Women and Equalities Committee
Wednesday 2nd September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:22
14:22
14:22
14:22
14:23
Christine Jardine
-
-
Christine Jardine
Thank you. Well, if we could start by looking at flexible working and its potential impact on the disability employment gap. Gap. And if I could start with you, Professor Chung, to what extent could strengthen the policies on access to flexible working arrangements, increase employment opportunities for disabled people, and narrow the disability employment gap, do you think?
14:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes. I mean, we know that I think there's been some kind of debate around like the gap that there is in terms of disability. Obviously, disability definitions are different depending on how you define it and how people identify. But I think it's really important to look into. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the studies that we conducted, which is quite recent, very work in progress. So you're the first people to get to hear about it, but also kind of draw from some of the other studies I conducted using longitudinal panel data, which really tease out the causality of some of these aspects from mothers.
So mothers are disabled, workers are very similar in the sense that they have caring responsibilities. Mothers for someone other than themselves, disabled workers themselves. And when we looked at the UK household panel, we found that across time, when women have children, they drop out of the labour market or move part time. And with access to flexible working, that likelihood significantly reduces. So likelihood of going into part time reduces by half with access to flexible working.
Now, what we've also found in the study with Zoe from UCL, professor McMahon and myself, we've also did that with disabled workers, but doing it all the way around. So whether disability, disabled workers, access to working and use of flexible working can reduce their likelihood of dropping out of the labour market. And what we find is, in fact, flexibility at work may be remote working, flexible schedules, term time, part time all helps to reduce their likelihood of dropping out of the labour market.
But what is more important? I think one of the things that we have to take into consideration is how flexible working can also help workers to not be disabled. So we're talking about wellbeing outcomes. But also, again, another recent study that I conducted with Constance Bofors at Inserm in France. We found that again using UK household panel data, when people go into health shocks, we're talking stroke, heart attacks or other kind of major health shocks.
Obviously, people come out of employment. They work fewer hours, but also they become disabled and end up with long term illnesses. And what we find the efficacy there is that when people have flexible working, they're less likely to drop out of the labour market, but they're also less likely to become disabled. If you want long term illness. So flexible working not only helps disabled workers to stay in employment or maybe access employment, but they also help workers who are potentially might be disabled to not be disabled if you want.
So there is that kind of dual process that we have to consider. Obviously, I mean, this is something that we might go into a bit later, but the access to flexible working is still quite limited for disabled workers. Now, if you were to control for occupation and sector and all sorts of education, region, etc., that likelihood is actually, you know, there's almost no difference. But once we take those away, because we know that disabled workers are not in the same occupations, nor do they have same working hours or the same opportunities in the labour market as able bodied workers, that you do see that the likelihood of access is actually lower, and there is a real gap in that that we need to address.
So mothers are disabled, workers are very similar in the sense that they have caring responsibilities. Mothers for someone other than themselves, disabled workers themselves. And when we looked at the UK household panel, we found that across time, when women have children, they drop out of the labour market or move part time. And with access to flexible working, that likelihood significantly reduces. So likelihood of going into part time reduces by half with access to flexible working.
Now, what we've also found in the study with Zoe from UCL, professor McMahon and myself, we've also did that with disabled workers, but doing it all the way around. So whether disability, disabled workers, access to working and use of flexible working can reduce their likelihood of dropping out of the labour market. And what we find is, in fact, flexibility at work may be remote working, flexible schedules, term time, part time all helps to reduce their likelihood of dropping out of the labour market.
But what is more important? I think one of the things that we have to take into consideration is how flexible working can also help workers to not be disabled. So we're talking about wellbeing outcomes. But also, again, another recent study that I conducted with Constance Bofors at Inserm in France. We found that again using UK household panel data, when people go into health shocks, we're talking stroke, heart attacks or other kind of major health shocks.
Obviously, people come out of employment. They work fewer hours, but also they become disabled and end up with long term illnesses. And what we find the efficacy there is that when people have flexible working, they're less likely to drop out of the labour market, but they're also less likely to become disabled. If you want long term illness. So flexible working not only helps disabled workers to stay in employment or maybe access employment, but they also help workers who are potentially might be disabled to not be disabled if you want.
So there is that kind of dual process that we have to consider. Obviously, I mean, this is something that we might go into a bit later, but the access to flexible working is still quite limited for disabled workers. Now, if you were to control for occupation and sector and all sorts of education, region, etc., that likelihood is actually, you know, there's almost no difference. But once we take those away, because we know that disabled workers are not in the same occupations, nor do they have same working hours or the same opportunities in the labour market as able bodied workers, that you do see that the likelihood of access is actually lower, and there is a real gap in that that we need to address.
14:26
14:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, this is we have to kind of look into it a bit closer in terms of whether there has been. So one of the things that we did find for at least ethnic minority workers versus white workers, is that there was a bigger gap in the access and use of working from home pre-pandemic. And that gap has declined somewhat, with the exception of certain groups of workers. So we need to look a little bit closely for the disabled workers, but we could potentially see probably when we don't take into occupation and sectors into account, that disabled workers will have fewer access.
And it's because remote working, because of the type of work that is being done, that is mostly knowledge work that a lot of people, disabled workers, just don't have access to those types of jobs. And so even so, if we were to talk about like the sectors that disabled workers are overrepresented in or occupations, which is never the top, let's say the four top four occupations, which is where most of the remote and hybrid working usually is.
But I think it's very important to, when we have this discussion to see what's happening in other countries. One thing first, to say that remote and hybrid working is obviously just one type of flexible working. There's a whole range of different things. And one of the, one of the possibly one of the most policies that have the highest efficacies in terms of supporting workers is also flexible schedules, but also term time work, part time working.
And what you see is in a lot of northern European countries, you see a much higher prevalence of flexible working in these countries. And that is not just because the type of jobs that they do are more likely to have flexibility. It is more because of their collective bargaining processes, the workers power, their negotiation power unions being able to negotiate some of these flexibilities for the collective rather than individual, which, you know, we could go into in terms of the how important it is to have this as a universal collective thing rather than an ideal where you and I make a little deal, where I get to work flexibly, but also the fact that there is a huge amount of trust in workers to be able to do their jobs.
And one of the reasons why we anticipate, again, drawing from our work from mothers, but also ethnic minority workers, is that employers inevitably will have and maybe unconscious bias towards disabled workers. So a bit of a distrust as to whether they will be able to, you know, efficiently carry out their work when they are working flexibly. And that's probably one of the big reasons. And I think we've heard from, you know, researchers who are doing a lot of the qualitative work on this.
One of the barriers in having really real access to flexible work. And despite the legislative changes that we've seen.
And it's because remote working, because of the type of work that is being done, that is mostly knowledge work that a lot of people, disabled workers, just don't have access to those types of jobs. And so even so, if we were to talk about like the sectors that disabled workers are overrepresented in or occupations, which is never the top, let's say the four top four occupations, which is where most of the remote and hybrid working usually is.
But I think it's very important to, when we have this discussion to see what's happening in other countries. One thing first, to say that remote and hybrid working is obviously just one type of flexible working. There's a whole range of different things. And one of the, one of the possibly one of the most policies that have the highest efficacies in terms of supporting workers is also flexible schedules, but also term time work, part time working.
And what you see is in a lot of northern European countries, you see a much higher prevalence of flexible working in these countries. And that is not just because the type of jobs that they do are more likely to have flexibility. It is more because of their collective bargaining processes, the workers power, their negotiation power unions being able to negotiate some of these flexibilities for the collective rather than individual, which, you know, we could go into in terms of the how important it is to have this as a universal collective thing rather than an ideal where you and I make a little deal, where I get to work flexibly, but also the fact that there is a huge amount of trust in workers to be able to do their jobs.
And one of the reasons why we anticipate, again, drawing from our work from mothers, but also ethnic minority workers, is that employers inevitably will have and maybe unconscious bias towards disabled workers. So a bit of a distrust as to whether they will be able to, you know, efficiently carry out their work when they are working flexibly. And that's probably one of the big reasons. And I think we've heard from, you know, researchers who are doing a lot of the qualitative work on this.
One of the barriers in having really real access to flexible work. And despite the legislative changes that we've seen.
14:29
14:29
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
Are you asking in particular about remote and hybrid? And I led the inclusive Remote and Hybrid Working study funded by the Nuffield Foundation, and we surveyed over 1200 disabled remote and hybrid workers, and only 919 of the 1200 said that they wanted to go back to the office full time, because most of them had said that being able to work remotely in a hybrid way had had a huge impact, a positive impact on their their health and wellbeing.
The their work life balance, their productivity, teamwork, communication at work and so on. And to the degree that 72% said that if they had been able to work remotely or in a hybrid way in their previous job, they could have kept it. So we see disabled people, particularly before the pandemic, were getting pushed out of the labour market because they couldn't work in a remote or hybrid way. 85% said access to remote and hybrid would be essential or very important if they were looking for a new job, and 79% just wouldn't look for a job that didn't have remote option.
So we can see that there's a real demand for remote and hybrid working, but unfortunately, we've seen a real drop in those in those vacancies. So we analysed job vacancy data from Adzuna, and we found that since the pandemic, the availability of fully remote remote roles has halved, and the rapid growth in hybrid roles we saw has stalled. And we've got these major regional inequities in access to hybrid roles, where the lowest rates are in the areas of highest needs are the areas with the highest rates of health related inactivity.
So you've got this ridiculous situation at the moment where you've got high, high demand and low availability. And so the government, the industrial strategy, would be helpful here because it could work to increase the stock of flexible, flexible roles or different types of flexible roles. But my argument is that they need to focus on, particularly on groups and regions where the demand and need is greater. So for example, northern England, Scotland and Wales have got larger disability employment gaps, if you look at it by region than the rest of the UK SMEs, disabled people have less access to flexible working and SMEs than they do in large organisations.
And of course, most people are employed in SMEs , and disabled people with few or no qualifications have got less access to remote, flexible working than those with a degree. So there are specific areas of focus that the industrial strategy can focus on.
The their work life balance, their productivity, teamwork, communication at work and so on. And to the degree that 72% said that if they had been able to work remotely or in a hybrid way in their previous job, they could have kept it. So we see disabled people, particularly before the pandemic, were getting pushed out of the labour market because they couldn't work in a remote or hybrid way. 85% said access to remote and hybrid would be essential or very important if they were looking for a new job, and 79% just wouldn't look for a job that didn't have remote option.
So we can see that there's a real demand for remote and hybrid working, but unfortunately, we've seen a real drop in those in those vacancies. So we analysed job vacancy data from Adzuna, and we found that since the pandemic, the availability of fully remote remote roles has halved, and the rapid growth in hybrid roles we saw has stalled. And we've got these major regional inequities in access to hybrid roles, where the lowest rates are in the areas of highest needs are the areas with the highest rates of health related inactivity.
So you've got this ridiculous situation at the moment where you've got high, high demand and low availability. And so the government, the industrial strategy, would be helpful here because it could work to increase the stock of flexible, flexible roles or different types of flexible roles. But my argument is that they need to focus on, particularly on groups and regions where the demand and need is greater. So for example, northern England, Scotland and Wales have got larger disability employment gaps, if you look at it by region than the rest of the UK SMEs, disabled people have less access to flexible working and SMEs than they do in large organisations.
And of course, most people are employed in SMEs , and disabled people with few or no qualifications have got less access to remote, flexible working than those with a degree. So there are specific areas of focus that the industrial strategy can focus on.
14:32
14:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
If I may just very briefly just just to note that, and I think Paul is kind of alluded to elements of this, but part of the reason why it hasn't impacted on the employment gap is because of the types of arrangements that are available. And hybrid work is much more common than fully remote work. Fully remote work is much more common in SMEs. And as Paul has said, SMEs are less likely to offer flexible working, less likely to employ disabled people for a reason, a number of reasons, a number of factors.
And so part of the the drivers of this is that is , the ways in which organisations are offering these arrangements currently. And also the pushback that's been experienced with, you know, back to office calls and those kind of things that we've heard about in the and the wider media that have limited expansion or continued use of these arrangements in some organisations.
And so part of the the drivers of this is that is , the ways in which organisations are offering these arrangements currently. And also the pushback that's been experienced with, you know, back to office calls and those kind of things that we've heard about in the and the wider media that have limited expansion or continued use of these arrangements in some organisations.
14:34
14:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
thing when we were we did a project for the SSC during lockdown called Work After Lockdown, which was kind of following organisations through. And in that situation where it was a survival thing for organisations that they had to make remote work effectively. Then this . They said that this particularly did benefit parents of young children, disabled workers, and they were much more coming to them to ask if they could have part time hours extended to to full time hours, because people weren't just working remotely, they were working flexibly around hours variation as well.
And once that's possible, then it's possible to to increase your hours.
And once that's possible, then it's possible to to increase your hours.
14:35
14:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
absolutely. So so there's several different linked perceptions that a lot of employers have or, you know, members of organisations may have that limit employment rates among disabled people, limit employment opportunities. So in no particular order, but they are linked costs of accommodation or perceptions around the cost of accommodation. Now, evidence actually shows that most reasonable adjustments, most accommodations can come in at low cost or potentially even no cost. In some cases, they're about just having positive conversations and and altering work routines.
Also, support from government schemes like access to work can address some of those concerns around costs of accommodation. But awareness around those schemes and other issues around the use of those types of schemes currently limit overall use. And therefore, you know, this continued perception around the costs of accommodating disabled people persists. The second is around risks and reliability. So there's a perception that disabled people present more risk to the organisation, risks of absence, risks of costs of covering posts, those types of things.
And again, evidence suggests that actually, in many cases, disabled people have lower rates of absence owing to existing levels of resilience in managing their disability. Evidence also points to the fact that disabled people often overcompensate, and so actually more likely to want to show commitment to their organisation through, in some cases, working through illness. The next one is around productivity. So there's a perception that disabled people are less productive, in part owing to some of those concerns around risk and reliability.
