Employment support for disabled people

For too many disabled people, the workplace remains a hostile environment. This manifests itself in two main ways: a reluctance among employers to make reasonable adjustments, and inaccessible workplaces and practices that leave disabled people unnecessarily reliant on reasonable adjustments in the first place. If the government is serious about reducing disability- related economic inactivity and reducing the rate at which welfare spending is increasing, it must urgently address both these issues. (Conclusion, Paragraph 32)

To improve disabled people’s experiences of requesting reasonable adjustments, the government should strengthen the Equality Act 2010 by requiring employers to respond to requests for such adjustments in writing within two weeks. It should also provide in legislation that any written refusal must include the following: • the employer’s assessment of whether the person meets the legal definition of disabled; • the employer’s assessment of whether the person, if they consider them to be a disabled person, is at a substantial disadvantage; • the employer’s reasons, if they consider the disabled person to be at a substantial disadvantage, for concluding that the request is not reasonable; and • what advice or guidance they sought in coming to their conclusions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33)

To provide a stronger evidence base for future policymaking, the government should commission more research into: • the impact of flexible working, particularly remote working, on productivity; 38 • the costs and benefits of giving disabled people the right to a certain amount of paid time off every year to attend disability-related medical appointments; and • the impact on disability inclusion of using AI during recruitment. (Recommendation,Paragraph 34)

We also recommend that the government provide an update on its plans to improve disabled people’s access to assistive technology, including the proposal to establish an Assistive and Accessible Technology Centre. (Recommendation, Paragraph 35)

To ensure that no disabled person misses out on reasonable adjustments through a lack of awareness or confidence, the government should require employers to provide all new employees, whether they know them to be disabled or not, with information about the rights of disabled people at work, including the right to request reasonable adjustments, and of sources of support and advocacy. It should also run an extensive awareness-raising campaign across radio, social media and television. Finally, it should increase funding to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. If it cannot do this, it should explain how it thinks the EHRC can be expected to carry out its functions properly within its current budget. (Recommendation, Paragraph 36) Keep Britain Working

We wholeheartedly support the ambition in the Keep Britain Working Report to transform the way employers manage the health of their employees and thereby prevent people from falling out of work and into economic inactivity. If it succeeds, disabled people, who leave work at a higher rate than non-disabled people, could be among those who benefit most. It is, though, too early to assess its chances of success, because there is simply not enough clarity around what the Workplace Health Provision will be and, in particular, whether it will involve the provision of occupational health services to small employers. (Conclusion, Paragraph 47)

We urge the Vanguard Taskforce, and ultimately the government, to clarify the nature of the Workplace Health Provision (WHP) by the end of the year and to include within its scope at least some element of occupational health for small employers. The Vanguards should also explore how the Healthy Working Lifecyle and WHP could be used to increase access to, and take up of, disability inclusion training among employers and line managers. (Recommendation, Paragraph 48) 39

We recognise that the focus of the Keep Britain Working Report was on preventing people from falling out of work, but the proposals being trialled by the Vanguards present an opportunity to support more disabled people into work by encouraging employers to adopt more inclusive workplace practices. We lack confidence in even a reformed Disability Confident scheme to make a meaningful difference in this area. (Conclusion, Paragraph 51)

We recommend that encouraging employers to make their workplaces more accessible for disabled people, beyond improving access to reasonable adjustments, be made an explicit aim of the Healthy Working Lifecycle (HWL) and Workplace Health Provision (WHP). The Vanguards should explore how the HWL and WHP could be used to encourage employers in all sectors and of all sizes to adopt the sorts of practices that disabled people value the most, particularly flexible working and inclusive recruitment practices. The government should also set out its intentions for monitoring the performance of the WHP. This should include its impact on the rates at which disabled people move into and fall out of work. (Recommendation, Paragraph 52)

We have concerns about the idea of sharing the burden of funding the Workplace Health Provision (WHP) equally between all employers. While we disagree that smaller employers will not benefit from the WHP, making these employers pay too much, too soon, will place a particular burden on precisely those employers who think they have the least to gain from it. (Conclusion, Paragraph 58)

We recommend that the government explore alternatives to asking small business owners to pay for the WHP, at least until the costs and benefits have started to be clearly defined. Among these alternatives, it should include the possibility of asking larger employers to pay slightly more, for example taking a supply chain approach. To inform future funding decisions, it should also undertake a full cost-benefit assessment of the WHP as compared to other disability employment interventions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 59)

Employers often overestimate the costs and risks of employing disabled people, and underestimate the return on investment and long-term benefits, but employers’ concerns will sometimes be justified. It is right, therefore, that the government explore financial incentives for employers who do the right thing, as it is doing through the Vanguards. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)

Financial incentives for small employers to engage with the proposals in Keep Britain Working and hire more disabled people should be among the first concrete proposals coming out of the Vanguards. In its response to our report, we ask the government to give a firm commitment to testing and implementing such incentives as soon as possible, and that 40 their development be informed, where appropriate, by evidence of what has worked in comparable economies such as Denmark’s approach to encouraging employers to engage with disability employment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 65)

