Thank you Mr Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to an employment retention assessment to determine entitlement to a period of rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes.

This is the fourth time I have brought this Bill before Parliament and the inevitable question I face is ‘why do so again?’. In answering this I want to begin by outlining the purpose of the Bill, something many members will already be familiar with. It’s fundamental aim is straightforward, namely to help people who become disabled or who have an impairment which changes, to stay in work and to enjoin and guide both them and their employer, in the process of retention.

In 2007 around 350,000 people moved from employment onto Incapacity Benefit – at great expense to both the taxpayer and employers and with great personal cost for the individuals affected. Around 70,000 people spent less than 3 months receiving this.

With such high numbers employment retention is clearly not an issue which is confined to the margins of society, so it is baffling that it is yet to be given prominence in policy and legislation.

I think the consensus in this House that improvements should be made on this, is as unanimous as the collective grievance outside of Parliament for people who have become unemployed and who have fallen out of work, despite being able to continue working and having to find new employment shortly afterwards.

The Employment Retention Bill has two provisions for this situation. Firstly it provides a right to a period of rehabilitation leave for a person who develops a disability or whose existing impairment worsens whilst they are in employment. This would allow them, in appropriate circumstances, a short period away from the workplace to come to terms with their condition. At the moment there is no right to this under the Disability Discrimination Act and it has been left languishing in the non-binding code of practice for employers, where it is more often argued over then granted.

The second key measure the Bill introduces is a right to an employment retention assessment to examine a person’s condition and to advise on the reasonable steps an employer should be taking under the Disability Discrimination Act to help someone to remain in work. This mechanism is to make sure there is early intervention and clear guidance for both employees and employers, engaging them in the process of retention.

Mr Speaker, the Government and the opposition have both publicly suggested that what the Bill seeks to do is covered by existing legislation. But firstly, this is contradicted by the following organisations who support the Bill, and who are working with people whose experience does not tally with this: RNIB, Leonard Cheshire, RNID, Disability Alliance, the Stroke Association, Connect, the TUC, Unite and ASLEF.

Secondly it is simply wrong and an excuse for inertia. Although the Disability Discrimination Act provisions are born from the principle and the arguments for employment retention, they remain inadequate when it comes to delivering it in practice.

In Part 2 of the Act examples are given of reasonable adjustments that employers might have to make. Specific mention is made of allowing an employee – and I quote “to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment”. However, this just states what could take place, not what must take place, how it could be arranged, who could undertake such interventions or what support and advice is available from employers in facilitating any of these. This is where the Employment Retention Bill steps in.

It is designed to specify a basic mechanism of assessment that would determine what is needed to enable someone to remain in or return to work. It would provide both the employee and employer with a framework within which to work where the considerations mentioned in part 2 of the DDA can be practically applied.

Furthermore, we know from case law that there is no right to have an assessment to determine your condition or the interventions that would be reasonable in the circumstances.

In the case ‘Spence and Intype Libra’ in April 2007 Mr Justice Elias (Ee-ly-as) in the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a failure to have such an assessment was not a breach of an employer’s duty under the Disability Discrimination Act. As he stated, such an adjustment would apply in almost every case, so would at least be expected to figure in a non-exhaustive list of potential adjustments. Until a case is decided otherwise this decision is binding on other tribunals. So it is plainly wrong to suggest that this right already exists.

I should not be surprised that the party opposite favours inaction on this as it was a Conservative member who twice stopped the Bill going through second reading to report stage last year, despite Government backing for this. Mr Speaker this really is the epitome of a do-nothing party.

I find it hard to understand how they would be happy to stand by as people lose their jobs when the law is clear on this.

Mr Speaker, I do acknowledge that the Government is looking to improve retention with a number of different measures, however these are far from making the changes we need to see.

Firstly, as a result of pressure from the campaign on this Bill, which saw over one hundred and eighty MPs sign EDM 676 in the last session, last March the Government announced it would produce a cross-departmental strategy on employment retention. So, one year on what has happened on this? Nothing. The strategy itself, never mind implementation will not come until the end of the year at the earliest.

Secondly the Government has announced that it will pilot Dame Carole Black’s Fit for Work Service, which would provide a similar scheme to the assessments in this Bill. Welcome as this is Mr Speaker it will affect only a small number of people and, more worryingly, we are years away from concrete changes. At the end of last year the Government reported on a successful similar trial of employment advisers working from within GP surgeries to help people into work.

Following positive results this three year trial has been extended for a further three years. But over a million people will have moved from work onto benefits in this space of time, so we need some urgency and some boldness here. We need the immediate change that a Bill like this would bring and we need to secure this for everyone.

Finally, there is the Employability campaign, which is geared at increasing awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act. This consists of an advertising campaign and seminars, which once again falls far short of what is needed. In 2008 not a single employer from my constituency attended a seminar – from the whole of Scotland the total was only twenty six. These numbers will barely make an imprint on 350,000 people a year.

Mr Speaker I won’t speculate as to whether a cross departmental strategy which has done nothing in a year, or a poster campaign or a pilot scheme, will be enough to secure the place of Ministers in the pantheon of great reformers – we can leave it to history whose name is mentioned in the same breath as Bevan. But what I will say is that we need to do more.

For all the apparent concessions still nothing has changed for a person who becomes disabled in work. The inertia has been constant but so has the support for this Bill.

Throughout the years of working on this with RNIB I have heard many reasons for doing nothing and none of them have resulted in the slightest difference to someone who loses their job. That, Mr Speaker, is why I am introducing the Bill to Parliament again.

Filed under: speeches by admin