Evidence doesn't align with that , though. And important in this in this point in particular, is is the. Application of reasonable adjustments can absolutely offset any concerns around productivity. So most of those productivity concerns come from a place of a lack of awareness and assumptions. That performance of disabled people reflects their disability and the individual, rather than that they haven't been accommodated within the organisation to work to their best.
And then finally, organisational awareness and culture. So many organisations and many organisation leaders lack awareness of disability, including the limited perception of what disability actually is. So in a recent study I've led called AI empowered, which is mainly focused on the implications of AI and automation technologies for disabled people's working lives, but has explored flexibility within that. We we had quite candid conversations with employers who, when we approached them to, to work with us and performing case studies, came back to us and said, oh, we don't employ any disabled people.
No one in a wheelchair could work in this organisation. And that very limited understanding, that very limited perception of disability has a real impact in terms of employment opportunities for disabled people and continued experiences of work. Lack of awareness of government support mechanisms also plays into this piece. And that's an area where government could actually, you know, make real impact by doing more. There's also we we really gathered quite a bit of evidence that implicated, you know, a lack of willingness to actually acknowledge and recognize disability in some cases, partly because it was seen as being difficult to deal with.
So organisations or organisation representatives in some cases, but again, quite candid that that they would avoid employing disabled people because they, they didn't think that, you know, they would contribute to the organisation or that they felt that their disability would be problematic in some way. And again, all of these are linked to these underlying perceptions and lack of understanding. And then finally around cultures. So cultures built around ideal full time, physically present workers, perpetuating society.
We're still we're still very much have that dominant understanding kind of image of what a worker, an ideal worker looks like or should be in terms of their offer to the organisation and what that means in terms of their commitment to the organisation. And so that needs to be addressed. We need to continue to educate employers, educate people more generally to understand different ways of working and the benefits of different ways of working for everyone. So the mutual gains that can be had for employer and employee.
And within all of this, I think one of the key underlying outcomes is that the application of reasonable adjustments can address all of these things. And some of them are, you know, things that don't hold anyway. But even where there is evidence that productivity, for example, might be impacted if people don't get accommodations in place when those accommodations are in place, then those those perceptions don't hold anymore. So in all cases, I think there's good evidence to show that that these these perceptions are unjust and that it is actively discriminated against disabled people in, in gaining employment opportunities and having positive experiences and work.
Also, support from government schemes like access to work can address some of those concerns around costs of accommodation. But awareness around those schemes and other issues around the use of those types of schemes currently limit overall use. And therefore, you know, this continued perception around the costs of accommodating disabled people persists. The second is around risks and reliability. So there's a perception that disabled people present more risk to the organisation, risks of absence, risks of costs of covering posts, those types of things.
And again, evidence suggests that actually, in many cases, disabled people have lower rates of absence owing to existing levels of resilience in managing their disability. Evidence also points to the fact that disabled people often overcompensate, and so actually more likely to want to show commitment to their organisation through, in some cases, working through illness. The next one is around productivity. So there's a perception that disabled people are less productive, in part owing to some of those concerns around risk and reliability.
Evidence doesn't align with that , though. And important in this in this point in particular, is is the. Application of reasonable adjustments can absolutely offset any concerns around productivity. So most of those productivity concerns come from a place of a lack of awareness and assumptions. That performance of disabled people reflects their disability and the individual, rather than that they haven't been accommodated within the organisation to work to their best.
And then finally, organisational awareness and culture. So many organisations and many organisation leaders lack awareness of disability, including the limited perception of what disability actually is. So in a recent study I've led called AI empowered, which is mainly focused on the implications of AI and automation technologies for disabled people's working lives, but has explored flexibility within that. We we had quite candid conversations with employers who, when we approached them to, to work with us and performing case studies, came back to us and said, oh, we don't employ any disabled people.
No one in a wheelchair could work in this organisation. And that very limited understanding, that very limited perception of disability has a real impact in terms of employment opportunities for disabled people and continued experiences of work. Lack of awareness of government support mechanisms also plays into this piece. And that's an area where government could actually, you know, make real impact by doing more. There's also we we really gathered quite a bit of evidence that implicated, you know, a lack of willingness to actually acknowledge and recognize disability in some cases, partly because it was seen as being difficult to deal with.
So organisations or organisation representatives in some cases, but again, quite candid that that they would avoid employing disabled people because they, they didn't think that, you know, they would contribute to the organisation or that they felt that their disability would be problematic in some way. And again, all of these are linked to these underlying perceptions and lack of understanding. And then finally around cultures. So cultures built around ideal full time, physically present workers, perpetuating society.
We're still we're still very much have that dominant understanding kind of image of what a worker, an ideal worker looks like or should be in terms of their offer to the organisation and what that means in terms of their commitment to the organisation. And so that needs to be addressed. We need to continue to educate employers, educate people more generally to understand different ways of working and the benefits of different ways of working for everyone. So the mutual gains that can be had for employer and employee.
And within all of this, I think one of the key underlying outcomes is that the application of reasonable adjustments can address all of these things. And some of them are, you know, things that don't hold anyway. But even where there is evidence that productivity, for example, might be impacted if people don't get accommodations in place when those accommodations are in place, then those those perceptions don't hold anymore. So in all cases, I think there's good evidence to show that that these these perceptions are unjust and that it is actively discriminated against disabled people in, in gaining employment opportunities and having positive experiences and work.
14:46
Christine Jardine
-
-
Christine Jardine
You talked about the misperceptions here. So are there actually business benefits of designing jobs in such a way that disabled people can thrive in them? And you talked about the lack of government, aware the lack of awareness of government support. So if there are benefits to designing jobs in a certain way, is there something the government can do to promote those benefits, to encourage them to be designed, if you like?
14:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, absolutely. So, I mean, we refer to in our study as inclusive design principles. So thinking about jobs in terms of how you get the most from all talent. And so in a kind of broader sense, how do we get the most from the talent we have, the talent pool that we want to access. And so job design that accounts for the tasks that are present in the job, the resources that are needed to complete that, to complete those tasks, but also recognition of the benefits of personalization and flexibility.
So tailoring the tasks and tailoring the job to the individual that you want to complete it and that that will generate the best outcomes because it allows people to work in the way that they work best. You know, some people may need breaks because of chronic health conditions. That may mean they and encounter physical pain throughout the working day. And so it seems unreasonable to expect someone to work a set routine of work that may fit someone else's preferences when when it doesn't work for them.
And so designing those kind of principles into jobs is essential. And in terms of the role of government in this, so we can look at existing practices around things like flexible working arrangements more broadly, things like Acas do codes of practice. Case studies are really important to provide good practice examples. So real life examples that people can see and tangible evidence of how this can be done practically, how we can make this work.
And I think one of the key points I wanted to make here is that it's essential to get employers on board, not just mandate things because because people will find ways around things. If if it's mandated and they don't feel that they've been part of the conversation and that they've come on board with this change. And so getting employers in the right mindset to want to employ disabled people to see the benefits of that diversity, that experience, that lived experience they bring to the organization is going to generate the best mutual benefits again for everyone.
So tailoring the tasks and tailoring the job to the individual that you want to complete it and that that will generate the best outcomes because it allows people to work in the way that they work best. You know, some people may need breaks because of chronic health conditions. That may mean they and encounter physical pain throughout the working day. And so it seems unreasonable to expect someone to work a set routine of work that may fit someone else's preferences when when it doesn't work for them.
And so designing those kind of principles into jobs is essential. And in terms of the role of government in this, so we can look at existing practices around things like flexible working arrangements more broadly, things like Acas do codes of practice. Case studies are really important to provide good practice examples. So real life examples that people can see and tangible evidence of how this can be done practically, how we can make this work.
And I think one of the key points I wanted to make here is that it's essential to get employers on board, not just mandate things because because people will find ways around things. If if it's mandated and they don't feel that they've been part of the conversation and that they've come on board with this change. And so getting employers in the right mindset to want to employ disabled people to see the benefits of that diversity, that experience, that lived experience they bring to the organization is going to generate the best mutual benefits again for everyone.
14:51
14:51
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
And Natalie agree. So there's a huge wealth of international evidence that flexible working is is has got benefits for individuals and organisations. And in fact the autonomy and control literature goes back to the 1970s. I was reading it when I first started out in the 1990s. So it's it's there. And, you know, in our study that people were saying that if I can work remotely in a hybrid way, I can work around my symptoms, I can rest in between jobs.
And so the sickness absence was going down, the productivity was going up and the job retention was, was, was supported. And so there's very tangible benefits to individuals and employers in the study that we interviewed who'd implemented remote and hybrid working, said the same thing, that staff well-being had improved, productivity had either improved or at least maintained, and they could recruit better and retain staff. And there's loads of literature as well on the positive benefits for individuals and organisations.
There are other forms of flexibility, like part time work and so on. There was a Scottish survey of flexible working, I think, conducted last year, and 85% of employers had only positive things to say about it. But unfortunately, Work Foundation and Massage did some research this year, and we found that only 44% of employers are designing jobs to to promote health, including through flexible working. So there needs to be much more done in that space.
And I completely agree with what's been said. None of this none of this is going to change unless the evidence base is synthesized and simplified and brought together with with detailed, you know, economic analysis of the cost benefits in terms of productivity, turnover, retention, recruitment, and enhanced reputation. And I'm sure there's, you know, academics on this table would be more than willing to do that job because nothing's going to change until employers are on board.
And to get employers on board, they need to understand, you know, the implications for the bottom line. That's what it boils down to. And as Dan said, we need they need detailed case studies by organizational sector, by organizational size, and also, I'd say by impairment and condition types. So if they've got particular members of staff with particular conditions or impairments, they can actually think, okay, these are the kinds of things I can do in my sector, in my organizational science for this particular person.
And so the sickness absence was going down, the productivity was going up and the job retention was, was, was supported. And so there's very tangible benefits to individuals and employers in the study that we interviewed who'd implemented remote and hybrid working, said the same thing, that staff well-being had improved, productivity had either improved or at least maintained, and they could recruit better and retain staff. And there's loads of literature as well on the positive benefits for individuals and organisations.
There are other forms of flexibility, like part time work and so on. There was a Scottish survey of flexible working, I think, conducted last year, and 85% of employers had only positive things to say about it. But unfortunately, Work Foundation and Massage did some research this year, and we found that only 44% of employers are designing jobs to to promote health, including through flexible working. So there needs to be much more done in that space.
And I completely agree with what's been said. None of this none of this is going to change unless the evidence base is synthesized and simplified and brought together with with detailed, you know, economic analysis of the cost benefits in terms of productivity, turnover, retention, recruitment, and enhanced reputation. And I'm sure there's, you know, academics on this table would be more than willing to do that job because nothing's going to change until employers are on board.
And to get employers on board, they need to understand, you know, the implications for the bottom line. That's what it boils down to. And as Dan said, we need they need detailed case studies by organizational sector, by organizational size, and also, I'd say by impairment and condition types. So if they've got particular members of staff with particular conditions or impairments, they can actually think, okay, these are the kinds of things I can do in my sector, in my organizational science for this particular person.
14:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So may I just add to that? Yeah. Well, first of all, I'll be happy to do the return on investment on flexible working, which has been done in the the US a bit in terms of the cost also of return to office mandates. But beyond that. So one of the things I want to highlight is that I think one of the reasons why sometimes reasonable adjustments don't work is because people don't want to ask for it.
And as I said, this individual deals are never really good because it tingles you out and it just makes you look like someone who can't devote to work and be the ideal worker that Daniel talked about. So it's really crucial to talk about these designing jobs for everyone. And one of the things I really want to highlight is when you design jobs that are reasonably adjusted and inclusive for disabled workers, it is beneficial for mothers, it is beneficial for fathers, it's beneficial for anyone with any caring responsibility of which we all have.
May it be for ourselves or for others, and for people like myself and others who will have long term fluctuating illnesses. Because that's one thing for certain, is that most of us will have some sort of illnesses that we will need some caring for. So this is a design principle. This is not for disabled worker. It is inclusive of disabled workers, but not only and only when you start talking about it like that, can this be a policy that's meaningful, which without discriminating or stigmatizing disabled workers or other targeted groups? Because some of the studies that we collected recently highlights that once you start policies for specific groups and those specific groups are traditionally seen as a little bit like unproductive or not meeting the ideal worker.
Anyone who uses that policy will face career consequences. So it's really important to have these policies as a broad universal policies for everyone when it's implemented. Although, as Daniel said, like you do need some sort of adjustment for specific obviously purposes. And just highlighting what the government can do is actually foremost, it's be the flexible employer. The government has been really innovative and a front runner, a pioneer, if I may, as being the flexible employer pre-pandemic, and some of the work that we carried out with the Trade Union Congress, we have had so many government workers who name nameless anonymous, but still have really highlighted how important it was for them to manage their health and mental health issues through a lot of these kind of policies working for the government.
And we know that this has been clawed back somewhat in recent years, not because, you know, government officials or civil servants were unproductive, but just because of political kind of ideas and debates around these issues. And, you know, feeling a little bit kind of defensive about the implementations of these policies. So foremost, I think we have to be much more, let's say, brave if you want, or be the front runner in providing these policies for the worker, because as what we call that, you have a kind of way of role modeling for other employers to follow and also be the competitive employer so that you have an opportunity for these workers to be in.
But also you could use these kind of policies for tendering processes. You know, we use Athena Swan as a kind of a mechanism to highlight certain companies who could, you know, provide government tenders. And you could use the same thing in terms of flexible working or other types of adjustments for workers providing SMEs, especially with the consultation or evidence or just guidelines as to because a lot of companies want to do it and they actually do it informally, they won't be picked up in our kind of survey data, but there's a lot of informal work that is being done in SMEs.
