SAYCE REPORT ANALYSIS 20TH JULY 2011 Initial Reaction and Analysis

The first 16 pages paint a picture of individual support closure of supported factory sites including Remploy. The report does not deal with major issues facing disabled people. There is significant reference throughout the report to individual needs and to the young disabled person. There are several quotes from what appears to be young people and at the launch the DWP used a video of a young woman who obviously had downs syndrome. This was a cynical act to convince the people present that mainstream is better than factory employment. The main charities appear to be backing the report and we are trying to look at what vested interests the members of the scrutiny group may have. What is very surprising is that Lord Tom Sawyer took part in the scrutiny group. The members of the scrutiny group comprise: Mike Adams, Rachael Perkins, Kay Allan and Tom Sawyer. The team that produced the report led by Mike Jones are: Laura Webster, Bahadir Ustaoglu, Matthew Willis, Roger Morgan and Simon Francis. This is a large team for such an inconclusive report and must have cost well over 2 million. The fact that Liz Sayce was asked to do the report takes away the reports independence. RADAR has long since declared its opposition to supported employment on the basis that RADAR advisors can find work for disabled people. There is no admission on Liz Sayces part to a vested interest. Maria Miller confirmed in Parliament that RADAR had been paid to do the report. The former CEO of Radar, Kate Nash is also on the Board of Remploy.

Important References
On Page 15 there is reference to support for individuals replacing the subsidising of factory businesses. Cost of 25,000 per disabled which is untrue of course. The 25,000 included 8,000 - 10,000 of cost outside the factory network so there is a reference to all factory businesses making a loss which in normal commercial terms is untrue. 1

There is reference to potentially being owned as mutuals, owned by the workers or as social enterprises or cooperatives with no explanation to how this would be funded. No real thought has been given to how this could work. Page 16 also refers to employees and management of business to be given sufficient time to put forward a business plan to an expert panel. The panel would judge whether the business is capable of being self supporting. The same managers who have brought about failure may sit on the panel or will be tasked with the provision of a business plan. This has already been suggested by the Remploy Chief Executive and we understand that an off the shelf company has been set up. The director is Tim Matthews and a senior person from Balfour Beatty. Also Employment Services to be privatised and the money saved used to increase Access to Work. In future shareholders will decide the fate of disabled people.

The Five Core Principles Page 17

Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3 Principle 4 Principle 5 Cannot disagree with this principle Cannot disagree with this principle but would have thought that sustainable employment would have been added Cannot disagree Nothing wrong with this principle This principle seems to suggest that it is ok to have specialist disability experts who may all be consultants giving advice to those who employ them. We take this to mean private commercial employers. Surely this happens now with all the private providers including Remploy Employment Services. There is nothing new here.

The five core principles are not earth shattering and are not the main recommendations.

The Recommendations Page 18

Recommendation 1 Page 63 Moving funds to the individual disabled person and the employer Nothing in the whole document says how this can be done. There is no reference to how much funding and for how long. There is no reference to how an individual will be funded or supported. Surely the move to supporting individuals will lead to a massive increase in so called disability advisors who will probably in the main work for private companies or be part of a consultancy thus using the lions share of the funding. The report does not go into any detail. 2

The charities also have a vested interest in providing a paid service to disabled people. Recommendation (1) will focus on individual but it is silent on how it appears to be a charter for means tested support with the charities being funded to carry out the means testing. The charities have already benefited from the last closure programme in 2008 by receiving over 100 free Remploy workers. The current figures in June 2011 are that 59 disabled people are provided free to charity organisers. Recommendations 2 and 2a to 2m Pages 81 to 90 Access to Work These recommendations are one of the main thrusts of the report. The 14 recommendations will in the main be supported by all of the disability movement and the trade unions. Access to work has been under-funded and under-used. A whole industry cropped up in the late 1990s to advise people on access to work. It was such a success that one year the scheme ran out of money and the government had to refund it. Over the last five years access to work has been much harder to get with restrictions on funding. Disability groups and the trade unions have called for an increase in the funding. While any increase would be welcome this in itself does not mean that access to work will lead to more disabled people finding job opportunities. If there are no jobs available access to work will not mean more employment. Taking out over 2000 sustainable jobs in Remploy and moving the finances to access to work may not mean 2000 new jobs in mainstream employment. The UK employers will decide who works and who does not. The data provided within the Sayce report is misleading and does not in any way address the issues of access to work. The report states on Page 14 that 37,300 disabled people were helped into work at an average cost of 2,600. This was in 2009/2010. The official stats from the DWP for access to work reported in April 2011 are that 32,680 individuals were helped of which 22,040 were existing customers and 10,640 were new customers. This was from April 2010 to December 2010. For three quarters of the Sayce report the authors have used misleading data. The 37,300 quoted in the report gives the impression that these are new customers helped in 2009/2010. The transparent truth is that 20,780 were existing customers and that 16,510 new customers were helped. Quarters 1, 2 and 3 of 2010/2011 new customers helped is 10,640. The full year looks like being the lowest number of new starts for over 4 years.

