Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:21:48.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of the Disabled Persons Employment Quota and its Symbolic Significance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Helen Bolderson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores why some of the arrangements for the employment of disabled people are so resistant to change despite their evident shortcomings. From historical data it is argued that the negotiations which shaped the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944 were motivated by sectional concerns which were detrimental to the interests of disabled people but that the legislation subsequently became symbolic of deeply felt and widely shared values. The implications of this for current policy options are discussed. An attempt is made to show how an analysis of the relationships between motives, actions and values in the policy-formation process can help to explain why some policies are both more ineffective and more persistent than others.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 169 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See The Quota Scheme for the Employment of Disabled People: A Discussion Document, Manpower Services Commission, London, 1979.Google Scholar

2 Ibid. paras 68:1 and 68:3.

3 See Jordan, David, A New Employment Programme Wanted for Disabled People, Disability Alliance and Low Pay Unit, London, 1979Google Scholar; and Walker, Alan, ‘Quota for Disabled’, Letters, New Society, 14:6 (1979).Google Scholar

4 For a fuller account of this, see Bolderson, Helen, ‘Work Incapacity and Rehabilitation: Some Problems for Social Policy’, Papers for the Symposium on the Place of the Disabled Person in Modern Society, Ditchley Park, 1971.Google Scholar

5 The Quota Scheme for Disabled People: Consultative Document, Department of Employment, London, 1973, para. 120.Google Scholar

6 Report of the Inter-Departtnental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons (Tomlinson Report), Cmd 6415, HMSO, London, 1943.Google Scholar

7 The Rehabilitation and Training of Disabled Persons (Piercy Report), Cmd 9883, HMSO London, 1956.Google Scholar

8 Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons, para. 71(a).

9 Statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, 10 December 1975Google Scholar, Hansard, 902, cols 495–68.Google Scholar

10 DHSS and Department of Employment, ‘The Disabled Worker’, London, 1978.Google Scholar

11 Developing Employment and Training Services for Disabled People, Manpower Services Commission, London, 1978Google Scholar, Section 8.

12 The Quota Scheme for the Employment of Disabled People, paras 68:1–68:3. Surveys commissioned by the Manpower Services Commission for this report showed that although employers did not want stricter enforcement of the quota because of the inequities which might result there was nevertheless ‘a strong feeling that present legislation should be retained in order to remind employers of the needs faced by disabled people and to counter prejudice among less responsible employers’. Amongst disabled people there was ‘strong support for both the idea of special laws to help disabled people and that of a quota system’ – Manpower Services Commission, Summary of Survey of Employers Attitudes to the Employment of Disabled People, London, 1979Google Scholar, para. 13; and Manpower Services Commission, Summary of Survey of Attitudes of Disabled People to Employment Legislation, London, 1979Google Scholar, para. 10.

13 See Report from the Select Committee on Training and Employment of Disabled Ex-Servicemen, House of Commons Paper 170, HMSO, London, 1922Google Scholar, Appendix II.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid. Section VI.

16 SirHome, Robert, Memorandum to Cabinet, CP (Cabinet Paper) 3,013, 3 June 1921Google Scholar, Public Record Office (PRO) CAB 24:125.

17 Report from the Select Committee on Training and Employment of Disabled Ex-Servicemen, Section VII.

18 International Labour Organization, Employment of Disabled Men, Geneva, 1923.Google Scholar

19 Dr Wölz, Ibid. Minutes of the Second Sitting, 31 July 1923.

20 TUC Papers, 1937, Workmen's Compensation and Factories' Committee.

21 Interim and Final Reports of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Rehabilitation of Persons Injured by Accident, HMSO, London, 1937 and 1938.Google Scholar

22 BMA, Report of the Committee on Fractures, London, 1935.Google Scholar

23 ‘Rehabilitation and Industrial Injuries’, British Medical Journal, 18 December 1937Google Scholar, Supplement II, p. 368, paras 4–7.

24 See Hancock, G. W. and Gowing, M. N., British War Economy, United Kingdom History of the Second World War, HMSO, London, 1949, p. 284.Google Scholar

25 Bullock, Alan, The Life and Times of Ernest Bevin, Vol. 1, Heinemann, London, 1960, p. 603Google Scholar; and Bevin, Private Papers, Box 21, Churchill College, Cambridge.

26 Factory Welfare Advisory Board, seventh Meeting, 13 August 1940Google Scholar, PRO LAB 14:45.

27 The Times, Letters, 28 August 1940.Google Scholar

28 The Times, Letters, 31 August 1940.Google Scholar

29 Bevin, Ernest, draft memorandum, 1 February 1941Google Scholar, PRO LAB 20:2.

30 See for example Home Policy Committee (HPC) (41) 27, 4 February 1941; HPC (41) 28, 24 February 1941; and HPC (41) 35, 25 February 1941 – PRO CAB 75:12.

31 Minister of Labour, Memorandum to the Lord President's Committee, LP (41) 182, 4 November 1941, PRO CAB 71:5.Google Scholar

32 Ibid.

33 Hansard, 377, 22 January 1942, col. 391.Google Scholar

34 FWB (Factory Welfare Board) (43) 1, 12 January 1943, PRO LAB 14:429.Google Scholar

35 See for example Usdane, W. M., ‘Remploy Limited: A Study in the Employment of the Severely Disabled Individual’, Rehabilitation, 04–06 1970, 23–30Google Scholar; and Department of Employment, Sheltered Employment for Disabled People, discussion paper, London, 1973, pp. 24–5.Google Scholar

36 Report of the Inter-Departtnental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons, para. 9.

37 See for example Department of Health for Scotland, Seventh Report on Incapacitating Sickness in the Insured Population of Scotland, 1.7.36–30.6.37, HMSO, Edinburgh, 1939, ch. VI.Google Scholar

38 SirWatson, John Forbes, letter to Sir Thomas Phillips at the Ministry of Labour and National Service, 29 July 1943Google Scholar, PRO LAB 20:91.

39 The TUC and the British Employers Confederation met together on 6 July 1943 and 24 August 1943 and then met with government representatives on 15 September 1943 and 12 October 1943 – PRO LAB 20:91.

40 ‘Note of a Discussion with Representatives of the BEC and TUC on 15.9.43, on the Tomlinson Committee Report and the Draft Proposals for a Bill based on that Report’ PRO LAB 20:91.

41 Hansard, 395, 10 December 1943, col. 1,299.Google Scholar

42 Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill, Clause 7(i).

43 Statutory Rules and Orders (1945), no. 938.

44 Statutory Rules and Orders (1945), no. 1,750. (The disqualification from entry into the register of mentally ill patients was revoked in 1959.)

45 Statutory Rules and Orders (1948), no. 1,258.

46 Rein, Martin, Social Science and Public Policy, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1976, pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

47 de Leon, Peter, ‘A Theory of Policy Termination’, in May, Judith V. and Wlldavsky, Aaron B. (eds), The Policy Cycle, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1978, p. 238.Google Scholar

48 Rein, op. cit.

49 See de Leon, op. cit.