Mandatory disability reporting has the potential to improve disability employment rates. (Conclusion, Paragraph 69)

We recommend that the government legislate as part of the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill to require businesses with more than 250 employees to report on the number of disabled people they employ. Alongside a commitment to legislate, the government should set out its assessment of how consistently employers are defining disability where they already do report. If needs be, it should then set out its plans for providing guidance to employers on the definition of disability. (Recommendation, Paragraph 70)

We agree with the Keep Britain Working Report that the Workplace Health Provision (WHP) does not need to reinvent the wheel and should instead bring together and expand existing provision. There are already many third sector organisations, including disability charities, working with employers and disabled people, however, and these should also be included among providers of the WHP. (Conclusion, Paragraph 74)

We recommend that the WHP capitalise on the existing support available from third sector organisations by providing a single point of entry to that support for employers and employees. (Recommendation, Paragraph 75)

In the light of evidence set out throughout out report, we recommend that the Workplace Health Intelligence Unit seek to gather data on: • the impact of adjustment passports on disabled people’s access to, and experiencing of requesting, reasonable adjustments; • what adjustments work for different groups of disabled people in different sectors, along with the level of access disabled people have to different types of flexibility as compared to non-disabled people, within different sectors; • the availability of, and employer attitudes to, hybrid and remote working; and • a cost-benefit analysis of employing disabled people, especially for small businesses. (Recommendation, Paragraph 77) 41

We welcome the focus of Connect to Work on ensuring support is targeted at people who are currently out of paid employment and face the greatest barriers to employment, particularly disabled people and those with long- term health conditions. The evidence we have received suggests that its voluntary nature and eligibility framework will enable local authorities to shape provision around local priorities, while appropriate oversight is maintained by DWP at national level. (Conclusion, Paragraph 10)

We welcome Connect to Work’s solid foundations in internationally recognised supported employment models grounded in person-centred, values-based approaches, that are widely regarded as an effective framework for supporting disabled people into sustainable employment. The programme’s scale, national coordination, and delivery at a local level puts it in a good position to provide more targeted support to those most in need. (Conclusion, Paragraph 21) Commissioning and implementation

We welcome the programme’s devolved design and recognise the government’s view that it appropriately balances national oversight with local flexibility. We are reassured that extensive performance monitoring is part of CtW, and that there is also a comprehensive evaluation programme built into CtW from the outset, providing a mechanism not just to monitor performance and inform learning, but to consider the wider outcomes of the programme. However, the evidence highlights clear risks, with variation in local commissioning and delivery likely to create inconsistent experiences for participants and providers and potentially weaken the programme’s overall impact. The programme’s success will therefore depend less on its design and more on how effectively accountable bodies implement it in practice. We intend to revisit this issue in one year to assess whether the department has achieved an appropriate balance between flexibility, consistency, and timely delivery. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29) 32

The early implementation of Connect to Work presented notable challenges as delivery arrangements were established. Some local authorities reported that extensive administrative requirements at the outset slowed progress and complicated early delivery. While the programme’s model appropriately requires robust assurance mechanisms, these could have been applied more efficiently. We welcome DWP’s acknowledgement of these early shortcomings and expect that its commitment to a more collaborative and streamlined approach will support more timely and effective implementation as the programme continues to be rolled out. (Conclusion, Paragraph 37)

In response to our report, we ask that DWP provide an update on programme mobilisation, including the agreement of delivery plans and what steps it took to reduce delays, and set out what lessons it has learned that could be applied to the rollout of similar employment support programmes in the future. (Recommendation, Paragraph 38)

Support from DWP during the launch of Connect to Work was not consistent across areas. Differences in the quality and clarity of guidance, levels of engagement from Regional Engagement Leads, and the readiness of digital systems created challenges in the early stages of implementation. While some accountable bodies reported positive experiences, others faced uncertainty and administrative burden. DWP was aware of these challenges prior to implementation and provided specialist support. However, it should have implemented a more proactive approach. Greater alignment of guidance, systems and support would have contributed to a smoother initial rollout and a more positive implementation experience. (Conclusion, Paragraph 44)

DWP should outline how it intends to strengthen its operational processes to support a smoother operation of Connect to Work, including ensuring continuity in case management, updating the tools used for reviewing documentation, and reducing delays caused by slow or inconsistent checks. It should also explain how it will make better use of digital solutions to enable faster communication and clearer information flows with local authorities. Finally, it should set out how it will ensure consistent standards, with national oversight to address regional variation, particularly in areas with large disability employment gaps. (Recommendation, Paragraph 45)

Early feedback from local authorities demonstrated confidence in their ability to source, retrain and redeploy staff, demonstrating strong local engagement. However, there is some misalignment between the readiness reported by local authorities at a commissioning level and the experience of commissioned delivery providers, particularly regarding access to suitably experienced practitioners. While staffing capacity may appear sufficient 33 overall, providers have reported challenges in recruiting and retaining staff with the specialist skills required to deliver the programme effectively. (Conclusion, Paragraph 50)