Another point made in the Sayce report is that access to work may be able to benefit disabled people with a mental health conditions. Out of the 32,680 helped in the current year only 460 have a mental health conditions. This is only 1.4% of all those helped. Compare this to *131 employees in Remploy who have a mental health conditions out of 2,692 employees which is 5% or 4 times higher.
*Information provided by Remploy Disability Analysis

When you look at another major disability which is learning disability, out of the 32,680 helped by access to work only 1,680 with this particular disability have been helped into employment. This is just over 5% compared to the 462 disabled people out of 2,692 who have a learning condition working in Remploy (17.2%) again over 3 times as high. The absolute true facts are that the two most vulnerable groups in our Society are by far better represented in supported employment than any other government funded programme for disabled people. The full table provided by the DWP is reproduced here. Table 4 Numbers helped in current year to date, by primary medical condition Primary Medical Condition Missing/Unknown Arms or hands Legs or feet Back or neck Stomach, liver, kidney or digestion Heart, blood, blood pressure or circulation Chest or breathing Skin conditions and severe disfigurement Difficulty in hearing Difficulty in seeing Difficulty in speaking Learning disability Progressive illness Dyslexia Epilepsy Diabetes Mental health condition Cerebral Palsy Spina Bifida Other Total

10 1,880 2,360 5,000 110 250 140 20 4,970 4,980 70 1,680 2,150 2,640 1,070 190 460 410 110 4,190 32,680

If you look at where the 98m has been spent by access to work it throws up some major problems and issues. There were 40,840 awards in the first 3 quarters of 2010/2011. These cover 10 element types which are printed below. Table 5 Numbers of awards granted in current year to date, by element type Element Type Adaptation to Premises Adaptation to Vehicles Communication Support at Interview Miscellaneous Miscellaneous with Cost Share Travel in Work Special Aids and Equipment Support Worker Travel to Work AtW Assessment Total

200 160 220 50 20 1,160 6,430 10,610 12,630 9,380 40,840

The highest number of awards is 12,630 travel to work which is over 30% or could be over 29m. This will help people get into work but does it keep people in work? The other issue that Table 5 shows is the use of support workers. There have been 10,610 awards and this begs the questions: who are they; who do they work for; how much are they costing and most important are they also disabled. The Sayce report avoids these difficult questions. Table 1 of the data supplied by the DWP printed below shows that up to 68% of those receiving help through access to work are existing customers. Table 1: Number of individuals helped each financial year, by whether customer is part of existing helped stock or a new customer helped. Customer Type 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Q1, Q2 Total and Q3 numbers 2010-11 helped since April 2007 Existing customer 15,460 18,120 20,780 22,040 New customer helped Total 12,260 27,720 14,010 32,130 16,510 37,300 10,640 32,680 73,500 5

The governments intention to double the numbers using access to work will be at the cost of supported factory employment and are not deliverable. You cannot help anyone into a job if the job does not exist. Recommendation (2c) restricts small companies in the amount of access to work. Recommendation (2f) considers time limiting the payment of access to work. This is nearly 30% of access to work getting people to work and if these proposals become a reality it will limit long term support. The trade unions are fully behind the provision of access to work and believe the recommendation does not go far enough. All disabled people should have the right to access to work with no limits and separately funded away from other supported programmes. Recommendation 3 Page 107, Chapter 4 This is unacceptable and currently unworkable. 90% of the businesses are currently not viable because of the incompetent management. The proposal to break up Remploy is not viable. Recommendation 3 sets a forward date for closure of 2013/2014. It clearly states that funding will be ended in 2013. That is why 47 million has been earmarked by the DWP to close the deficit of the pension scheme which if left would stop the closure programme. Chapter 4 shows the number of disabled people and the cost of the programmes. Table 1.4: Number of people helped and amount spent on specialist disability employment programmes in 2009/10 Access to Work Number of disabled and disadvantaged people helped to get or keep jobs in 2009/10 Spend in 2009/10 37,300 supported to keep their job Remploy Employment Services61 10,600 people helped to get jobs (including WorkStep and other disability programme provision) 35 million Remploy Enterprise Businesses62 2,800 disabled people employed RTCs

