On 22 May the former Secretary of state for Work and Pensions, John Hutton M.P., announced proposals for the closure of 32 of 83 sheltered factories run by Remploy and the merger of 11 others with existing establishments. The announcement sent shock waves through the trade union movement, yet was acclaimed by some major charities who champion the promotion of mainstream employment for people with disabilities. RNIB could accept the proposals in principle, but there are many detailed questions to be answered. How exactly would the proposals benefit registered blind and partially sighted people with additional disabilities and complex needs? Will the future funding of Remploy businesses and services be adequate to make in-roads into the enormous rate of economic inactivity among these and other people with disabilities? Are there jobs in the mainstream economy which people with complex needs can do? This article outlines the history of Remploy and assesses its future plans in the light of such questions.
Remploy was set up at the end of World War II. It was to be a new departure, part of ‘the welfare state'. People were returning from war with physical injuries, swelling the numbers injured by industrial accidents and civilian bombing.
Remploy was to create a network of factories to provide sheltered employment for them.
George Tomlinson, the respected Labour M.P., whose report initiated Remploy, never envisaged Remploy as a stopping place for all its disabled workers. He recognised that many 'disabled people' could work in 'open employment'. Remploy was to be part of a national system of rehabilitation, enabling as many people with disabilities as possible to proceed through Remploy to 'open' employment.
This vision remained unfulfilled. Remploy developed along the lines of traditional sheltered employment long familiar to blind and partially sighted people. For example, the number of people with disabilities employed was a small proportion of the disabled population of working age. The cost of employing them was high and growing and Remploy practically institutionalised its workers in isolation from the mainstream economy.
These characteristics were condemned by the 'new disability movement' which developed after the 1960s. It rejected the 'medical model' of disability and used the 'social model' to identify societal barriers to mainstream employment.
The new movement also gave voice to people with disabilities, hidden from history since 1945. People with learning difficulties or mental problems, people with heart disease or rheumatoid arthritis demanded full inclusion in society. Much was achieved, but the world of work is still largely closed to them. Even today, MENCAP reports that 90 percent of people with learning difficulties are economically inactive. Such organisations condemned Remploy as a 'ghetto' and demanded supported employment in mainstream businesses.
And what of people with sight loss? Traditionally they had their own system of sheltered workshops, run by local authorities and charities with state aid since about 1920. As globalisation swept away much UK manufacturing, these workshops also vanished. In 1970 they employed 3000 registered blind people (down from 6000 in 1951). Today they employ only about 500. Many more people with sight loss are employed, of course, in the mainstream economy, but they are, as it were, a 'blind elite'. Recent research has shown authoritatively that 66 percent of registered blind and partially sighted people are economically inactive - most for up to ten years. This is not to say that all of these need sheltered or supported employment. The recent performance of RNIB's 'trainee grade scheme' shows that many could find employment in the mainstream given initial training and work experience appropriate to their sight loss. Yet a large number, upward perhaps of 40,000, require longer term support and a degree of shelter if they are ever to enter the world of work. Any reform of Remploy, therefore, should take account of their needs.
It is important to acknowledge that Remploy has not stood still since the 1960s. In response to the changes outlined above, it diversified from manufacturing into other lines of production. It also began to support some of its workers to 'progress' to mainstream employment. Yet change was disappointingly slow. Numbers employed remained stubbornly low, about 10,000 altogether in factories and mainstream employment in 2000. The cost in subsidy per individual in a Remploy factory continued to rise and has reached an average of £20,000 per person per year. Government compares this with the average of £5,300 per person per year achieved byRemploy’s mainstreaming programme.
Accordingly in 2006 government asked the accountants , PricewaterhouseCoopers, to review the Remploy businesses and make recommendations for reduction of subsidy and increase of the numbers supported into mainstream employment. PWC presented a range of options and seemed to favour (without actually recommending) extensive closure of Remploy factories and concentration on mainstreaming.
Many who understood the problem were dismayed by this proposal. Merely closing Remploy might at best secure mainstream employment for about 5000 people in the Remploy work force. But that would still leave a massive number of people with disabilities needing support. Others doubted whether everyone could manage to progress. Some people would not make it into mainstream and needed 'special provision'.
Government responded to these questions and asked Remploy to bring forward 'a restructuring plan to modernise the business to support substantially larger numbers of disabled people into work'. Accordingly, on 22 May, Mr. Hutton listed Remploy's five core proposals:
Taken by themselves these proposals would not have raised more than one cheer from RNIB. What deserves at least two is the acknowledgment by Mr. Hutton in his statement that,
'Reform of Remploy is about extending opportunity to disabled people. It is about the fundamental principle that disabled people should have the opportunity to work in mainstream employment, but that a sheltered environment should also be provided where that is the best option.'
These words perhaps contain the seed of a supported employment system that could be of benefit to blind and partially sighted people with complex needs. In our report, The Employment Continuum (2003), we argued for the creation of 'centres for supported employment' in every region. For people with complex needs, job seeking is like 'climbing Everest'. They need a 'base camp' where they can gain confidence, acquire relevant skills and move on. At a meeting on 4 June, the CEO of Remploy, Mr. Bob Warner, told the seven charities, including RNIB, that he had read The Employment Continuum and responded to a good deal of its thinking.
What would the final Remploy proposals have to contain to induce RNIB to offer unqualified support: They would certainly have to cover the following:
These supportive measures are a litmus test of Remploy's commitment to its own 'vision': 'To enable thousands of disabled people, people with a health condition and those who face complex barriers … to gain sustainable and rewarding employment - by giving them the specialist support they need.'
The vision goes on to say: 'We believe that work is a key element of independent living and that everyone has skills and abilities.' RNIB can welcome that most warmly. It cannot be realised overnight but, given appropriate resources, the new Remploy could make a good beginning. Last year Remploy supported over one hundred people with sight loss into mainstream employment. That compares favourably with any provider in the UK. With its vision and enhanced resources, a new Remploy would be well positioned to build the employment continuum which RNIB and its partners described for the first time in 2003.