But it's just sometimes they just don't know what to do. But also it's finally, it's about providing workers, all workers, including disabled workers with more rights and maybe speeding up the tribunal processes or increasing kind of rights for these things, or just enhancing collective bargaining processes. May it be through unions or other workers organizations, but just to enhance that, if it needs to be an ideal, like one individual deal, that workers are put in a ground firm standing, that they're not in a very kind of weak negotiation power when asking for these things.
And as I said, this individual deals are never really good because it tingles you out and it just makes you look like someone who can't devote to work and be the ideal worker that Daniel talked about. So it's really crucial to talk about these designing jobs for everyone. And one of the things I really want to highlight is when you design jobs that are reasonably adjusted and inclusive for disabled workers, it is beneficial for mothers, it is beneficial for fathers, it's beneficial for anyone with any caring responsibility of which we all have.
May it be for ourselves or for others, and for people like myself and others who will have long term fluctuating illnesses. Because that's one thing for certain, is that most of us will have some sort of illnesses that we will need some caring for. So this is a design principle. This is not for disabled worker. It is inclusive of disabled workers, but not only and only when you start talking about it like that, can this be a policy that's meaningful, which without discriminating or stigmatizing disabled workers or other targeted groups? Because some of the studies that we collected recently highlights that once you start policies for specific groups and those specific groups are traditionally seen as a little bit like unproductive or not meeting the ideal worker.
Anyone who uses that policy will face career consequences. So it's really important to have these policies as a broad universal policies for everyone when it's implemented. Although, as Daniel said, like you do need some sort of adjustment for specific obviously purposes. And just highlighting what the government can do is actually foremost, it's be the flexible employer. The government has been really innovative and a front runner, a pioneer, if I may, as being the flexible employer pre-pandemic, and some of the work that we carried out with the Trade Union Congress, we have had so many government workers who name nameless anonymous, but still have really highlighted how important it was for them to manage their health and mental health issues through a lot of these kind of policies working for the government.
And we know that this has been clawed back somewhat in recent years, not because, you know, government officials or civil servants were unproductive, but just because of political kind of ideas and debates around these issues. And, you know, feeling a little bit kind of defensive about the implementations of these policies. So foremost, I think we have to be much more, let's say, brave if you want, or be the front runner in providing these policies for the worker, because as what we call that, you have a kind of way of role modeling for other employers to follow and also be the competitive employer so that you have an opportunity for these workers to be in.
But also you could use these kind of policies for tendering processes. You know, we use Athena Swan as a kind of a mechanism to highlight certain companies who could, you know, provide government tenders. And you could use the same thing in terms of flexible working or other types of adjustments for workers providing SMEs, especially with the consultation or evidence or just guidelines as to because a lot of companies want to do it and they actually do it informally, they won't be picked up in our kind of survey data, but there's a lot of informal work that is being done in SMEs.
But it's just sometimes they just don't know what to do. But also it's finally, it's about providing workers, all workers, including disabled workers with more rights and maybe speeding up the tribunal processes or increasing kind of rights for these things, or just enhancing collective bargaining processes. May it be through unions or other workers organizations, but just to enhance that, if it needs to be an ideal, like one individual deal, that workers are put in a ground firm standing, that they're not in a very kind of weak negotiation power when asking for these things.
15:00
15:00
Nia Griffith
-
-
Nia Griffith
Thank you very much indeed, and nice to see you all. I'd like to just pick up on something that Doctor Paula Holland has made reference to and others as well. And that's this idea of calling on a duty for employers actually to put upfront in adverts that there are opportunities for flexible working. And I just wondered if you could explain what you think the impact of that would actually be.
15:00
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
Definitely. So the revisions to the Employment Rights Act are positive, but and they'll make it easier for people to access flexible roles if they're already working right. So from the first day of employment, but that doesn't help job seekers and lots of disabled people need a guarantee that they can work flexibly before they'll even apply, never mind, you know, take on the job. So we think that a legal duty for employers to actually make clear in job adverts, whether flexible working arrangements are are possible and which types and importantly, whether they're not, you know, actually saying this is I'm sorry, this is an inflexible job, for example, would actually increase the stock of available flexible roles.
And interestingly, I discovered this week a trial conducted by the Government Equalities Office. They worked with the jobs job website. Indeed. And they found that when employers were placing online adverts, if they were prompted with this template to choose from a range of flexible options, it increased the chances of them advertising that role flexibly by 20%. So I think a lot of employers are probably willing to offer flexible roles, but maybe they haven't thought about it and they need prompting and support to do so.
And so if we had really clear advertising, it would help disabled people decide whether they want to apply for a job. But critically, things like work well, connect to work, Jobcentre plus, you know, it would help with job job matching as well. And as I said, as I said before about the Adzuna data, the, you know, where I said that demand is, is, is high, but the stock of available jobs is low. Time wise said that only a third of jobs currently advertised as remote.
And the Scottish study that I mentioned before, a third of jobseekers had actually declined a role because they discovered that flexible wasn't available. So it is a real deterrent. But I completely agree that government needs to lead by example. We found that the DWP find a job advert website. There was only 3.8% of jobs advertises remote or hybrid. So again, employers aren't going to take any notice unless government does it first. And if I can just add one more thing definitely to the employment duty.
But let's be radical, right? So the disability disability employment gap has not changed in years and years. We've seen governments and initiatives come and go. How about considering whether all job vacancies are flexible by default, which would then require employers to actually opt out and say, no, this can't be offered and some jobs can't be flexible? You know, I understand that I'm not naive, but if we turned it on its head.
So rather than employees asking for it through the Employment Rights Act, if they were all default from the outset, and it was employers who had to take the onus and actually opt out and explain why this job isn't flexible, that would actually, I think, almost overnight, get employers thinking, oh, do you know what? We could offer flexi hours or we could offer hybrid for this. And I think the last point is that I think as well as, you know, organisations are going to be asked about disability pay gaps and so on, but actually adding a requirement that they report on the proportion of job vacancies that are flexible would also be quite helpful.
And interestingly, I discovered this week a trial conducted by the Government Equalities Office. They worked with the jobs job website. Indeed. And they found that when employers were placing online adverts, if they were prompted with this template to choose from a range of flexible options, it increased the chances of them advertising that role flexibly by 20%. So I think a lot of employers are probably willing to offer flexible roles, but maybe they haven't thought about it and they need prompting and support to do so.
And so if we had really clear advertising, it would help disabled people decide whether they want to apply for a job. But critically, things like work well, connect to work, Jobcentre plus, you know, it would help with job job matching as well. And as I said, as I said before about the Adzuna data, the, you know, where I said that demand is, is, is high, but the stock of available jobs is low. Time wise said that only a third of jobs currently advertised as remote.
And the Scottish study that I mentioned before, a third of jobseekers had actually declined a role because they discovered that flexible wasn't available. So it is a real deterrent. But I completely agree that government needs to lead by example. We found that the DWP find a job advert website. There was only 3.8% of jobs advertises remote or hybrid. So again, employers aren't going to take any notice unless government does it first. And if I can just add one more thing definitely to the employment duty.
But let's be radical, right? So the disability disability employment gap has not changed in years and years. We've seen governments and initiatives come and go. How about considering whether all job vacancies are flexible by default, which would then require employers to actually opt out and say, no, this can't be offered and some jobs can't be flexible? You know, I understand that I'm not naive, but if we turned it on its head.
So rather than employees asking for it through the Employment Rights Act, if they were all default from the outset, and it was employers who had to take the onus and actually opt out and explain why this job isn't flexible, that would actually, I think, almost overnight, get employers thinking, oh, do you know what? We could offer flexi hours or we could offer hybrid for this. And I think the last point is that I think as well as, you know, organisations are going to be asked about disability pay gaps and so on, but actually adding a requirement that they report on the proportion of job vacancies that are flexible would also be quite helpful.
15:01
Nia Griffith
-
-
Nia Griffith
If I can just ask a couple of follow up questions. I mean, do you think one of the results is this part of your thinking is that the onus is on the candidate to ask if they can have flexible working, and that's something you might be frightened of asking because you might think, oh, I can't say that in my first letter to them, because they'll just throw it away and I won't get an interview and it'll completely destroy my chance.
15:01
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
Research on, you know, and saying that there's flexibility, stigma, and there absolutely is. And so, you know, it's a competitive jobs market. You know, people aren't even getting to the recruitment process because employers are using AI to just, you know, so it's just ruined everything. So if you start saying, oh, you know, can I, can I have these arrangements even before you've got your foot through the door? So I think most people just accept what's offered.
And then once they've got the foot in the door, of course, the Employment Rights Act will then allow them to, from day one, ask, but people certainly aren't going to ask in advance because it might be kind of a black mark against them. So if employers have to make it clear these are the flexibilities or it is inflexible, let's call it what it is. This is inflexible role. It has to be, you know, 9 to 5 or, you know, whatever the shift is. And then people know where they stand.
And then once they've got the foot in the door, of course, the Employment Rights Act will then allow them to, from day one, ask, but people certainly aren't going to ask in advance because it might be kind of a black mark against them. So if employers have to make it clear these are the flexibilities or it is inflexible, let's call it what it is. This is inflexible role. It has to be, you know, 9 to 5 or, you know, whatever the shift is. And then people know where they stand.
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
One of the things we have seen in some of these. So we do have a like for example, just tell a work of a job. So we have an index which uses a whole range of different items, which is, you know, it's kind of knowledge base or you using technology, etc.. And, you know, in fact, the workable jobs and the currently provided jobs, there is a gap between that. And also, again, in terms of the larger flexibility, as I mentioned, it's really interesting to see it in that national comparative perspective to see how, especially the northern European countries and other countries have such a high level of flexible working, not just remote and hybrid working for flexible schedules and part time really have a higher proportion, even in sectors where we think flexibility isn't possible.
Maybe education, maybe kind of health and social care, you know, those sectors where in, in our, you know, in the UK where that flexibility isn't as big, you could see that it is possible. So, you know, there is that gap. And obviously, the other thing that we've used in our survey work arrangement and attitudes is that there's also a gap between what people want and what they're getting. And again, because even with the right to request, the right to request isn't as strong as we would like it to be.
Because, as Paula said, people, if you ask for it, you're just automatically assumed as, oh yeah, you're not a good worker, you're putting work a family issues beforehand or you're not prioritizing work. So it's a really delicate process and people don't ask for it or don't, you know, as they'd like a kind of cut a significant number of people, especially mothers, but also fathers are not getting it even if they're asked. So there's a huge gap that we could see.
So I
Maybe education, maybe kind of health and social care, you know, those sectors where in, in our, you know, in the UK where that flexibility isn't as big, you could see that it is possible. So, you know, there is that gap. And obviously, the other thing that we've used in our survey work arrangement and attitudes is that there's also a gap between what people want and what they're getting. And again, because even with the right to request, the right to request isn't as strong as we would like it to be.
Because, as Paula said, people, if you ask for it, you're just automatically assumed as, oh yeah, you're not a good worker, you're putting work a family issues beforehand or you're not prioritizing work. So it's a really delicate process and people don't ask for it or don't, you know, as they'd like a kind of cut a significant number of people, especially mothers, but also fathers are not getting it even if they're asked. So there's a huge gap that we could see.
So I
15:02
15:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Just a couple of things. I think just building on Paula's point that there's a massive benefit for for all parties to have an explicit statement of how a job is flexible or not, you know, and interestingly, we ran a survey in our study asking a similar question to Paul. This study around the proportion around whether disabled people would like or you find it useful to work remote or hybrid and got the same 85% from a completely different sample of 1400 people.
But interestingly, what that means is that 15% of disabled people don't want to work at home. And so actually recognising that it also, you know, there's real benefits for matching up people's needs and preferences versus what the job offers. And so employers don't need to fear advertising a job with what might be seen as lesser, you know, locational flexibility or flexibility, because some people might want that, some people might like that rigidity and just be able to go home at the end of the day and that be done.
And so it's benefit for all parties to have that explicit statement of what the nature of flexibility is in this, and enforcing that kind of change would be really beneficial to the labour market to avoid this matching up problem that you have, as Paula mentioned, with people then rejecting jobs and, and things like that, that then creates cost for organisations. Hiring is a massive cost for organisations. So addressing that to try and make it more efficient is going to be of benefit to everyone.
But interestingly, what that means is that 15% of disabled people don't want to work at home. And so actually recognising that it also, you know, there's real benefits for matching up people's needs and preferences versus what the job offers. And so employers don't need to fear advertising a job with what might be seen as lesser, you know, locational flexibility or flexibility, because some people might want that, some people might like that rigidity and just be able to go home at the end of the day and that be done.
And so it's benefit for all parties to have that explicit statement of what the nature of flexibility is in this, and enforcing that kind of change would be really beneficial to the labour market to avoid this matching up problem that you have, as Paula mentioned, with people then rejecting jobs and, and things like that, that then creates cost for organisations. Hiring is a massive cost for organisations. So addressing that to try and make it more efficient is going to be of benefit to everyone.
15:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
In terms of your question about what proportion of jobs could be flexible, I mean, just looking at at at remote working during the pandemic, we had nearly half the population working remotely. When needs be. A lot of jobs can be made remote. Now with digital technologies that might increase in the future. And it's difficult to see jobs that couldn't have any flexibility. If you see flexibility in its broad terms part time work in term time, working compressed hours, etc.
and there's new forms of flexible working, developing all the time. So we had in 2022, the four day working trial, where 61 organisations took part. At the end of that, 89% said that they were going to continue with the trial outside of, of of the assessment period, 50% permanently changed their business model . And none of the disabled people taking part said that it hadn't improved their personal life.
and there's new forms of flexible working, developing all the time. So we had in 2022, the four day working trial, where 61 organisations took part. At the end of that, 89% said that they were going to continue with the trial outside of, of of the assessment period, 50% permanently changed their business model . And none of the disabled people taking part said that it hadn't improved their personal life.
15:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And also even in situations where like people think about, oh, like in factories or manufacturing, flexibility is going to be difficult. But there has been very numerous kind of obviously four day week being one of them with again, enhanced productivity outcomes, really tangible productivity outcomes. But also there's also self rostering systems. This has been done a lot in the care sectors, which again, another sector with really high turnover burnout and really problems with recruitment and retaining skills in that sector.
There's been so many different trials where flexibility can be achieved in so many different ways. As long as employers are kind of really kind of, you know, engage in that process of understanding, this is actually a business win scenario for them.
There's been so many different trials where flexibility can be achieved in so many different ways. As long as employers are kind of really kind of, you know, engage in that process of understanding, this is actually a business win scenario for them.
15:02
Nia Griffith
-
-
Nia Griffith
15:02
15:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah, I think you could do a lot because organisations tend to stick with the sort of flexibility they've been used to. For example, local authorities use flexi hours and part time working in hospitals. So opening up the world of flexible working possibilities to them, I think would be hugely beneficial with all kind of case studies that are set in particular industries that they may not have thought that flexible working was adaptable to, and look at kind of the problems they face and how they solve them, not just the success stories.
So they can see how that can be applied to their own business. So
So they can see how that can be applied to their own business. So
15:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
the success stories, but also there has been like working families have also had like good employer indexes, etc. and those things help because so I've been speaking to a lot of kind of HR CHOS or chief HR officers, but also CEOs as well. And there is a lot of kind of peer pressures around this. So one of the things that we noticed with the whole toe movement is one way, like, because there's a bit of a knee jerk reaction because the market isn't doing well, that CEOs are now turning back to kind of the old ways of working, thinking that that might be a solution.
But there's another bit where, oh, if everybody else is going back to the office, maybe I need to do it. So there is that bit of that peer pressure or kind of a, let's say, nervousness when introducing policies. And again, so government being a role model is a great one, but also government maybe providing a little bit of a stake. So maybe providing, for example, collecting some of this data through the gender pay gap reporting so that employers have to really think about it, but also see where everybody else is at, because I think that's another thing that they don't really have as to what extent other people are actually doing it and really benefit.
And that could be case studies, but also kind of slightly nudging possibilities through these other reporting processes.
But there's another bit where, oh, if everybody else is going back to the office, maybe I need to do it. So there is that bit of that peer pressure or kind of a, let's say, nervousness when introducing policies. And again, so government being a role model is a great one, but also government maybe providing a little bit of a stake. So maybe providing, for example, collecting some of this data through the gender pay gap reporting so that employers have to really think about it, but also see where everybody else is at, because I think that's another thing that they don't really have as to what extent other people are actually doing it and really benefit.
And that could be case studies, but also kind of slightly nudging possibilities through these other reporting processes.
15:03
15:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, I think with any with any type of approach that the government wants to take, providing evidence is essential. I think he mentioned this earlier, but providing evidence to show what is the business case for doing this and this this applies much more broadly to the arguments around flexibility and different forms of flexibility that are ongoing and have been for decades. But in the sphere of disability, you know, how do we evidence to employers that that providing greater levels of flexibility and, and supporting disabled people to, to better work outcomes is going to be beneficial to the organisation, not just the individual, because ultimately that's what employers may be concerned about is that it's beneficial to the individual.
They get a job, they get a better working life, but it's going to come at a cost to us as an organisation. So by showing that that's not the case, by showing that actually the benefits massively outweigh the costs involved in making these changes. I mean, ultimately, one of the reasons that employers default on standard working practices is because it's easier in the short term, it's easier if everyone works the same pattern and in the same location, you know, where everyone is all the time, and you can go and lean on them if you feel that they're not working hard, you know, that's, that's old school management practice, but it, it doesn't generate the best longer term outcomes.
The best longer term outcomes are generated by giving people greater degrees of autonomy within limits, you know, understanding different jobs and roles and, and positioning the individual to get the best out of them, recognising that all talent is different. And that's a really positive thing.
They get a job, they get a better working life, but it's going to come at a cost to us as an organisation. So by showing that that's not the case, by showing that actually the benefits massively outweigh the costs involved in making these changes. I mean, ultimately, one of the reasons that employers default on standard working practices is because it's easier in the short term, it's easier if everyone works the same pattern and in the same location, you know, where everyone is all the time, and you can go and lean on them if you feel that they're not working hard, you know, that's, that's old school management practice, but it, it doesn't generate the best longer term outcomes.
The best longer term outcomes are generated by giving people greater degrees of autonomy within limits, you know, understanding different jobs and roles and, and positioning the individual to get the best out of them, recognising that all talent is different. And that's a really positive thing.
15:03
Nia Griffith
-
-
Nia Griffith
I mean, we've touched quite a lot on these examples now, like in the healthcare sector, which Professor Jones referenced of, you know, where people have to be there physically. But the challenge is always how you spread good practice. And I wondered, you know, what, what thoughts maybe people have had on that. I don't think, am I right in thinking that that Jane, you've done some work on that and spreading best practice?
15:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, we did some research with Acas on how employers were managing hybrid work post pandemic, and it was five large organisations who were kind of good practice, flexible working employers. So one of the things, one of the kind of interesting things that came out of that was in healthcare, where they had this challenge that some of their teams couldn't work in a hybrid way. And but also balancing people working complicated, flexible working patterns. So rather than just be conversations between the manager and the person who wanted flexible working, they were developing team flexible working.
So the manager would would encourage everyone to talk about their needs. They'd build into that the constraints. And then as a collective, teams would come to an agreement about what the shift models would look like. And that was very transparent. And it built trust into the flexible working pattern. And everyone understood what everyone else's needs were. So sharing exactly how that goes on and the kind of, you know, the, the kind of problems you might have as you're going through it and how you resolve them, that's really useful to share with other organisations that might be applied across different different sectors, as well as within the healthcare .
Also, even within organisations, you have people with different needs. For example, in a local authority, you have office based workers who can work hybrids, but then you might have refuse collectors, people working in outreach. You have to be on multiple sites and organisations will wrestling with how can we kind of counterbalance the hybrid offer that we're making to some people, but not others? And here they saw flexible work as their key tool, but so they couldn't offer flexible hybrid work to everyone, but they could offer them a much bigger range of flexible working than they had previously, and thus make them feel like they were valued just as much as the hybrid workers.
So the manager would would encourage everyone to talk about their needs. They'd build into that the constraints. And then as a collective, teams would come to an agreement about what the shift models would look like. And that was very transparent. And it built trust into the flexible working pattern. And everyone understood what everyone else's needs were. So sharing exactly how that goes on and the kind of, you know, the, the kind of problems you might have as you're going through it and how you resolve them, that's really useful to share with other organisations that might be applied across different different sectors, as well as within the healthcare .
Also, even within organisations, you have people with different needs. For example, in a local authority, you have office based workers who can work hybrids, but then you might have refuse collectors, people working in outreach. You have to be on multiple sites and organisations will wrestling with how can we kind of counterbalance the hybrid offer that we're making to some people, but not others? And here they saw flexible work as their key tool, but so they couldn't offer flexible hybrid work to everyone, but they could offer them a much bigger range of flexible working than they had previously, and thus make them feel like they were valued just as much as the hybrid workers.
15:06
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
And Marcus has got some really good examples on his website of case study case studies of nine day fortnights compressed hours, annualised hours. So, you know, for jobs that aren't desk based. So there is evidence out there. It's just a case of kind of highlighting it and maybe with much more detailed examples by sector and organisational size.
15:06
15:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
would be quite useful. And one of the things that we hear from managers is that one of the reasons why there's this whole return to office and the decline of the kind of remote or hybrid working, is that a lot of managers don't have the confidence to manage a hybrid team. And I think some people, you know, bigger organisations might have the capacity to do more training or at least outsource some of the trainings for that. But a lot of SMEs might not be able to.
So trying to see what we can provide as a more of a larger scale to kind of provide that confidence in terms of not only trusting your workers, but also kind of what kind of tools are available to really make sure that you can manage it with it may be these complex, flexible and hybrid teams. As Dan said, it's like one of the things that why managers and employers shy away from flexibility is because it's just too complex.
They just like if it's simple, everyone in the office, 9 to 5, it's very simple. That's why they want to kind of go back into that. So we just have to make sure to make everything simple and make it easy for them to kind of transition into other modes.
So trying to see what we can provide as a more of a larger scale to kind of provide that confidence in terms of not only trusting your workers, but also kind of what kind of tools are available to really make sure that you can manage it with it may be these complex, flexible and hybrid teams. As Dan said, it's like one of the things that why managers and employers shy away from flexibility is because it's just too complex.
They just like if it's simple, everyone in the office, 9 to 5, it's very simple. That's why they want to kind of go back into that. So we just have to make sure to make everything simple and make it easy for them to kind of transition into other modes.
15:07
Nia Griffith
-
-
Nia Griffith
And perhaps I could just ask for a comment on the issue that, you know, very often it's easy for a senior person to ask for something, but many disabled people are in more marginal, precarious roles, and it's obviously a lot more difficult for them to ask. And is that something, again, that you've come across in in your work?
15:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So I think this is again, quite interesting to look at these international comparisons. Why is it that in the Netherlands, so it was in the beginning was Amazon, which is the working time adjustment law. And then now it's turned into flexible working law, where that has been much more efficient than our right to request. And it has to do with the Dutch labour systems and collective bargaining, where again, this wasn't again, individualized agreement.
Yet the Dutch do have stronger labour unions and stronger, stronger labour rights. And in the UK you do have reasonable adjustments, right, to request. But, you know, our collective bargaining systems and worker powers are still quite weak. So even when workers are trying to ask, it's not such a strong request. So this isn't just about, you know, rewriting the flexible working legislation. I mean, the employee rights bill and the new kind of flexible working does have that trial period, which I think is really, really good, especially for providing employers with that confidence of, oh, actually, this is working out because it's like, okay, we try it out and if it doesn't work, we could adjust it again.
But it's hard to just rely on these individuals again, because a lot of disabled workers are in a relatively weaker position in the labour market. So it's much better to try to provide that, that strength in terms of providing well, it could be legislatively through tribunals and other protective mechanisms. But actually another way is to see whether or not, as I think all of us have now said it at one point or another, is to try to encourage employers to not just look at the disabled worker, but the entire work design to make the work design inclusive for everyone.
So naturally, then in disabled workers will be able to just have those accesses without having to negotiate individually. And, you know, our unions and employee representatives will be quite crucial in that process.
Yet the Dutch do have stronger labour unions and stronger, stronger labour rights. And in the UK you do have reasonable adjustments, right, to request. But, you know, our collective bargaining systems and worker powers are still quite weak. So even when workers are trying to ask, it's not such a strong request. So this isn't just about, you know, rewriting the flexible working legislation. I mean, the employee rights bill and the new kind of flexible working does have that trial period, which I think is really, really good, especially for providing employers with that confidence of, oh, actually, this is working out because it's like, okay, we try it out and if it doesn't work, we could adjust it again.
But it's hard to just rely on these individuals again, because a lot of disabled workers are in a relatively weaker position in the labour market. So it's much better to try to provide that, that strength in terms of providing well, it could be legislatively through tribunals and other protective mechanisms. But actually another way is to see whether or not, as I think all of us have now said it at one point or another, is to try to encourage employers to not just look at the disabled worker, but the entire work design to make the work design inclusive for everyone.
So naturally, then in disabled workers will be able to just have those accesses without having to negotiate individually. And, you know, our unions and employee representatives will be quite crucial in that process.
15:09
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
I just add something to that. Just taking a step back as to why disabled people have got weaker and weaker bargaining powers. So we started off the point about disabled people being overrepresented in jobs that where there's not the flexibility and somebody made a point about, you know, low quality jobs, insecure jobs can cause disability. But actually we've also got children and young people with additional needs and disability and who aren't being properly supported at school and college.
And so we see at GCSE and A-level and degree, they achieve fewer qualifications at every single stage. And so there's a sort of a pipeline of people not getting inclusive and good quality education because they've got additional needs who will end up in those jobs. And we know those jobs are health damaging, so it becomes a circular problem. So we've got an unemployment crisis at the moment in in young people, apprenticeships are wonderful, but there's not enough of them and they need to be flexible.
So we're talking about flexible work but flexible training as well. So we need part time apprenticeships. Apprenticeships that remote and hybrid got, you know, compressed hours, flexi hours and so on. But good quality apprenticeships when you go on the government website for looking at apprenticeships, you know, they're in in fairly low skilled, low, low, low wage sectors. We need more professional managerial, we need we need them across the whole sector, but we definitely need more professional managerial ones as well.
But targeted and ring fenced for young people with additional needs or who are disabled. So then there's not this automatic pipeline from inclusive education, inclusive training, and then and then low quality, insecure work.
And so we see at GCSE and A-level and degree, they achieve fewer qualifications at every single stage. And so there's a sort of a pipeline of people not getting inclusive and good quality education because they've got additional needs who will end up in those jobs. And we know those jobs are health damaging, so it becomes a circular problem. So we've got an unemployment crisis at the moment in in young people, apprenticeships are wonderful, but there's not enough of them and they need to be flexible.
So we're talking about flexible work but flexible training as well. So we need part time apprenticeships. Apprenticeships that remote and hybrid got, you know, compressed hours, flexi hours and so on. But good quality apprenticeships when you go on the government website for looking at apprenticeships, you know, they're in in fairly low skilled, low, low, low wage sectors. We need more professional managerial, we need we need them across the whole sector, but we definitely need more professional managerial ones as well.
But targeted and ring fenced for young people with additional needs or who are disabled. So then there's not this automatic pipeline from inclusive education, inclusive training, and then and then low quality, insecure work.