230 got jobs

98 million programme cost

63 million

18 million

There needs to be a detailed analysis of these figures. For instance how long do these jobs last, are they full time or part time. The fact that 37,300 disabled people have been granted access to work does not mean that all 37,300 would not have found work. Some employers would definitely have made an adjustment without funding. There is no data to suggest that the employers would only have taken on disabled workers because of access to work. There is no doubt though that access to work is an influence both for the employer and the employee but it is not the only answer or the only choice. The trade unions believe that the 98 million is well spent. On analysis the report promised to double the numbers of disabled people on access to work which could mean that the cost would go up to 194 million. This is not allowing for inflation. The four programmes total 214 million. Therefore the figures do not add up. Even if you add up the 98 + 63 + 18 this only adds up to 179 million. This means a total reduction or de-funding of Employment Services and the complete de-funding of Remploy Employment Businesses and the RTCs to reach the 194 million. The situation is far worse. If you take into consideration the employment of non disabled who will lose their jobs as a consequence of these changes the UK tax payer will have to pay for the increase in benefits for the 2,800+ non disabled people also thrown out of work. Page 80 of the report quotes figures of 300,000 people per year moving from work to incapacity benefits and that there are already 1.5 million people currently receiving incapacity benefit. The report hopes that many of those will move into employment but is completely silent on how this will happen. The saving of 63 million from withdrawing funding from Remploy factories will not account for more than a very small fraction of this figure. Recommendation (3a) Page 107 Further reduces the money that may be released from the closure of Remploy factory sites. The recommendation spells it out that only resources released from Remploy reform after accounting for the cost of the reform are spent on employment support. The cost of closing Remploy factory sites and moving Employment Services into the private sector and closing the RTCs will run into many hundreds of millions of pounds. Therefore access to work may have to wait several years to start to increase the numbers of disabled people it is proposing to support. The funding for access to work will in future depend on saving elsewhere and is guaranteed by this Government.

This part of the report is the most cynical and misleading. There will be very little extra money for access to work. This is unacceptable. Access to work needs proper sustainable funding. Recommendation (2) Page 81IB This recommendation recognises one of the weaknesses of access to work. Government does not advertise access to work; if they did access to work may become more transparent and the scheme itself would become more accessible. The report is totally silent on how access to work will be able to create new jobs. In fact the report advocates the destruction of current jobs but there is no reference to job creation. Recommendation (3d) Page 111 The department should ensure Remploy employees accrued pension rights are fully protected. This does not go far enough. What about the future protection of the pension rights of disabled people. The report not only throws thousands of disabled people out of work but their future pension funds will leave them in a life of poverty.

Residential Training Courses

The report details in a callous and disgraceful manner the complete withdrawal of funding for residential training. The most vulnerable in our Society will be affected and in the current climate there is little chance of any other government agency funding these important training courses. Again more people thrown onto the unemployment register. Both disabled and those who deliver the training will be affected. The report is silent on what happens to the RTCs if no alternative funding is available. The recommendations are heavy on promises and statements but have very little or no substance. Major issues are avoided such as job opportunities for those who lose the job they already have. No detailed strategy for increasing access to work other than the suggestion that what is left after closing down other parts of the programme may find its way into increasing access to work.

