Scope can succeed where government has failed on disability employment

The disability employment gap – the difference in the rate of employment of disabled and able-bodied people – has remained stubbornly high at around 30 per cent despite government promises to address the issue.

It first said it would halve the gap back in 2015, then said it planned to get a million unemployed disabled people into work. Now that target is being reviewed. Or is it just an ambition? I once had a fairly heated debate with a government press officer about the difference between the two when it came to halving the gap. It came to an end only after I supplied a copy of a government statement using the word “target”. Now, is that a can I see being kicked down the road?

This government hasn’t been good for much but it’s in Liverpool vs Barcelona Champions League class when it comes to can-kicking.

With so much talent being wasted, and so little being done about it, Scope, the disability charity, is picking up the baton, launching its own attempt to close the gap in partnership with Virgin Media.

The reason so many people with disabilities are being shut out of the workforce has been laid bare by the research commissioned to back up their campaign.

The findings of a YouGov poll of HR people Scope commissioned shine a deeply unflattering light on British businesses. Many of them seem stuck in the 19th century when it comes to their thinking on disability, a time when “cripples” were regularly locked up in institutions and forgotten about.

Half of the businesses surveyed said it was easier to recruit a non-disabled person over a disabled person. Four in 10 HR decision-makers (41 per cent) said their company’s board of directors either never or only rarely discussed disability.

More than half (56 per cent) believed (wrongly) that the main reason disabled people don’t get jobs is because they lack the right skills or qualifications. More than one in 10 (11 per cent) believed disabled people should accept lower paid positions, and more than two in 10 (23 per cent) thought disabled people needed to adapt better to business culture.

If the last of those findings produces a feeling of deja vu, it is strikingly similar to the sort of thing women and black and minority ethnic communities often get told.

But there’s more. A quarter (26 per cent) claimed they’d never had a disabled candidate in for a job interview. This is despite the fact that there are 7.6 million disabled people of working age in the UK.

With the government only willing to pretend it cares about the issue when there might be the chance of a nice photograph for whoever is minister for disabled people (it seems to change every couple of months), can the charity and its business partner do any better?

Under their scheme, they want firms to sign up to a five-step plan. Those that adopt the #WorkWithMe pledge will be offered practical advice on how to improve workplace policies, practices and culture for disabled people from progressive-minded employers in return for their agreeing to take responsibility for improving things.

Signatories will be expected to make a senior leader responsible for disability inclusion. That person will be called upon to review support for disabled people in the workplace and help line managers become confident in dealing with disabled employees.

Progress will be tracked, both in terms of the number of disabled people employed and the evolution of firms’ views.

It has started small. To date, 19 companies have signed up; although among their number is electronics giant Philips.

My worry about all this is that it does, in some respects, sound a little bit like the government’s Disability Confident scheme, which tends to produce bitter laughter among disabled people. There is a risk that firms will seek out the label so that they can put it in the corporate and social responsibility section of their annual report without taking the meaningful steps Scope would like to them to take.

It’s the sort of outcome that has emerged before with well-intentioned schemes and campaigns, and there are no sanctions for firms that only pay lip service to the project’s requirements after signing up.

On the other hand, any attempt to improve the current miserable situation has to be welcomed, particularly given the failure of the government’s policy in the area. And using businesses to help other businesses, as the campaign envisages, is a route that has potential.

The disability employment gap ought to be a stain on the conscience of the nation. It represents an appalling waste of talent at a time when firms say that they’re crying out for it. It needs to be addressed. At least someone is trying.