, based on dignity, fairness and respect, and I am very encouraged to read the feedback from disabled people that this has been reflected in their positive interactions with Social Security Scotland. 'While the UK Government seeks to make cuts to the vital support disabled people rely on, I want to make clear that we will not cut adult disability payment. 'Instead, we will work to protect and enhance Scotland's social security system, improving on what we have achieved so far. 'I very much appreciate the comprehensive recommendations this report provides for how we can improve adult disability payment.' Ms Somerville said the Scottish Government will 'carefully consider all of the recommendations' in the report and provide its initial response by January next year.