The foundations for success for an enabling State Page 26

The whole review can be summed up as part of the governments cuts in public spending; a reduction in supported employment costs at the same time as reducing disabled peoples benefits. 8

Throughout this report there are a large number of quotations from young disabled people which has been staged managed. The trade unions are currently surveying all Remploy trainees to see what the attitudes are of real young disabled people. The report does not mention that there are currently 179 trainees in the factory network. The expectation is that over 2,000 will receive some sort of training in Remploy from April 2011 to March 2012. Around 2,000 went through the factory network in 2009/2010 for the same 12 month period. No Remploy factory sites no future trainees. Looking at those who gave evidence it appears that the evidence given by the GMB National Secretary has not been taken into account and GMB is not listed. We intend to raise this with the Minister. The report gives the reader the impression that extensive consultation has been undertaken by the Sayce team with disabled workers currently working in Remploy and other supported establishments. In fact the trade unions can only find 4 disabled people who were consulted.

Young Disabled People

As previously stated there are numerous references to young disabled people not wanting to work in supported employment. We understand that very few young people were consulted and certainly none of the 2,000 young trainees who have worked in Remploy on schemes lasting from 1 week to 13 weeks were asked for their opinion. Surely this is a major weakness in the report. Our survey of the short stay trainees will be published in mid August and unlike the Sayce report the trade unions survey will identify real people. At that time we will have more to say to government about the employment of young disabled people.

Summary
The Sayce Report is geared towards 2 broad aims: I wanted to recommend employment support that would meet our future aspirations as disabled people in the context of a changing economy and the big changes in the way we all work.. Second, I focused on the right to work, enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is supported by the UK Government. This includes: The right to work on an equal basis with others in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible. 9

It goes on to express hopes, ideas, analysis to develop policies to assist the process of getting disabled people into employment. Its central recommendation many of which we would be in total agreement. We have had aspirations for many years and few have been taken up in a real way by a succession of governments. There are also various contentious statements such as that supposedly identifying the big enablers and the rather selective use of quotes to justify a conclusion when just as many quotes from different perspectives could support different conclusions. As far as Remploy is concerned the Report seems more concerned to advance one analysis of such provision rather than a balanced examination of its role as an option in the actual choices offered to disabled people. Its most extreme statement is In relation to Remploy factories there was a total consensus among disabled peoples organisations and charities that the factories were not the model for the 21st Century, That is just totally incorrect we can provide a whole range of organisations and disabled people who have a contrary view so definitely no total consensus. This is used to then support what appears to be Sayces main idea - Government funding should be invested in effective support for individuals - making a false dichotomy. We have no problem with that as a major option but to put all eggs in the one basket and destroy well proven existing provision is not the right option. The argument about funds following the individual echo similar ones in the NHS and the same problems arise. The core weakness in the Sayce approach is it is all based on aspiration. We would share an aspiration where all disabled people are treated in an equal way in employment and that ideal state may lead to a completely different view of what support is required but that is such a far off reality it would be folly to abandon all existing support options until there has been substantial achievement of such equality. There is also constant reference to choice but apparently to justify removing the key choice of Remploy. There is also a characterisation of Remploy as some out of date solution with attempts to stigmatise it as a form of ghettoisation and linking it to old institutional forms. In no way can modern day Remploy be characterised in this way if for no other reason than it only covers a percentage of disabled peoples employment. No one is proposing it is the only solution but it should be one of a range of options until the aspiration of equality is reached and then there can be a renewed examination of requirements. The aspiration of getting disabled people into open employment is again to be welcomed but given the actual percentage in employment at present, the situation of economic crisis and the length of much employment at present, it is sheer arrogance to dismiss the option supported by RADAR in the past of Remploy. It ignores totally the shrinkage 10

of public sector job opportunities in the current situation and of large scale cuts in the areas where the highest proportion of employment is presently found. It removes the chance for workers to build confidence in their capabilities before considering other options in the employment market; it removes the chance for a disabled workforce to show what they are capable of in delivering commercial contracts; it removes an option that brings together specialised support and technology in a way not possible in open employment; it takes away a proven method of providing employment in the hope that aspirations will be met. The hard experience for workers with disabilities is that it is vital to defend what has been achieved before experimenting with other forms. It also avoids a key matter that is avoided throughout the Report of class. Looking at the statistics for the areas where there are the most successful placements in open employment it is clearly dominated by those with qualifications, in white collar areas and office based jobs. The record for those without qualifications is dismal - 17% - and the prospect offered by Sayce does not address that in any way. However, Remploy employs a high proportion of those from manual working class backgrounds. Closing Remploy as an option would disadvantage those workers even more with no clear plan how to redress the balance or are they to get the shelf-stacking options? It further ignores the logic of its own proposals. If Remploy concentrates solely on assisting people into open employment work it duplicates work done by a number of bodies and removes any distinct role whereas the Remploy factories provide a different and proven option. Is Sayce committed to genuine choice for disabled people or is it just a choice from the list currently favoured by the charity professionals.? The voice of Remploy workers is certainly ignored and aspirations of those who would like good open employment is counterposed to Remploy as though it is a for or against view. Many of us have views of employment we would like but that does not mean we want our current employment abolished. Sayce constantly returns to the viability of Remploy factories. Leaving aside the strong evidence of poor management actually turning down good contracts or lines of development and the overloaded central management costs, Sayce surprisingly has no attempt to look at social cost benefit analysis. Here we dont mean the narrow definition used by some economists but the wider view of the total effects of the factories on the society around them, the money generated in the local economy, effects on workers families, effect on surrounding businesses, the multiplier effect and so on. No analysis is given of the very important recent experience of those who were in Remploy employment and who went into the open market a useful comparator of the divide between aspiration and reality. This is totally ignored.

