Disability Employment Gap

The gender pay gap has been hitting the headlines recently but what about the disability employment gap?

Under the Equality Act 2010 a disability is defined as “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on [one’s] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

The disability employment gap is the difference between employment rates of disabled and non-disabled people. According to the Labour Force Statistics published in summer 2017, the disability employment gap remained unchanged at 31.3 percentage points.  That means that there is a gap of roughly 30% between disabled and non-disabled individuals in employment. 

Prejudices, coupled alongside a lack of understanding by employers, have contributed to the employment gap. Employers ought to be aware that the Access to Work scheme is available and is a publicly funded employment support program set up to provide funds to help more disabled people start or stay in work.  

Under the Equality Act 2010 there is a duty for employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers. The support provided by Access to Work covers interventions that go beyond this duty, and grants are assessed on an individual basis. On 20 March 2018 the Government raised the cap on funding by £15,000 so that the annual cap is now £57,200.

In 2015 the Government said that they will aim to halve the disability employment gap and this was taken to mean by the end of the Parliament. However, the Government has clarified that there is no specific time period on this pledge but it has talked of a “10 year strategy.”

Rightly so, gender inequality has been brought to the forefront for challenge. However, the disability employment gap is equally as important and ought to demand the same attention for change. In the words of the late Professor Stephen Hawking “we have a moral duty to remove the barriers of participation, and to invest sufficient funding and expertise to unlock the vast potential of people with disabilities.”

In a climate where businesses are regularly highlighting labour shortages or employment skill gaps, let them be reminded that there is an additional 30% potential workforce available to be utilised.

Kamran Sadiq - Solicitor

For further information on Employment Rights please visit our website or call 0033 3344 9603 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.

“Unnecessary Burdens” in the Equality Act?

BIS has published the “Fifth Statement of New Regulations” setting out the timetable for a number of measures which will be implemented in 2013.

 

This will include “removing unnecessary burdens from the Equality Act”, which specifically means removing employers’ potential liability for harassment by a third party and removing the statutory questionnaire procedure. These changes will be implemented in March 2013.

 

The report openly acknowledges that the ‘new culture’ (which presumably means the ‘red tape challenge’) “has resulted in real benefits to businesses”. Well it certainly is of no benefit to workers!

 

This government is eroding employment rights at an unprecedented pace. It has recently announced that it will be halving the consultation period for collective redundancies (of 100 or more employees) from 90 days to 45 days, making it easier to sack employees. It has already changed the required period of service to be able to claim unfair dismissal from 1 year to 2 years, again making it easier to sack people.

 

It has also announced that it intends to proceed with the ridiculous proposal of ‘employee ownership’, despite 92% of responses to its own consultation expressing concerns about the plans.

 

Fortunately, discrimination law is one area that cannot as easily be hit, as most rights are obtained from Europe, but sure enough where rights can be reduced without being in breach of EU requirements, they are being.

 

These two changes will make pursuing a claim more complicated and difficult, meaning ultimately that wronged employees will be put off pursuing a claim.

 

In particular, the removal of the questionnaire procedure will make it even more difficult to prove equal pay cases and indirect discrimination claims, as the questionnaire process was invaluable in obtaining essential information about company statistics and comparators. The government has said that employees will still be able to ask questions in correspondence, but without the threat of an inference of discrimination if there is a failure to reply, how many employers are likely to voluntarily give the requested information? Not many!

 

Toni Haynes - Solicitor

For further information on Employment Rights, please visit our website or call 0113 245 0733 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.

Reduction in response time to government consultations

We often, as a firm, voice our collective opinion on government proposals. In recent years, we have spoken out on a number of issues, ranging from the implementation of a cap on trainee solicitors’ wages, to the Jackson Reforms in the field of Personal Injury law and the now imminent introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunals.

We therefore speak from years of experience when we say that clear and considered responses to consultations require a great deal of research and preparation, which can often take several months.

We were therefore alarmed to hear in recent weeks that the government has now introduced new guidance to shorten the twelve week period for which ministers were previously required to consult the public on government proposals to a mere two weeks.

This clearly will make it extremely difficult for interested parties to gather evidence and prepare a reasoned and informed response to policy changes that directly affect us all.

The upshot of this is that, potentially, sections of the public, in particular those with access to fewer resources who will no doubt struggle to meet the two week deadline, will essentially be left without a voice to challenge government policy.

This appears to us to be nothing more than an attempt by the government to suppress opposition.

To place the effect of reducing the consultation period into context, in their response to the reduction of consultation periods the Institute of Employment Rights cite the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as an example whereby the government introduced, in their words, a “technical amendment” to existing legislation, without consulting the public. This “technical amendment” was to section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the significance of which is far-reaching as it overturns the law imposing employers’ strict liability for the health and safety of their employees, which has been in effect for 114 years.

The implications of this are that various existing personal injury clients of our firm who suffer from life-long, incapacitating injuries, including one client who lost an eye, and potentially a career, due to faulty work equipment, would in future have been prevented from bringing their claims against their employer.

We therefore share the view of the Institute of Employment Rights and have supported their ongoing petition to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to voice our opposition to the government’s blatant attempt to stifle the voice of opposition.

Christopher Ridley - Solicitor

For further information on Employment Rights, please visit our website or call 0113 245 0733 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.