15:11
15:11
Kevin McKenna
-
-
Kevin McKenna
Thank you. Chair, I'd like to move focus a bit more on the Equality Act and some of the longer standing provision and and legal protections around reasonable adjustments. Paula, to what extent are employers and disabled employees aware of the duty to provide flexible working arrangements as reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.
15:11
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
We only need to look at surveys , including my own and unison have done them and TUC as well, where you look at the proportion of disabled people who have got the reasonable adjustments. It's astonishing, astonishingly low. It was in our study only only 53% of disabled, remote and hybrid workers had their adjustments fully, fully implemented. So there's either appallingly low awareness of, of, of duty or employers are completely aware, but they're not doing anything about it because there's very little incentive to do so.
So the main route of compliance is disabled person having the time and energy to put together a disability discrimination case and take it to an employment tribunal. If you're already in, if you're still working in that organisation, you're not going to want to do that because it's going to be awful for you to carry on working there. So it's mostly people who end up having to leave the occupation who then go and do that. But the time and energy and the stress, I don't know the stats, but it must put a lot of people off.
And so you only get a small proportion who kind of make it through. So we need to see much stronger enforcement. We've talked about the business case. So there's an education carrot and stick. So education first business case easily presented. But then we do need much more stronger enforcement in our study. In the inclusive, remote and hybrid study, we interviewed employers about how and why they'd implemented remote and hybrid, and some of them had done it as a reasonable adjustment.
So there is obviously awareness, and some of them have done it as a universal policy for for all. But we strongly suspect that the employers in our study were fairly inclusive. We know it's really hard. I'm sure everyone on this table will attest to the fact that trying to get employers involved in any kind of research on any of these issues is very difficult because, you know, you're looking at the employment practices. And so I don't think our sample is particularly typical.
And like I said, the disabled people in our survey said that 5,053% of them had got full adjustments, but others hadn't. So and often they hadn't got them because they their employer had outright refused or they were sort of delaying or they were access to work waiting lists that meant they hadn't got them. But of course, the longer people work without adjustments, it puts them at risk of illness and injury. So it's definitely education to raise awareness, but then also heavier compliance measures to enforce compliance.
So the main route of compliance is disabled person having the time and energy to put together a disability discrimination case and take it to an employment tribunal. If you're already in, if you're still working in that organisation, you're not going to want to do that because it's going to be awful for you to carry on working there. So it's mostly people who end up having to leave the occupation who then go and do that. But the time and energy and the stress, I don't know the stats, but it must put a lot of people off.
And so you only get a small proportion who kind of make it through. So we need to see much stronger enforcement. We've talked about the business case. So there's an education carrot and stick. So education first business case easily presented. But then we do need much more stronger enforcement in our study. In the inclusive, remote and hybrid study, we interviewed employers about how and why they'd implemented remote and hybrid, and some of them had done it as a reasonable adjustment.
So there is obviously awareness, and some of them have done it as a universal policy for for all. But we strongly suspect that the employers in our study were fairly inclusive. We know it's really hard. I'm sure everyone on this table will attest to the fact that trying to get employers involved in any kind of research on any of these issues is very difficult because, you know, you're looking at the employment practices. And so I don't think our sample is particularly typical.
And like I said, the disabled people in our survey said that 5,053% of them had got full adjustments, but others hadn't. So and often they hadn't got them because they their employer had outright refused or they were sort of delaying or they were access to work waiting lists that meant they hadn't got them. But of course, the longer people work without adjustments, it puts them at risk of illness and injury. So it's definitely education to raise awareness, but then also heavier compliance measures to enforce compliance.
15:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. Just just to add, I think organisation size is a really important factor in this. So in small organisations, the flatter hierarchies mean that that personal relationship and the requesting of a reasonable adjustment is much more challenging at an individual level. And the risk or perceived risk that that might have for career, career development or even for accessing employment in the first place. If it's at a point of recruitment in large organisations, are study identified a different underlying mechanism of difficulty, which is around process gaps and accountability issues.
And so often reasonable adjustments will be requested and they'll go through multiple layers of hierarchy to get approved. And at various points, that system can fail either through a lack of accountability and decision making not taking place, creating delays, which of course impact the workers performance and wellbeing or in, in, in some more severe cases, you know, it actually resulted in the work of failing. They may need to leave the job or it's just not working out for them.
Alongside that, the links with access in things like government schemes like access to work and the delays in accessing that in the short term, at least put on the employer then to provide, you know, a shorter term adjustment while they wait for the outcome of the application. And again, that creates a lot of tensions in the relationship because employers then see that as a cost again and don't necessarily, you know, see, see how they're going to generate the benefit again, due to awareness, education that Paula says and some of the ongoing perception and, you know, and kind of entrenched issues around, around understanding of disability.
And so often reasonable adjustments will be requested and they'll go through multiple layers of hierarchy to get approved. And at various points, that system can fail either through a lack of accountability and decision making not taking place, creating delays, which of course impact the workers performance and wellbeing or in, in, in some more severe cases, you know, it actually resulted in the work of failing. They may need to leave the job or it's just not working out for them.
Alongside that, the links with access in things like government schemes like access to work and the delays in accessing that in the short term, at least put on the employer then to provide, you know, a shorter term adjustment while they wait for the outcome of the application. And again, that creates a lot of tensions in the relationship because employers then see that as a cost again and don't necessarily, you know, see, see how they're going to generate the benefit again, due to awareness, education that Paula says and some of the ongoing perception and, you know, and kind of entrenched issues around, around understanding of disability.
15:16
15:16
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
So I think we've said several times about improving the guidance, the business case guidance on what is reasonable, what is a reasonable adjustment, what kinds of reasonable adjustments are good for these particular types of impairments or health conditions. People working with those conditions needs particular size organisations or employment sectors. But in terms of enforcement as well. So there's obviously an education that's a huge part of it. But then enforcement.
So the Disability Employment Charter
So the Disability Employment Charter
15:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Employment Charter recommends. Government introduces a two week deadline for for employers to respond to a request for reasonable adjustments and that would. The outcome of that two week deadline would be, in writing either a flat refusal with reasons which of course could then be taken to a tribunal, or it could be yes, we're of course we're going to do that for you. And this is the timetable for implementation. And the reason that is really important and a cracking idea is because the TUC found that.
82% of disabled people waited. between 4 and 12 months for their adjustments. As I said before, every day that a disabled person works without adjustments that they need in place puts them at risk of illness, injury, stress, you know,
82% of disabled people waited. between 4 and 12 months for their adjustments. As I said before, every day that a disabled person works without adjustments that they need in place puts them at risk of illness, injury, stress, you know,
15:17
15:17
15:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, just to add, so we did in our study, kind of looking at the lived. experiences of hybrid workers, a lot of whom were disabled workers. One of the things that we were talking about was the fear of their manager moving, because even if their things are in place, it is so management driven. So it's that that 1 to 1 relationship. And this is also because so one thing father did say is that it's the onus is on the employee to kind of request it and then ask for these and that things without even understanding what's possible.
And it's, it's really hard to do because again, that puts them in a very vulnerable position. But also once they are requested, once a new manager comes in, a lot of that is lost again. So some ideas that came up was like having a passport, so to say, so that you could always have it. So the managers who come in, they always see it in a way that it doesn't invade privacy, etc. because another, you know, having kind of even talking about their disability in itself can be quite a challenging task.
But the other thing is to try to encourage or even kind of let. organizations have the suite of policies. available for people to be able to draw from. So what are reasonable adjustments? And actually, you know, as I think Dan mentioned this as well, but like how a lot of employers think of this as some sort of very difficult, complex thing where it could actually be very, very simple things just really, you know, it says on the tin, you know, it's reasonable kind of ways in which we work.
May it be, you know, the way you conduct meetings, the way you, you know, you know, assume kind of, you know, a stance of the days or end of the days or etc., or appointments. These are very, very small things that once IT managers know, it'll be easy. But again, again, that puts the manager on the. individual individual manager.
And it's, it's really hard to do because again, that puts them in a very vulnerable position. But also once they are requested, once a new manager comes in, a lot of that is lost again. So some ideas that came up was like having a passport, so to say, so that you could always have it. So the managers who come in, they always see it in a way that it doesn't invade privacy, etc. because another, you know, having kind of even talking about their disability in itself can be quite a challenging task.
But the other thing is to try to encourage or even kind of let. organizations have the suite of policies. available for people to be able to draw from. So what are reasonable adjustments? And actually, you know, as I think Dan mentioned this as well, but like how a lot of employers think of this as some sort of very difficult, complex thing where it could actually be very, very simple things just really, you know, it says on the tin, you know, it's reasonable kind of ways in which we work.
May it be, you know, the way you conduct meetings, the way you, you know, you know, assume kind of, you know, a stance of the days or end of the days or etc., or appointments. These are very, very small things that once IT managers know, it'll be easy. But again, again, that puts the manager on the. individual individual manager.
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. Suite of policies. Yeah. Sorry. Service. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But for disabled people and employers. Right. So employers could use this service to find out about reasonable adjustments. So it'd be, you know, they could, they could get in contact or, you know, a particular person who needs a support and there could be training and guidance on what is reasonable, what is reasonable adjustments and critically, how to design flexible roles in various formats.
So I think that would be another way of actually raising awareness of employers.
So I think that would be another way of actually raising awareness of employers.
15:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Responsibilities under the Equality Act and, and under the Employment Rights Act as well. Yeah. I think at the end of the day, it's just try to try to reduce any friction that can be caused is, I think, quite key here because it's like, oh, I find it challenging to even figure out what they are or try to implement it. And, you know, like try to ease these frictions through these services. And again, there's so many NGOs, NGOs and civil societies are so willing to provide people with .
These. Evidence case . Studies as
These. Evidence case . Studies as
15:21
15:21
15:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think I mean, just just one final comment on that is, is that the going back to that idea of inclusive design. principles that actually addresses a lot of those smaller, reasonable adjustments. So, so we had in our study an example of a member of a member of staff at an. organisation who just needed to go outside once an hour because of the nature of their disability. There were neurodiverse and it was just a routine thing, but they needed that to be accepted, that once an hour I need to go outside, I need to physically go outside.
And so just by adopting inclusive design principles, giving people that underlying. flexibility to, to make their own day, that that addresses a lot of those, those smaller , reasonable adjustments. And what it means is it means then the. organisation has the. capacity to deal with those more complex, reasonable. adjustments that might be support workers, it might be assistive. technologies that are going to require a bit more.
And so just by adopting inclusive design principles, giving people that underlying. flexibility to, to make their own day, that that addresses a lot of those, those smaller , reasonable adjustments. And what it means is it means then the. organisation has the. capacity to deal with those more complex, reasonable. adjustments that might be support workers, it might be assistive. technologies that are going to require a bit more.
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
Kevin McKenna
-
-
Kevin McKenna
worker to, to, you know, to work to their best capabilities. I was actually going to ask about it's quite a while since the Equality Act was passed, and there's been a lot of thinking about. neurodivergence and fluctuating health conditions since then. I mean, how well does the the Equalities Act conception of reasonable. adjustments fit with this more . Developed
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The nature of, you know, what some people might call invisible or less visible. disabilities that that those for some, for some employers, again, we're quite candid in our, in our, in our study and we had examples of employees who we. interviewed who said that their employers simply didn't believe they had a condition because it wasn't something that was visible. And so, and we had an example for, you know, of a, a worker who was asked to work really long hours and quite an intense industry and had a chronic health condition.
And they said it was.
And they said it was.
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
What actually happens, as Paula mentioned, with the reality of, am I going to try and take this to some kind of tribunal or try and get some external support? In reality, most people will do one of two things. They'll either just accept that they're not going to get the reasonable adjustment, or they will be forced to leave the job. And neither of those are positive outcomes. So so I think I think there definitely needs to be.
consideration of different kinds of .
consideration of different kinds of .
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Then you don't even need to have who is disabled, who is not and who is has long functioning. So I have a long term fluctuating illness that goes and often it's chronic, but we have an inclusive design. So I don't necessarily need reasonable adjustments. because our design already de facto and academic, is already flexible. So I don't necessarily identify as, let's say if you want disabled for the time being, where my chronic illness is kind of flares up.
So in the same form, like, let's say menopause, for example, menopause is a very fluctuating kind of and it's very unpredictable thing. And then sometimes, you know, it's once you have that inclusive design, all of this definitions or who has is categorised as this or that is also almost no . Longer
So in the same form, like, let's say menopause, for example, menopause is a very fluctuating kind of and it's very unpredictable thing. And then sometimes, you know, it's once you have that inclusive design, all of this definitions or who has is categorised as this or that is also almost no . Longer
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It is it is fairly, fairly narrow. It talks about a long term condition that has a. substantial and long term impact on daily activities. And not everybody fits in that. So, you know, for example, there are people with a visible. difference that doesn't affect their daily activities, but they're absolutely discriminated against in the labour market. So the social model of disability would say that person is disabled.
So I did research a long time ago with people with rheumatoid.
So I did research a long time ago with people with rheumatoid.
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But it's absolutely a fluctuating condition. And in flare up, people have a lot of health problems, mobility problems, stiff joints. Now, under the Equality Act, they would be disabled because it's a long term condition, has a you know, even if it's only in the flare up. But employers might not understand that. And that's what Dan was saying before about reasonable adjustments. If you've got an employee who was fine on Monday but then isn't well on.
15:26
15:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There's a whole literature on on. disbelief and invisible, a massive literature on invisible conditions and disbelief. People don't. People don't believe you. So in the. guidance around and I think I completely agree with inclusive design, but we do need a clear definition because that is what is discussed in the tribunals, isn't it? So people need to know am I disabled or am I not? And of course some people don't like that term.
Lots of. neurodivergent and deaf people do not see themselves as disabled. But in the eyes of the law, if you've got anything, any kind of impairment or health condition that has an impact on you, even if it's. discrimination as opposed to an impact on your daily activities, then you should be covered. And so I think and when you look up the, the, the definition, there are some examples, you know, Aids and HIV are listed there as well, because people don't always think that they're disabilities.
