Examination of Witnesses (Questions 411
- 419)
TUESDAY 23 MARCH 2004
MR COLIN
WILLMAN AND
MR STEPHEN
ALAMBRITIS
Q411 Chairman: Good afternoon, thank
you very much for coming in. You should have seen the note of
the relevant interests of the Members of the Committee—those
interests which are relevant to this Inquiry. We are being web-cast,
so would you be kind enough to start by introducing yourselves
so that those who can hear you but not see you know who you are?
Mr Alambritis: Thank you, my Lord
Chairman. My name is Stephen Alambritis, I am the Head of Parliamentary
Affairs to the Federation of Small Businesses. I was formerly
on the Better Regulation Task Force and, more pertinently to this
Inquiry, I was a member of the Disability Rights Task Force.
Mr Willman: I am Colin Willman,
National Councillor for the Federation, in our daytime business
helping disabled people get into work by setting up their own
businesses.
Q412 Chairman: If I can start with
the first question: the Government puts the number of disabled
people under the current definition of disability at 8.5 million.
In your paper you suggest 8.7 million and other research has suggested
an even higher figure. Do you think that the definition which
is covering this number of people is too wide, too narrow or about
right?
Mr Alambritis: We think it is
about right. When I was on the Disability Rights Task Force we
were talking around—and that was about five years ago—the
8 million mark. The definition of disabled people does need to
be stable, certain and final, so that it helps us all, so we would
look to the Bill you are currently looking at to arrive at a final
definition which would increase the numbers of disabled people,
but we are content with the 8.5 or 8.7 million.
Q413 Chairman: We have some questions
later on the subject of the definition. Mr Willman, do you want
to add to that?
Mr Willman: No, I agree with that.
Q414 Baroness Wilkins: We have had
a large amount of evidence calling for extensions to the current
definition of disability. These largely focus on people who are
less likely to show physical symptoms—people with progressive
conditions or with mental health problems; progressive conditions
like cancer, which do not show in the first stages. Would improved
coverage of groups like this cause your members any specific problems
as employers or service providers?
Mr Alambritis: Certainly it has
been the case that employers over the years are familiar with
disabled people who have a physical nature in the disability.
We would have no objection to looking at the definition to widen
it to those where the physical nature is not obvious, provided
that that list or that definition is final, is made well-known
and is circularised amongst employers—large and small. They
would not pose us any problems. What businesses, and small employers
in particular, need is good definitions, certain definitions rather
than allowing the law and the courts to come into play on who
is or who is not a disabled person. We need to arrive at a definition
that is inclusive and helpful to employers as well.
Mr Willman: The invisible disabilities
are the ones that cause the most—heart attacks, where people
have to adjust their lifestyles. is one that often gets missed.
Those individuals do not always include themselves as disabled,
but many of them are actually our members as well, running businesses.
Q415 Baroness Wilkins: When you say
that it has got to be a clear definition, do you envisage that
will specify conditions, or would you be happy with it stating
that it was anybody with a progressive condition?
Mr Alambritis: We would like to
see a definition that specifies; that is specific; that is prescriptive.
Q416 Baroness Wilkins: So what happens
when other conditions emerge in future? How do you see a solution
to that?
Mr Alambritis: That could be looked
at as things arise. What employers need is certainty and finality.
We would be very happy to look at the issue of definitions. What
we think should happen is that employers get as much information
as possible about definitions.
Q417 Lord Swinfen: Not all the disabilities
will be immediately obvious. Do you think that employees should
have a duty to let the employer know that they have a disability
that is not obvious? Otherwise there could be unwitting discrimination.
Mr Willman: If people do not want
to say what their disability is, I do not think they should be
forced to, but they then should not later rely on that in court
as being discriminated against, because if somebody is unaware
of something they cannot wittingly discriminate against him, can
they?
Q418 Chairman: It is a sort of a
Catch 22, is it not, because a prospective employee might not
wish to announce his disability for fear he will not get the job,
but then if they do not and the employer genuinely does not know
they were disabled then, presumably, they cannot discriminate.
Is that how you would see it?
Mr Alambritis: On employment,
on recruitment, we always advise our members to go for the best
person for the job. As long as we have that ability on the part
of employers—that employers are open-minded and go for the
best person for the job that is in front of them—then both
the potential recruit and the employer should be fine if they
go according to that concept—gong for the best person for
the job. The best person for the job could be or would be or should
be or may be a disabled person, as long as the employer goes by
that concept: the best person for the job.
Q419 Chairman: Do you advise your
members that if a disabled person meets all the qualifications
which are required for a job they will be guaranteed a interview?
Lots of firms do this now.
Mr Alambritis: What we do with
our members, in terms of advice, is give them access to free legal
advice 24 hours a day on all aspects of employment plus all aspects
of other parts of the legislation—commercial contracts.
We answer 180,000 calls a year. Seventy thousand of those are
on employment matters and they will get the legal advice that
our lawyers can give, and it could be that they are beginning
to give that kind of advice. What I can do for the Committee is
get back to the lawyers and ask the question as to whether they
are giving that advice that you are suggesting (or that you have
heard of) and they will come back to me.
| 
