1. Remploy Closures – Breakthrough UK May 2012
Remploy Closures
The current debate and campaigns about keeping Remploy factories open is in
danger of appearing to be one-sided. There are plenty of voices advocating – quite
rightly – for the disabled people who currently work at Remploy to not lose their jobs.
But we believe the call to keep the factories open is potentially damaging: what is
missing from this debate is the determination to be rid of the sheltered employment
model that the Remploy factories represent, and that the disabled people’s
movement has always criticised. This article is an attempt to fill that gap.
Remploy was set up, post World War Two, through the 1944 Disabled Persons
Employment Act. The first factory, in Bridgend, Glamorgan, employed many
disabled miners, though the purpose of Remploy quickly became to provide jobs for
returning disabled ex-servicemen and women. The factories manufactured a range
of goods, and were generally regarded as providing a safe job for life.
However, in the sixty years since Remploy first opened for business there have
been massive changes. Firstly, the social context has changed: the focus now for
disabled people – for which we have fought long and hard – is on rights and
independence, on mainstream employment and inclusive education, on user-led
organisations and organisations controlled by disabled people. We have rejected
segregated provision.
Secondly, the general economic context is vastly different to that of the immediate
post-war years; the strong manufacturing base that we had, and which supported
the Remploy model, is no longer: it has been replaced by the service sector and the
economy is also rapidly developing into an IT and communications base. Remploy
planning and development has not really taken account of these changes.
Thirdly, of course, the current economic climate is dire with ever more austerity on
the horizon, the decimation of welfare support for disabled people, and rising
unemployment for the whole population. This third factor is often used - misguidedly,
we believe - to justify the current calls to keep Remploy factories open.
Disabled people’s organisations have opposed Remploy for the last thirty years,
arguing that the Remploy model is an out of date concept, it isolates people and
prevents their integration into the wider world of work. This is illustrated by the
understandable views expressed by Remploy workers that they want to ‘stay in their
community’. There has been no apparent strategy of career development for the
disabled staff, nor efforts to support people to move on and up in their careers. In
fact, it is arguable whether Remploy actually does offer careers to disabled people.
The issues and motives behind the proposed closures are indeed complex, and
there are no doubt many different agendas at play: this is why we feel it is so
important to take a rigorous and analytical look at the situation, in the context of our

2. Remploy Closures – Breakthrough UK May 2012
struggle for rights and independence. The starting point has to be the recognition
that disabled people’s jobs and livelihood are under threat, and this is just not
acceptable, austerity or no.
As a basic principle, no disabled worker should become unemployed because of
any proposed changes.
In 2011, 48.8% of disabled people were in employment compared to 77.5% of their
non-disabled counterparts.1 The Remploy modernisation should not add to this
deplorable statistic. And the fears of Remploy workers and their Trade Unions that
they will not be treated fairly in the wider world of work are well-founded: according
to the Office for Disability Issues, disabled people are significantly more likely to
experience unfair treatment at work than non-disabled people.2 In 2008,19% of
disabled people experienced unfair treatment at work compared to 13% of non-
disabled people. In education the statistics are equally damning: disabled people are
around twice as likely to not hold any qualifications compared to non-disabled
people, and are only around half as likely to hold a degree-level qualification.3
We quote these statistics to illustrate that there is an underlying pattern to the
position of disabled people in society: this is not because disabled people are
incompetent, or less clever, or more lazy than the rest of the population. No:
disabled people as a group are excluded from the opportunities that the population
in general has access to, and not enough is done to redress the balance. This
barriers approach, or the social model, identifies the real problems – barriers and
discrimination - and points the way to real solutions. So, put simply, the long term
solution is to tackle the discrimination that disabled people encounter. Not easy, we
know, and we need to revitalise that discussion nationally.
But what about the here and now? Is the best solution to keep the Remploy factories
open? We believe not, that even in the current economic climate, to keep the
factories open is simply to continue to segregate disabled people. There needs to be
a negotiated solution which safeguards Remploy workers and remains true to the
principles of the disabled people’s movement. It could look something like this -
a) A staged closure of the factories, and/or
b) Consider handing the factories over to User Led Organisations, with realistic
investment, support and timeframes to establish sustainable businesses, and/
or
c) All staff to move to new jobs, with appropriate support, training and
qualifications guaranteed,
d) No-one to be unemployed as a result of the closures.
These suggestions now beg the question ‘what can “the movement” do?’ Most
importantly, we must have the debate: our movement is fragmented and we should
1
Employment Labour Force Survey
2
Quoting Fair Treatment at Work Survey 2008
3
Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2, 2010

3. Remploy Closures – Breakthrough UK May 2012
strive to build alliances based on diversity and respect. Secondly, we must
remember our history, and the principles on which the disabled people’s movement
is based and which we have used to push for changes in society and legislation.
Crucially, we must jointly reconsider the wisdom of the simple demand to ‘keep the
factories open’ and balance the arguments; for example, when the recession ends,
should the Remploy factories be closed then? Why, and how? Finally, we need to fit
the Remploy issue into a long term strategy proposal which addresses the
discriminatory policies and practices that keep disabled people’s employment levels
so low.
Breakthrough has been asked to sign up to a letter calling for the Remploy closures
to be halted – available on our website: we have found ourselves unable to support
a call to keep the Remploy factories open but are keen to join with organisations to
campaign for a good outcome, for the Remploy workers in particular, and for the
wider population of disabled people in general.
www.breakthrough-uk.co.uk