So I think that bit the. text needs to be much more nuanced. So it can include fluctuating conditions such as, you know, invisible conditions such as. So then employers are left in absolutely no.
Lots of. neurodivergent and deaf people do not see themselves as disabled. But in the eyes of the law, if you've got anything, any kind of impairment or health condition that has an impact on you, even if it's. discrimination as opposed to an impact on your daily activities, then you should be covered. And so I think and when you look up the, the, the definition, there are some examples, you know, Aids and HIV are listed there as well, because people don't always think that they're disabilities.
So I think that bit the. text needs to be much more nuanced. So it can include fluctuating conditions such as, you know, invisible conditions such as. So then employers are left in absolutely no.
15:27
Kevin McKenna
-
-
Kevin McKenna
Misunderstanding that, you know, people are covered. Yeah. I'll just back you up on that one, not just because I've got HIV, but because I've got psoriatic arthritis. And absolutely, it's always a question. And in employment as to whether I say I'm disabled or not in all sorts of things, and I know, I know legally, absolutely. But in practice, no, it often .
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:28
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
Considered to be inadequate? Do you agree with that? I think I mean, there's there's an enforcement gap, definitely, but it's not. The answer isn't just enforcement. We've talked a lot today about culture change that needs to go on. So there's people who are wilfully non-compliant, but there's also employers who just lack the knowledge to be able to implement flexibility in a meaningful way. So the law is providing the scaffolding, but employers still need the knowledge and the.
capability to be able to build effective practice around that. And there's already. confusion amongst employers about how to go about and employ about how to go about seeking reasonable. injustice adjustments. And that's. particularly when people might not yet have a.
capability to be able to build effective practice around that. And there's already. confusion amongst employers about how to go about and employ about how to go about seeking reasonable. injustice adjustments. And that's. particularly when people might not yet have a.
15:29
15:29
15:29
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
That's something which might be. complicated with the new route of the Employment Rights Act and the government kind of implying that that could be seen as a as a flexibility could be a way of achieving reasonable adjustments. We've been doing some research with young workers who are all working in hybrid ways recently, and about half of them had long term health conditions or.
15:29
15:29
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
15:29
15:29
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
There was a young worker with ADHD. She was told to pay for her own specialist equipment because no, she she did pay for her own specialist equipment, just because it hadn't occurred to her that there would be a route that she could get those through. So that was a knowledge and confidence gap. And she, she was training in architecture. And so she needed a lot of focus. And she found it difficult to be in the office every day because it was so noisy.
And also, she found the kind of pressure of masking day after day was exhausting. So she needed to work remotely at least two days a week. Another one had a sensory processing. difficulty and a fairly long commute to the office. We got them to keep diaries, and she was talking about a time when she had to be in the office every day, and she this had really negative impacts on her health.
She said, if I had to be in the office like this all the time, I would just hand my notice in. I'm tired, I'm in pain, and my ability to do my job has suffered. It's just not. sustainable long term. Now, both of those were working flexibly.
And also, she found the kind of pressure of masking day after day was exhausting. So she needed to work remotely at least two days a week. Another one had a sensory processing. difficulty and a fairly long commute to the office. We got them to keep diaries, and she was talking about a time when she had to be in the office every day, and she this had really negative impacts on her health.
She said, if I had to be in the office like this all the time, I would just hand my notice in. I'm tired, I'm in pain, and my ability to do my job has suffered. It's just not. sustainable long term. Now, both of those were working flexibly.
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
We do need more proactive enforcement. Sure. And that could have, say, clearer organizational accountability. There will be an action taken if people are found to be in in disregard of, of the law and also accessible routes for. intervention so that that can come in before a case reaches tribunal, which is obviously not what the person who needs the adjustments wants to happen. You know, as as we've said before, every day without .
15:31
15:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
when you're at risk of having to come out of the labour market. Can I just add to that? I think I mean, and I think this enforcement piece is really important, but as Jane kind of mentioned, one of the things is about that knowledge gap as well. And one of the kind of case studies we found is that even when you're working.
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Which should have been in both places or not. So the workers themselves didn't even know. So they ended up buying their own equipment and kind of setting up their home office. And then there was this whole issue about when you're working hybrid, which as many offices have done, it's hot desking. So they had a setup, but they didn't necessarily guarantee their space. So there was all of these, even with flexible working, all of these kind of nuances where the workers themselves, they knew they had access to reasonable adjustment, but to what extent and how.
And again, this was actually quite a large, relatively good employer, but they themselves didn't even know those things. So, you know, it's kind of a it has to come hand in hand in a sense that they didn't they weren't like a bad employer and didn't do it. It's just that no one really knew about what the kind of where the lines of reasonable adjustments were, where . It
And again, this was actually quite a large, relatively good employer, but they themselves didn't even know those things. So, you know, it's kind of a it has to come hand in hand in a sense that they didn't they weren't like a bad employer and didn't do it. It's just that no one really knew about what the kind of where the lines of reasonable adjustments were, where . It
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
that. In our study, we recommended that also . disabled people are completely exempt from hot desking. It's, you know, we had in our study blind people who said that they need everything on their desk without being touched, neurodivergent people saying, I absolutely need to know where I'm going in the morning. Women parents dropping off, children getting to the office late and all the best desks are gone, you know? So it's just so unfortunately, you know, hot desking has become part of the kind of the hybrid movement.
Lots of offices have downsized, but disabled people, it needs to be a reasonable, a reasonable adjustment and actually producing some . Employer
Lots of offices have downsized, but disabled people, it needs to be a reasonable, a reasonable adjustment and actually producing some . Employer
15:34
15:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That's one of the things we're going to say about exempting people. And just to add, I mean, I think, you know, John mentioned earlier about reasonable adjustment passports, but they seem like a really useful tool for addressing a lot of these problems. And I think I'm very much an advocate of open. conversations and both parties benefiting from those open conversations, you know, disabled people, if, if, if this became a standard, a norm, then disabled people wouldn't wouldn't approach employment feeling that they were going to be discriminated against at the outset or for making a request.
If employers know that this is a requirement to have a reasonable adjustment passport for all employees, and, you know, in many cases they may not be used. But if it's there, it's it's an opportunity for people to request a reasonable adjustment. And those, you know, and that would address a lot of these underlying issues about. enforcement in a way that brings people on board rather than, you . Know,
If employers know that this is a requirement to have a reasonable adjustment passport for all employees, and, you know, in many cases they may not be used. But if it's there, it's it's an opportunity for people to request a reasonable adjustment. And those, you know, and that would address a lot of these underlying issues about. enforcement in a way that brings people on board rather than, you . Know,
15:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
again, applying mandates onto people. I mean, the other good thing is you could that also guarantees a little bit of protection of changing management or, you know, but also changing companies as well. So you could kind of carry that with you knowing that this is maybe, you know, we could potentially have it so that civil societies could say, yes, these are absolutely under the law legislation. These are.
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
Rachel Taylor
-
-
Rachel Taylor
Even though I think I'm clearly getting the idea that most of you think it's better to to work. collaboratively and try and bring people along. But given the limited resources available to the. See, some people suggest a role for the Fair Work. Agency in enforcing reasonable adjustments. Do you see potential benefits in that, and could there be any. pitfalls or.
15:36
15:36
15:36
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
Do you think? I don't know, Jane, if you want to come in first. Well, the risks that we've kind of touched on a bit already, or that other applicants could be confused about the rights and. responsibilities that they should go through and that there could be fragmented. responsibilities or even people being passed between agencies. But if those can be tackled, there could be a real streamlining benefit to having a single enforcement agency that gives workers and employers a clear front door for advice.
But it shouldn't be a door that people are passed through to be directed somewhere else. You might want to see. The Institute for Employment Rights published a briefing paper recently where they were fairly skeptical about whether the agency could deliver this because of the significant drop in . Funding for
But it shouldn't be a door that people are passed through to be directed somewhere else. You might want to see. The Institute for Employment Rights published a briefing paper recently where they were fairly skeptical about whether the agency could deliver this because of the significant drop in . Funding for
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So, so there should be more emphasis put on enforcement. Well, I mean, as I say, I think it needs to be balanced both ways. I don't think you're going to get employers on board just by enforcing things and mandating. I think we need to we need to educate. We need to get employers on board understand the benefits of doing this and the business benefits, the. organisational benefits more broadly. But in making a, you know, an.
15:37
15:37
15:37
Kim Leadbeater
-
-
Kim Leadbeater
resource to achieve that. Okay. Thank you chair. Thank you, chair, and thank you, everyone for coming this afternoon. Apologies. I couldn't be here for the first half of the session. I'm Kim, and I'm going to ask you some questions about the Employment Rights Act. 2025 and the interaction with the Equality Act, which I think, Professor Parry, you've also touched on already. I think the reasonable adjustments passport sounds like .
A great
A great
15:38
15:38
Kim Leadbeater
-
-
Kim Leadbeater
Yeah. Nobody does exactly. It's not my thing anyway. So I'll come to you, I think first, Doctor Holland, first of all, if that's all right. While the Employment Rights Act's. flexible working. provisions seem to have been broadly welcomed and seem like a very good idea, it's also it's been noted that the right to ask is not the right to have. So should the government have gone further, or does it strike the right balance in terms of new.
15:38
15:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which we know is during a challenging time for employers? It's definitely a positive move, making making the revisions to the act. It will make it easier for for all people to access flexible working, including disabled people, and it will actually reduce the need for disabled people to request it as a reasonable adjustment if they haven't told their employer, the disabled. So that's that's a really real positive. And then another positive is that employer employers.
refusals would be much more transparent because they have to pick one of the eight business reasons for declining. But I really do think that that it could be tightened up. An additional measures could be put in place. So, for example, we talked at length about the business case. So that's going to be if we can present the business case for flexible working to employers, that's going to do a lot of the heavy lifting. It will reduce the number of refusals, it reduce the number of tribunals.
We know how much all of that is costly to individuals and society. So that's that's I think one of the things we're going to keep on saying. All afternoon. And then in my written evidence, I talked about the need to trial the requested flexible work arrangement before the employer can refuse, so that then it's an evidence based. decision and not not based on some kind of negative assumption. So, you know, before the.
refusals would be much more transparent because they have to pick one of the eight business reasons for declining. But I really do think that that it could be tightened up. An additional measures could be put in place. So, for example, we talked at length about the business case. So that's going to be if we can present the business case for flexible working to employers, that's going to do a lot of the heavy lifting. It will reduce the number of refusals, it reduce the number of tribunals.
We know how much all of that is costly to individuals and society. So that's that's I think one of the things we're going to keep on saying. All afternoon. And then in my written evidence, I talked about the need to trial the requested flexible work arrangement before the employer can refuse, so that then it's an evidence based. decision and not not based on some kind of negative assumption. So, you know, before the.
15:40
15:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Lots of people requested remote and hybrid working, for example, including as a reasonable adjustment. And people said, no, it can't be done. It's impossible, you know, and my sister used to be a legal secretary and she was told, no, because you're dealing with confidential data. Well, hello. The pandemic meant that all lawyers and everybody was working at home, so of course it can be done. So sometimes it's just about there's an assumption that it won't work.
If you do this job part time, it won't work if you, you know, come in a bit later. So if they had to trial the requested work.
If you do this job part time, it won't work if you, you know, come in a bit later. So if they had to trial the requested work.
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
evidence that when that has been tried, it has worked, or is there an evidence base for that? I don't know, but I can't imagine it. I can't imagine that there'd be a situation. I mean, it can go either way. The trial might end up like I say, the employer might decide. Actually, yeah, I was right. The employee may. decide actually I was wrong or it could go the other way.
And the employee. Yes, I told you it was going to work. And it's, you know, it's had all these knock on benefits for me. So that's the other thing. Now, the current process of the Employment Rights Act requires employers to explain to the employee why they're refusing if they're going to refuse. And there's no that's where it ends. There's no right to appeal. But I think adding in two additional steps would would be really helpful.
So allowing the employee a right to reply to the refusal would give them an opportunity to offer any additional information they've held back. So we know that not all disabled people have outed themselves at work because of obvious reasons, discrimination, etc. so they might have put a reasonable. They might have put a flexible working request in. Been refused. And then this is their last opportunity to say, do you know what? Actually, I am disabled.
And then that's when the equality rights would kick in. So then the employer would say, okay, fair enough, and here we go. So that's the first step. And then the employer can then come back to the employee and say whether or not they whether they're going to. maintain their. refusal or whether they're going to then. capitulate and say, yes, that's good. But I think currently where it's stopping is that the employee asks, the employer says, no, and that's the end of it.
And of course, then it's tribunal. And for the reasons we've given, nobody wants to go to tribunal. Why should people have to do that? But a stronger mechanism, as I've said before, is if we can normalise flexible working by actually making all jobs flexible. And also, you weren't here for this. But if if all jobs were made flexible by default, and then rather people asking for.
And the employee. Yes, I told you it was going to work. And it's, you know, it's had all these knock on benefits for me. So that's the other thing. Now, the current process of the Employment Rights Act requires employers to explain to the employee why they're refusing if they're going to refuse. And there's no that's where it ends. There's no right to appeal. But I think adding in two additional steps would would be really helpful.
So allowing the employee a right to reply to the refusal would give them an opportunity to offer any additional information they've held back. So we know that not all disabled people have outed themselves at work because of obvious reasons, discrimination, etc. so they might have put a reasonable. They might have put a flexible working request in. Been refused. And then this is their last opportunity to say, do you know what? Actually, I am disabled.
And then that's when the equality rights would kick in. So then the employer would say, okay, fair enough, and here we go. So that's the first step. And then the employer can then come back to the employee and say whether or not they whether they're going to. maintain their. refusal or whether they're going to then. capitulate and say, yes, that's good. But I think currently where it's stopping is that the employee asks, the employer says, no, and that's the end of it.
