1,700 disabled workers to lose their jobs as government cuts subsidy

State-owned Remploy factories to close, in a move that Clegg condemned as "brutal" while in oppositi

The disabled have had a rough ride under the coalition, with welfare reform cutting their benefits and support. Now, ministers have announced that more than 1,700 disabled people will lose their jobs this year, because the government is withdrawing its £68m subsidy from Remploy, the disability employer.

Set up to provide jobs for injured servicemen after the second world war, Remploy runs 54 factories which employ staff with a range of physical and mental difficulties. The withdrawal of government support means that 36 of the 54 factories will close. The remaining 18 will be put up for sale, meaning that hundreds of employees there also face an uncertain future.

This is the conclusion of a battle that begun under Labour: the factories have been operating at a loss for years. In opposition, however, both the Employment Minister, Chris Grayling, and the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, pledged to keep the factories open. Here is Clegg railing against the "sheer brutality" of the proposed closure in 2007:

 

It is a difficult issue. The government's line is that in the 21st century, it is no longer appropriate for disabled people to work in isolation. The Disability Minister, Maria Miller, said that the multimillion pound subsidy to Remploy could be better spent on other programmes to help the disabled into work. She highlighted figures showing that the annual cost of supporting a Remploy worker was £25,000 a year, as compared to the £2,900 cost of the Access to Work scheme, which gives technology and assistance to firms employing disabled workers.

Yet the timing of this move certainly makes it appear rather cruel, and there is no evidence that sufficient efforts are being made to get disabled people into work. Last week, the welfare reform bill passed, cutting much-needed disabled benefits. Across the UK, unemployment is rising. Already, around 50 per cent of disabled people are unemployed, compared with less than 10 per cent in the rest of the population. As Unite leader Len McCluskey said: "In the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, these workers' prospects of finding work are almost zero."

The workers made redundant by the Remploy closure will be guaranteed support for 18 months, in a package worth £8m. But money is not the only issue. For many disabled people, the right to work and be a part of society is just as important. Cuts to disability living allowance already threaten the ability of many disabled people to pay for transport to get to work. It seems unlikely that Remploy will be replaced with adequate measures to provide opportunities for this group. Even in the boom times, those with mental or physical disabilities struggle to find employment. With five people for every vacancy in the UK, it is difficult to see many firms making the effort to employ these workers. Remploy certainly was not perfect, but its closure -- with no clear replacement -- is yet another step in the wrong direction.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn's speech on terrorism will do him more good than harm

The Labour leader's criticism of police cuts and western foreign policy will resonate with voters.

The election campaign, if there was any doubt, has resumed. In his speech responding to the Manchester attack, Jeremy Corbyn did not limit himself to expressions of sympathy and solidarity. He squarely targeted Theresa May on her home turf: policing and security.

The Conservatives' repeated warning is that Corbyn is a "threat" to his country. But the Labour leader countered that only he could keep it "safe". Austerity, he declared, "has to stop at the A&E ward and at the police station door. We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap." May, having been warned by the Police Federation while home secretary of the danger of cuts, is undoubtedly vulnerable on this front. Under Labour, Corbyn vowed, "there will be more police on the streets" (despite Diane Abbott's erroneous arithmetic), while the security services would receive whatever resources they need.

Corbyn swiftly progressed to foreign policy, the great passion of his political life. Though it is facile to reduce terrorism to a "blowback" against western interventionism (as if jihadists were Pavlovian dogs, rather than moral agents), it is blinkered to dismiss any connection. As Corbyn noted: "Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home" (the Tory-led Foreign Affairs Select Committee is among those who agree).That the former Stop the War chair has long taken this view absolves him of the charge of crude political opportunism.

Corbyn was also more careful than his pre-briefed remarks suggested to caveat his criticisms. He emphasised: "Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone. Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform.

"And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre."

But he maintained his central charge: western intervention has made the world more dangerous, not less. "We must be brave enough to admit the war on terror is simply not working," he said. "We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism."

Though Corbyn's arguments have appalled Conservatives (and some in Labour), they are ones that will likely find favour among the public. Polls have consistently shown that most voters oppose western adventurism and believe it has endangered the UK. Corbyn's words will resonate among both the anti-interventionist left and the isolationist right (this is, after all, a country which has just voted to retreat from even its closest neighbours).

The speech, given at 1 Great George Street (in the room where Ed Miliband gave his resignation address), was marred by Corbyn's refusal to take questions. But it was unarguably well-delivered. "Let’s have our arguments without impugning anyone’s patriotism and without diluting the unity with which we stand against terror," he warned in a pre-emptive strike against the Conservatives.

Corbyn's decision to give an overtly political speech four days after the Manchester attack is being widely described as a "gamble" or even a profound error. But the election will now rightly focus more closely on the issue of security - nothing should be beyond democratic debate.

Many of Corbyn's life-long stances, such as unilateral disarmament, do not find favour with the electorate. But there was little in his speech today that the average voter would contest. The Conservatives will hope to turn the heightened security debate to their advantage, ruthlessly quoting Corbyn against himself. But on this front, as on others, the Labour leader is proving a tougher opponent than they anticipated.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496