11

No analysis is given of the public procurement nexus and its key role in providing work for the Remploy factories. It is difficult to tell what Sayces real argument is is it if the factories made money that would be OK or are they wrong in principle (which seems to be her underlying argument)? The employment numbers game is also confused the full-time constant Remploy employment is contrasted with other placements and supported employment. No detail on hours worked, average employment times etc for those placements. No breakdown appears to be made between those without employment getting positions and those already in employment who are kept on after becoming defined as disabled. All these are critical to find out what is really happening to individuals. Given there is such a massive proportion of disabled people without employment it would seem more prudent to concentrate on that before removing one of the key options actually providing employment. If statements about less opportunity for young disabled in education and training then it must be correct, if the competitive market approach is followed, then they must always be at a disadvantage in trying to enter the employment market. The key point made by Sayce In total, Government spends over 20 times more on disability out-of-work benefits than on disability employment support (7 billion compared with around 330 million)24. Figure 1.3 shows graphically the relatively small role disability employment programmes play. This raises important questions: might it be more effective to spend more on disability employment support in order to help more disabled people into work, thereby reducing the need for out-of-work benefits? Is not really followed through, by its logic the amount provided to Remploy and RTCs is so small as to be marginal compared to the wider issues, Sayce identifies sectors due to grow Some particular sectors are set to grow, including hospitality, health and social work, and retail. but each in the private sector has a poor record of providing employment for disabled people no evidence is advanced how this will change. Moreover, other comments seem to fly in the face of all current evidence of what will be available eg This means it is important that disabled people are able to move for jobs, which will only be possible with portability of employment support and continued access to social care and accessible housing if required.

12

For the RTCs Sayce seem to be saying they could develop partnerships with other bodies all notably those facing reduced funding and already cutting existing provision. Beyond that they seem to be proposing they do what existing charities do and lose their unique role. Seems a strange time to talk about liberating the disabled just when there are proposed cuts over a whole range of social provision which will adversely affect disabled people. The argument that Government should stop funding factory businesses and support individuals is also a false diversion. In some models like a Remploy enterprise the effective way to give support to individuals may be to give some core support to the enterprise so it can provide the necessary back up to support the enterprise and the employees collectively and thus the individuals. Sometimes the collective can be more effective than the individual particularly where scale is involved. We further are concerned how the Sayce recommendation The Department should ensure existing employees in Remploy Enterprise Businesses are offered the opportunity and expert entrepreneurial and business support will be interpreted the last thing the sector needs is more money going out to consultants and advisers when what is really required is provision of good quality proven management with a supportive Government approach to recruitment and contacts. Sayce whilst giving an apparent analysis does not seem to have discovered the situation revealed at the Parliamentary Committee hearing that Remploy have carried out no skills audit as part of its restructuring and redundancy scheme. How they can carry out a proper restructuring with long term employment proposals without such an audit defies logic. Such management failures undermine any belief in serious planning for Remploy but Sayce does not seem to have discovered this in her supposed detailed investigation. On closer examination all her financial and organisational analysis seems to totally rely on management figures and analysis. We do not believe the Sayce report will help in the future employment of disabled people.

Phil Davies GMB National Secretary On behalf of the Remploy Consortium of Trade Unions & The thousands of Remploy workers ignored by the Sayce report and this Government

13