The effectiveness of employment support depends on the quality and expertise of those delivering it. Despite a shared skill base across programmes, providers continue to face challenges in recruiting and retaining staff with specialist expertise, reflecting wider labour market pressures. While the government has recognised the need for continued investment and training, greater clarity on how workforce development will be coordinated and sustained would strengthen system-wide capacity and capability. (Conclusion, Paragraph 51)

In response to this report, DWP should outline what assessment it has made of workforce capacity for Connect to Work. This should include whether workforce planning is in place, whether it thinks there are enough appropriately trained people to deliver CtW in line with the supported employment models, how emerging capacity gaps will be identified, and whether there are plans to support local authorities to mitigate risks to the effective and consistent delivery of the programme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 52)

The success of Connect to Work will depend on how effectively it is integrated with wider local systems. We are encouraged to see that the government recognises the importance of this approach. One of the most effective ways of supporting this integration in practice is robust triaging at the point of entry, helping to ensure participants are guided towards the most appropriate support, and experience a more joined-up system of employment assistance. This will require close collaboration between government departments to ensure local authorities have the joined-up support they need to put in place a comprehensive offer of employment support. (Conclusion, Paragraph 57)

We recommend that the government sets out its assessment of the adequacy of the cross-government support being provided to local authorities to enable them to provide a comprehensive offer of employment support to those who need it in their local area. (Recommendation, Paragraph 58)

We support the national rollout of WorkWell. By strengthening coordination between health and employment services, WorkWell has the potential to support clearer pathways between programmes, including Connect to Work, and to contribute to wider system change. Effective arrangements for information sharing will be an important part of enabling this coordination; however, a lack of clarity on rollout timescales risks undermining effective local planning. (Conclusion, Paragraph 63) 34

In response to this report DWP should clearly outline indicative delivery and rollout arrangements for WorkWell. This should include referral readiness and the point at which full delivery is expected in each Integrated Care Board (ICB), as well as how information will be shared between relevant partners, including local authorities, Jobcentre Plus and health services. This would improve national visibility of where WorkWell is operating and help ICBs embed the programme within their local plans. It would also support local authorities, Jobcentre Plus and other partners to align activity across the wider health and employment system, including Connect to Work. (Recommendation, Paragraph 64) Funding

The funding profile for CtW exposes some rigidity in how departmental resources are being managed across financial years, particularly where delivery does not align with planned timelines. The indication that any unspent funding from delays to Connect to Work would not be carried forward into 2026–27 or kept within the programme raises concerns about how effectively the department is using its allocated budget. Moreover, this rigidity contrasts with the urgency expressed by ministers to move people into work and risks undermining those efforts. The Committee is concerned that the Department are not exploring all options to maximise and retain CtW funding reflecting this urgency and the need to scale up CtW support. (Conclusion, Paragraph 73)

In response to this report, the government should clearly set out how it has applied proportional and effective financial management to maximise the use of allocated resources across financial years. Additionally, this should include a detailed explanation of its consideration of Budget Exchange mechanisms, as well as the basis for its decisions where such options were not pursued. (Recommendation, Paragraph 74)

We welcome DWP’s intention to fund Connect to Work beyond the Spending Review period. It is encouraging that, as the programme was conceived from the outset as a multi-year intervention, early actions indicate a commitment to continuity. It is important that DWP maintains and strengthens this approach through firmer commitments, to give stakeholders greater confidence in the programme’s future. (Conclusion, Paragraph 79)

The government should set out a clear commitment to the long-term future of the programme beyond the current Spending Review period. This should include a written statement of intent confirming that the programme is 35 expected to continue, providing local authorities and delivery partners with the certainty they need to plan workforce, capacity and delivery structures with confidence. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)

We heard evidence that some areas experienced a gap in provision where referrals to the Work and Health Programme Pioneer ended before Connect to Work was fully mobilised. Although the two programmes serve different cohorts, the absence of both in some localities meant that residents in need of support were left with limited alternatives. While the government acknowledged that these gaps were anticipated and driven by financial constraints, we are not persuaded that a sufficient system wide assessment has been undertaken of the consequences for those affected. (Conclusion, Paragraph 84)

In its response to this report, the government should set out clearly how individuals affected by gaps between the Work and Health Programme Pioneer and the rollout of Connect to Work will be supported going forward. This should include an explanation of how demand pressures on Connect to Work will be anticipated and managed as implementation continues, particularly in areas where alternative provision has been limited. (Recommendation, Paragraph 85)

The DWP should improve its forward planning by using a systems-based approach to minimise the risk of gaps in provision and maintain continuity of support for people who need employment assistance. This includes planning programme transitions in a way that ensures individuals are not left with limited or no support options during periods of change, even where schemes serve different but overlapping cohorts. New programmes should be designed from the outset to enable smoother mobilisation, clearer sequencing and better-coordinated handover arrangements across services. (Recommendation, Paragraph 86) 36