And of course, then it's tribunal. And for the reasons we've given, nobody wants to go to tribunal. Why should people have to do that? But a stronger mechanism, as I've said before, is if we can normalise flexible working by actually making all jobs flexible. And also, you weren't here for this. But if if all jobs were made flexible by default, and then rather people asking for.
15:42
15:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
up to the. employer to opt out of that system. And they can say, no, this job is inflexible. And, you know, for these reasons, that would be helpful. At the moment, the onus is always on the employee, whether disabled or not, to ask for this thing and be, you know, the risk of being rejected and told no, which is going to be awkward for everybody, isn't it? And it's going to, you know, lead to your feeling.
But if, if, if, if we have default is the flexible, if flexibility is default and employers have to opt out, then that would change the whole conversation. And then my last point is that it's absolutely imperative that the, the Employment Rights Act is act is evaluated. We need to know. whether it makes any difference at all in inequalities and access to flexible working, whether it's by gender.
But if, if, if, if we have default is the flexible, if flexibility is default and employers have to opt out, then that would change the whole conversation. And then my last point is that it's absolutely imperative that the, the Employment Rights Act is act is evaluated. We need to know. whether it makes any difference at all in inequalities and access to flexible working, whether it's by gender.
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
be the norm rather than the exception. Can I just add to that, which is something that I think it does really help to try to see if we can get employers as, as a default , flexible work , as a default to try to see if that can be then enforced in terms of the advertisement and job description from the very first, you know, even from the advertising phrases, processes. But the other thing a couple of things is, again, if that one.
flexibility trialled it and didn't work, if there's an opportunity to come back and try another, you know, to see, because it might be that, okay, actually hybrid working wasn't one, but actually flexible schedules that would have been the other. So that, you know, it just kind of relieves the onus for the employees to be very certain about these things, but, you know, ensuring that there is evidence. So, I mean, I think, again, we're kind of asking employees to provide the evidence as to why this will work.
And then why not then get employers to show evidence as to why it doesn't work is more of a key here. And the last thing again is to see, especially because we already have this tool, the gender pay gap, reporting to whether or not we can gather some evidence around that. And I know that our colleagues at King's College are talking about that disability charter. And there's kind of, you know. possibilities in terms of kind of signing up to the disability charter and seeing whether we could have kind of flexible working or other types of kind of adjustable reasonable adjustments being mentioned and data collected there.
But I think data collection and in a way data collection is important for two things is one is to highlight and provide case studies of companies are doing well so that companies who are doing well, they get really like, oh, look at these amazing companies, great PR and great place as an employer. But also it's a little bit of naming and shaming as well. So to say that, oh, which are the companies that are actually have the capacity to do so, have jobs that are able to have these adjustments but are not providing it.
So, and I think it doesn't cost the government almost any money to do this, to enforce these things, but it just kind of provides, obviously, us with great data for us. To give you even more evidence as to the efficacies of these.
flexibility trialled it and didn't work, if there's an opportunity to come back and try another, you know, to see, because it might be that, okay, actually hybrid working wasn't one, but actually flexible schedules that would have been the other. So that, you know, it just kind of relieves the onus for the employees to be very certain about these things, but, you know, ensuring that there is evidence. So, I mean, I think, again, we're kind of asking employees to provide the evidence as to why this will work.
And then why not then get employers to show evidence as to why it doesn't work is more of a key here. And the last thing again is to see, especially because we already have this tool, the gender pay gap, reporting to whether or not we can gather some evidence around that. And I know that our colleagues at King's College are talking about that disability charter. And there's kind of, you know. possibilities in terms of kind of signing up to the disability charter and seeing whether we could have kind of flexible working or other types of kind of adjustable reasonable adjustments being mentioned and data collected there.
But I think data collection and in a way data collection is important for two things is one is to highlight and provide case studies of companies are doing well so that companies who are doing well, they get really like, oh, look at these amazing companies, great PR and great place as an employer. But also it's a little bit of naming and shaming as well. So to say that, oh, which are the companies that are actually have the capacity to do so, have jobs that are able to have these adjustments but are not providing it.
So, and I think it doesn't cost the government almost any money to do this, to enforce these things, but it just kind of provides, obviously, us with great data for us. To give you even more evidence as to the efficacies of these.
15:46
15:46
15:46
15:46
Kim Leadbeater
-
-
Kim Leadbeater
nudge. employers in the right way. Can I come on, come on to you. So it feels as though like the the feeling is around this flexible inclusivity when it comes to, to jobs and the workplace. So is there a risk that a more. formalized and stringent approach through the Employment Rights Act could. disadvantage disabled people who rely on more informal, reasonable adjustments? So as much as the Employment .
Rights Act is
Rights Act is
15:46
15:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
you know, many of us support, is there a risk there? Do you think so? I think labour law, all labour laws are there not. necessarily only to protect workers, but also to protect employers from themselves from going through this bottom, you know, race to the bottom, right. So all labour laws are essentially helping employers to. actually based on scientific evidence that we've all collected, saying, actually, these are good practices, not just for employees, but for.
yourselves to having good practices for businesses. And informal policies are great. When the economy is good, there's a lot of jobs, and the person who is asking for these arrangements have a very good, either a very good bargaining power or have a really good relationship with their managers. Sure, fine. All good. But that's not always the case. And again, in those cases, not because, you know, the employers are bad, but they just sometimes make bad decisions based on some of the.
misconceptions around the efficacies of some of these policies. I think these. legislations are quite crucial. May it be used or not, for that to be kind of the protective mechanism again for workers, but also employers from themselves who are making bad decisions. And of course, you know, even if we have these. legislations in place, that doesn't mean that these.
yourselves to having good practices for businesses. And informal policies are great. When the economy is good, there's a lot of jobs, and the person who is asking for these arrangements have a very good, either a very good bargaining power or have a really good relationship with their managers. Sure, fine. All good. But that's not always the case. And again, in those cases, not because, you know, the employers are bad, but they just sometimes make bad decisions based on some of the.
misconceptions around the efficacies of some of these policies. I think these. legislations are quite crucial. May it be used or not, for that to be kind of the protective mechanism again for workers, but also employers from themselves who are making bad decisions. And of course, you know, even if we have these. legislations in place, that doesn't mean that these.
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
Thank you, Professor Parry, do you want to add anything to that? Yeah. To give a bit of context, we did this research with Acas on. organisational policy around flexible working and the whole kind of. ecosystem of it. Now what we found was that statutory requests in. 2223 certainly were by far the minority there a tiny proportion of what was going on in.
15:48
15:48
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
And it tended to be for particular. reasons .. If normal processes had broken down, if there was a case that was just too complex for the manager to to deal with on their own, or if the employee felt that their. manager was known to be. unsympathetic to flexible working. The vast majority of flexible working went on in a combination of formal and informal ways. So not through right to request, but through organisational policy, and then through.
informal ways, through the more routine sort of, you know, you you need to pick up your kids early on a Tuesday and then the day to day. variations around doctor's appointments and. emergencies and so on. So that so most, most commonly, people were using flexible working through discussions with their managers. They were keeping discussions open about their changing needs, which was particularly useful around. fluctuating health. So if that stays the same and it might not, if the Employment Rights Act is super successful and people take it on board and give it a chance.
But if if that does stay constant, we might. expect not to see such dramatic changes. And it would probably mainly be utilized by disabled people who hadn't been able to achieve reasonable adjustments through.
informal ways, through the more routine sort of, you know, you you need to pick up your kids early on a Tuesday and then the day to day. variations around doctor's appointments and. emergencies and so on. So that so most, most commonly, people were using flexible working through discussions with their managers. They were keeping discussions open about their changing needs, which was particularly useful around. fluctuating health. So if that stays the same and it might not, if the Employment Rights Act is super successful and people take it on board and give it a chance.
But if if that does stay constant, we might. expect not to see such dramatic changes. And it would probably mainly be utilized by disabled people who hadn't been able to achieve reasonable adjustments through.
15:49
15:49
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
So the point I'm making is that, you know, this is it's great that we've we're trying to make it easier to access flexible work in a statutory way, but we shouldn't overlook that. There are some very real benefits to informal, flexible working. And employers saw this actually as a way of being. inclusive and looking at different kind of worker needs, because they didn't regard the statutory. mechanism as quite giving them that kind of trial and.
15:50
15:50
15:50
Rebecca Paul
-
-
Rebecca Paul
as the broader workforce? Do you think there's a role for them? Yeah, sure. It's in terms of of. signposting this, this Clare journey so that people don't make kind of mistakes that they, they can't afford to make in access in reasonable adjustments. So what they need to be asking for, what route applies to them and what happens if an arrangement is refused or it needs to change. So it kind of.
empowering them. And of course, within that, it's it's also important to preserve the role of informal dialogue . While
empowering them. And of course, within that, it's it's also important to preserve the role of informal dialogue . While
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:51
Kevin McKenna
-
-
Kevin McKenna
Fabulous. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin, you talked a little while ago about some of the practical and physical aids and equipment that can be used to support people in the workplace, like standing desks, which I've always been a big fan of. And yes, they're always in short demand, short supply. What's obviously the government's got the access to work scheme, but it's it's said that it's particularly from the government's point of view that this is likely to be.
unsustainable in the long term. And in fact, maybe the short term, if we didn't have a scheme like access to work, helping to employers supply some of this.
unsustainable in the long term. And in fact, maybe the short term, if we didn't have a scheme like access to work, helping to employers supply some of this.
15:51
15:51
15:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
impacts of that, do you think, on people with disabilities? I think a lot of disabled people would be out of work, and the disability employment gap would be even wider than it is already. It's a critical service, absolutely critical. Yes, there's lots of things wrong with it, but when it works, it it's the difference between people being in work or not being in work. You know, some people need help getting to work. Some people need help .
Talking to
Talking to
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
every pound spent. But unemployment is expensive to the state. Very, very expensive. It's expensive to individuals because it worsens the health and wellbeing, which has a knock on costs for the NHS. And if people aren't in work, then they're going to be asking for benefits. And so the government really needs to decide, do they want disabled people in work or not? It's that blunt. Do you want them to be paying tax, or do you want them to be asking for universal Credit and other and other benefits? And the Disability Policy Centre said that without access to work, healthcare and welfare costs would be at least.
£6 million on top of the on top of the running costs of access to work. So withdrawing it would be, would be, would be expensive. We know demand has gone up since the pandemic. We know that as a response to that, there have been cuts to support which have caused a lot of distress. And people are saying that, you know, they are losing work, that they can't always they can't maintain work.
And in fact, the National Audit Office. investigation said that they're really worried that employers are going to be deterred from employing disabled people because because employers are aware that there's a there's a sort of a crisis with access to work at the moment. Action on disability said that amongst . It's the people, disabled people. It supports retention. Job retention has halved since 2022. So we're in crisis mode. And yes, it's expensive, but the.
alternatives are worse and more expensive. So it's about kind of. redesigning it with disabled people, with disabled people's. organisations because they are the experts. We can just give article input as academics, but the experts or the disabled people, the users of the scheme, people who'd like to use the scheme but haven't because have been put off by the bureaucracy and the waiting lists and everything else but disabled people, disabled people's. organisations absolutely need to work with DWP and other government agencies to to kind of redesign it, because there are a lot there are lots of inefficiencies.
So the National Audit Office. investigation to access to work. The report is really interesting and it it describes a lot of the operational. inefficiencies that are in the system and the impact of those. inefficiencies on disabled people. So that's, that's, I found that very . enlightening and some of some of the kind of examples of these. inefficiencies were people being sent emails from no reply email boxes, right.
So the, you know, the decisions made by an access to work assessor, and then there's no right to reply, which you can only imagine the stress that that's going to cause. And even though it's a digital. application scheme, the system, we've got people being asked to supply hard documents and asking for wet signatures and then posting them, even though their impairment means that they can't do that. Deaf people saying that, you know, I can't answer the phone and and access to work advisers insisting on phoning them rather than emailing them.
So it's almost, it's almost like it's on I mean, a cynic would say, is this being done on purpose to actually put people off? I, I hope not, but I've spoken to lots of people in my study who, like I say, when it works, it's brilliant, but they've actually been put off ever reapplying or ever, ever getting involved with the scheme again. But it is wonderful when it works, you know, like I say, it's the difference between people being in work or not being in work.
So definitely needs.
£6 million on top of the on top of the running costs of access to work. So withdrawing it would be, would be, would be expensive. We know demand has gone up since the pandemic. We know that as a response to that, there have been cuts to support which have caused a lot of distress. And people are saying that, you know, they are losing work, that they can't always they can't maintain work.
And in fact, the National Audit Office. investigation said that they're really worried that employers are going to be deterred from employing disabled people because because employers are aware that there's a there's a sort of a crisis with access to work at the moment. Action on disability said that amongst . It's the people, disabled people. It supports retention. Job retention has halved since 2022. So we're in crisis mode. And yes, it's expensive, but the.
alternatives are worse and more expensive. So it's about kind of. redesigning it with disabled people, with disabled people's. organisations because they are the experts. We can just give article input as academics, but the experts or the disabled people, the users of the scheme, people who'd like to use the scheme but haven't because have been put off by the bureaucracy and the waiting lists and everything else but disabled people, disabled people's. organisations absolutely need to work with DWP and other government agencies to to kind of redesign it, because there are a lot there are lots of inefficiencies.
So the National Audit Office. investigation to access to work. The report is really interesting and it it describes a lot of the operational. inefficiencies that are in the system and the impact of those. inefficiencies on disabled people. So that's, that's, I found that very . enlightening and some of some of the kind of examples of these. inefficiencies were people being sent emails from no reply email boxes, right.
So the, you know, the decisions made by an access to work assessor, and then there's no right to reply, which you can only imagine the stress that that's going to cause. And even though it's a digital. application scheme, the system, we've got people being asked to supply hard documents and asking for wet signatures and then posting them, even though their impairment means that they can't do that. Deaf people saying that, you know, I can't answer the phone and and access to work advisers insisting on phoning them rather than emailing them.
So it's almost, it's almost like it's on I mean, a cynic would say, is this being done on purpose to actually put people off? I, I hope not, but I've spoken to lots of people in my study who, like I say, when it works, it's brilliant, but they've actually been put off ever reapplying or ever, ever getting involved with the scheme again. But it is wonderful when it works, you know, like I say, it's the difference between people being in work or not being in work.
So definitely needs.
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In comparison to large? So in our study, like I said, only. 53% of people had had all their. adjustments put in place. And I think people in large organisations are much more likely to have them. And when we in the qualitative interviews, ask them who paid for them, people in large organisations are much more likely to say,
15:56
15:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Employer paid paid for them. An interesting thing about the National Audit Office report, it actually said that some some of the support being given should be given by employers. So that's another thing about educating employers as to what they should be. providing and then what access to work can pick up. Because of course, we, you know, we can't expect access to work to supply everything. We've talked about universal design. And there is a.
responsibility if you're employing someone to make the workplace inclusive and work for that person. But of course, access to work has got a role in picking up that kind of surplus. And as you say, SMEs haven't got that that, you know, the funding sometimes to . Actually.
responsibility if you're employing someone to make the workplace inclusive and work for that person. But of course, access to work has got a role in picking up that kind of surplus. And as you say, SMEs haven't got that that, you know, the funding sometimes to . Actually.
15:57
Kevin McKenna
-
-
Kevin McKenna
Provide some of the higher cost adjustments that are needed. I think your commitment to co-design and bring the voices of disabled people and their organisations is extremely laudable and correct, but I'm sure you've got opinions yourself particularly. I mean, what would you really want to see as as changes and redesign options for access to work to make to . Make it
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But apart from the things I just the inefficiency inefficiencies I've just mentioned. But it must be redesigned so that it's needs led. At the moment it's demand led. So people apply for the, for for funding, but it's not needs led. We can see that just by the fact that people's awards have been cut, but they haven't got any you know, they've still disabled. They haven't they haven't told anybody that, you know, my health is improved or my parents disappeared.
And, and yet and yet cut support is being cut. So it's definitely not needs led. But of course making it needs led is going to be is going to require further, further investment. One of the cuts greatest cuts has been to support Worker Hours, which is which has left a lot of people in deep distress and not able to to fulfil their function at work. And in terms of, I think, strides have been made to make it easier to to transfer awards from job to job.
But people are still saying it's, it's a bit it's a bit difficult. So making that easier because what we don't want is people having to reapply when they when they want to take on a new job, you know, either to move into better work or different work, because otherwise that's going to put employers off. If they know that there's going to be a delay. And of course, the delays, the the delays are another thing because it's making people anxious. People are losing job offers because they're having to wait for so long.
I heard somebody was talking about this on LinkedIn that they'd spoken to an access to work adviser this month, and they were told, well, we're still working through October's. applications like we're now in August, September. So, you know, if I was an employer and I had two people, everything else held equal, you know, both brilliant candidates. But, you know, one of them needs is waiting on access to work. I mean, it's awful, isn't it? But I think some some .
People will
And, and yet and yet cut support is being cut. So it's definitely not needs led. But of course making it needs led is going to be is going to require further, further investment. One of the cuts greatest cuts has been to support Worker Hours, which is which has left a lot of people in deep distress and not able to to fulfil their function at work. And in terms of, I think, strides have been made to make it easier to to transfer awards from job to job.
But people are still saying it's, it's a bit it's a bit difficult. So making that easier because what we don't want is people having to reapply when they when they want to take on a new job, you know, either to move into better work or different work, because otherwise that's going to put employers off. If they know that there's going to be a delay. And of course, the delays, the the delays are another thing because it's making people anxious. People are losing job offers because they're having to wait for so long.
I heard somebody was talking about this on LinkedIn that they'd spoken to an access to work adviser this month, and they were told, well, we're still working through October's. applications like we're now in August, September. So, you know, if I was an employer and I had two people, everything else held equal, you know, both brilliant candidates. But, you know, one of them needs is waiting on access to work. I mean, it's awful, isn't it? But I think some some .
People will
15:59
15:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
situation where they are losing, losing jobs. Yeah. Just just a few things in terms of how, how you improve the scheme. I mean, we submitted a separate evidence submission, written evidence submission to the Access to Work inquiry, and we outlined several things. So the first is to improve the accessibility of application.
16:00
16:00
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Including the online portal itself, which is not hugely. accessible and just builds on some of the points Paula made in terms of how the process works in terms of. practices engaged with so phone calls, written signatures, all of those things, streamlining that process would be. massively enhance the process for in terms of.
16:00
16:00
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But it would also make it more efficient. The second is that we suggested to use an AI supported triage to support waiting lists, to reduce waiting lists and ease the caseload on caseworkers. Because one of the things that the. investigation that Paula mentioned uncovered is the retention rate of caseworkers is really low. So you've got caseworkers going off on long term illness. You've got. caseworkers themselves who may may be disabled, you've got caseworkers who are leaving their jobs.
And that then creates more gaps and more more. inefficiencies in the system. And so keeping hold of those caseworkers and keeping them healthy is really important. So looking at ways of, of taking some of those initial, more basic preliminary tasks and using things like AI and automation tools to support, that makes sense. The next thing is about enhanced training and support for. caseworkers to provide more of a menu of options. So there's almost an underlying assumption that people need to know what they need, and people don't know what they need.
What happens if someone's recently become disabled? They won't know what they need. If someone if a new technology, a new assistive technology becomes available, how will they know about that? And so, so that that again, the onus on the individual is too great and providing a better, a better set of a menu of options would, would support, would support better outcomes and also probably increase efficiency again, because it would match up, it would help with matching what people need to what's available.
Awareness campaigns are really important. So interestingly the government is worried about the cost of the scheme, but actually it's not used that much. And we in our study, we had several people refer to it as a secret government fund that they they felt that they didn't know about and only heard through through other disabled people. They engaged with that this was available. And so interestingly, my my suggestion is that in the short term, the fund actually needs more.
investment and. But that. And as Paula mentioned, the return on. investment show. evidences that the scheme is actually. generating a beneficial outcome. It's generating more benefit than it is cost. So that shouldn't be seen as financially unsustainable. Any other government investment that generates more benefit than costs surely would not be seen as financially unsustainable. So investing more in the scheme, getting more disabled people into.
employment and supporting them in. employment is surely . The, You know, the positive . Way
And that then creates more gaps and more more. inefficiencies in the system. And so keeping hold of those caseworkers and keeping them healthy is really important. So looking at ways of, of taking some of those initial, more basic preliminary tasks and using things like AI and automation tools to support, that makes sense. The next thing is about enhanced training and support for. caseworkers to provide more of a menu of options. So there's almost an underlying assumption that people need to know what they need, and people don't know what they need.
What happens if someone's recently become disabled? They won't know what they need. If someone if a new technology, a new assistive technology becomes available, how will they know about that? And so, so that that again, the onus on the individual is too great and providing a better, a better set of a menu of options would, would support, would support better outcomes and also probably increase efficiency again, because it would match up, it would help with matching what people need to what's available.
Awareness campaigns are really important. So interestingly the government is worried about the cost of the scheme, but actually it's not used that much. And we in our study, we had several people refer to it as a secret government fund that they they felt that they didn't know about and only heard through through other disabled people. They engaged with that this was available. And so interestingly, my my suggestion is that in the short term, the fund actually needs more.
investment and. But that. And as Paula mentioned, the return on. investment show. evidences that the scheme is actually. generating a beneficial outcome. It's generating more benefit than it is cost. So that shouldn't be seen as financially unsustainable. Any other government investment that generates more benefit than costs surely would not be seen as financially unsustainable. So investing more in the scheme, getting more disabled people into.
employment and supporting them in. employment is surely . The, You know, the positive . Way
16:02
16:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. I just add one more thing leading on from what Dan was saying. We really need a proper evaluation. So yes, we know the return on investment is sound, but actually. evaluating its impact on disabled people's employment and and health and their income , disability, employment gap, disability pay gap, impact on NHS and . Welfare
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Increase flexible working. opportunities for disabled people? Yes. So in the AI empowered, we highlight the huge potential of AI in this arena. So we found that AI supports much greater. personalization and flexibility in people's jobs, both through assistive technologies that are powered by AI, but also AI that disabled people use as an assistive technology, so often quite off the shelf AI tools, generative AI tools, you know, household names that that they adapt to their own needs.
And in.
And in.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
We found that AI allows people to fill gaps. So gaps in. capabilities that allows people to create space for them to utilise the expertise they have. And, you know, the talent they have more effectively. And AI assistive. technology has progressed massively in recent years. So things like computer vision.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Tools, audio description tools have all improved hugely. Some of that. development happened, you know, throughout the pandemic with remote and hybrid working and and things like auto transcription, audio description developments. But AI is powered a lot of these to progress and improve. And so the accuracy of these tools is improved. significantly and screen readers, things like that. And that's really important for disabled people. Because again, coming back to some of those.
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Given the right tools to do the job, disabled people can be just as productive as any other worker. So I think within our study, we. identified a really mixed levels of awareness and engagement with AI currently, and adoption levels varying significantly. And so what we found interestingly, was that large.
16:06
16:06
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
course, have been quite early AI adopters and quite heavy AI adopters driven by their resource. dedicated IT functions, etc.. SMEs are an interesting case because a lot of very small. organisations have actually been quick to adopt AI, because they see it as a way of. leveraging like competitive advantage in the. market so they can pull in AI tools, make them more efficient, make them more.
16:06
16:06
16:06
16:06
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
As we've already discussed in terms of SMEs anyway, in terms of the the the situation for disabled. people where more support is. needed in terms of. understanding how AI can be deployed in a way that can support disabled people. Again, both assistive technologies, but also AI tools that are more off the shelf that disabled . People can
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:07
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But they're doing it often for very specific purposes. Or at the flip end of that, with no real strategic focus where they're just doing it because everyone else is doing it. And in either case, you know, the discussion isn't always around how it can help different groups of workers and bring in disabled people into that conversation is hugely important. Making sure you have disabled. representation within.
16:07
16:08
16:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And should the government be taking action on that? So I want to talk a little bit broadly about the impact of AI on the labour market. And I think it's still early days. ChatGPT has really released only a few years ago, and we are seeing kind of predictions of what it will happen, what will happen to the labour market just by Bill gates the other day, and we're seeing some of the evidence coming out now.
And we have seen that AI has a huge. potential for enhancing productivity. And if that productivity gains is distributed across the.
And we have seen that AI has a huge. potential for enhancing productivity. And if that productivity gains is distributed across the.
16:09
16:09
16:09
16:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
For jobs where even people, a lot of people are losing jobs, especially in the young entrants graduate market, but also in elsewhere as well, but also the people who are remaining having to do more intensive, you know, intensifying their jobs or having lots of issues around that. But also in addition to that, you know, the seeing kind of differences in population with regards to access to AI equipment as well. Because obviously some of these, especially if you go to the more advanced AI.
technology as it incurs costs. And again, as you mentioned, the recruitment processes as well, we've seen. evidence of that ideal worker norm that we've just spoken about in earlier in the hearing about it being kind of this able bodied, long work devoted who could only, you know, without any. responsibilities outside of those kind of things being used for these recruitment. processes or in the AI tools without even the employers understanding it themselves.
But it's embedded in the systems which will discriminate it not only just in disabled workers, but workers with caring.
technology as it incurs costs. And again, as you mentioned, the recruitment processes as well, we've seen. evidence of that ideal worker norm that we've just spoken about in earlier in the hearing about it being kind of this able bodied, long work devoted who could only, you know, without any. responsibilities outside of those kind of things being used for these recruitment. processes or in the AI tools without even the employers understanding it themselves.
But it's embedded in the systems which will discriminate it not only just in disabled workers, but workers with caring.
16:10
16:10
16:10
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
more evidence on, and we need to be looking into a bit more. Just just to add to that, I think the important thing to recognize with recruitment systems and having spoken to a couple of. organisations who provide these tools, these automated recruitment systems, tools, is what you put into it, is what you get out of it, as is often the case with technology. So if you put in biases, you'll get out biases. So if you put in flags for gaps in CVS, non-standard educational or employment.
backgrounds as being things that you don't want, then that will that will. necessarily discriminate against people who have those, those things present on their CVS. So the systems, if you put in place good rules and inputs, and again, there's a kind of educational component to this that's central. Then then these systems can actually reduce bias and discrimination. The massive risk, as Heejung just said, is that they. perpetuate existing biases in.
society and in an.
backgrounds as being things that you don't want, then that will that will. necessarily discriminate against people who have those, those things present on their CVS. So the systems, if you put in place good rules and inputs, and again, there's a kind of educational component to this that's central. Then then these systems can actually reduce bias and discrimination. The massive risk, as Heejung just said, is that they. perpetuate existing biases in.
society and in an.
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The risk is that that anyone who doesn't have a, you know, a, a typical anyone who doesn't have a, a typical CV, anyone who's atypical in any way will be will be screened out of those processes at the very early stages. And so that there needs to be evidence based research done on, on these, the impact of automated tools used in recruitment.
16:12
16:12
16:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
But it's it's really not known. It's very anecdotal at the minute. Yeah. And also, I think the other thing is there are these companies who are selling these tools without, you know, it's not necessarily intentional, but they have these inherent biases. But a lot of companies using them don't necessarily even. understand what is embedded in it. And then the other side of it, now we're hearing from employers where because these online tools, online job markets, just, you know, generating too many applications, they're now going back to these kind of network based to kind of job recruitment.
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:13