A number of companies will probably object to a proposal to set up a social fund to receive contributions from entities which do not employ persons with disability, as they are bound to do by a long-existing law. The proposal is contained in a draft employment policy prepared by the National Commission Persons with Disability, which aims to update and replace a similar document, published 13 years ago.

Large and medium-sized companies that fail to employ people with disability, says the draft, should instead make a regular contribution to a social fund. The money would be used to launch incentive schemes for the employment of people with disability, organise vocational programmes and subsidise jobs and equipment to allow disabled people to work.

Such employers would be expected to pay 20 per cent of the minimum wage of each worker they are bound to employ by law, which stipulates that companies employing over 20 people should have two per cent of its workforce made up of people who are registered as disabled. Very few companies abide by this provision, which is not enforced.

The commission suggests that, rather than fining non-compliers, the concept of a social fund would be included in the law. Non-complying employers would pay a percentage of the national minimum wage, which will be €7,904 annually as from January 1. Employers could be given the opportunity to either meet the legal quota or contribute to the social fund if they prove they could not employ a person for valid financial or technical reasons.

However individual companies will come out, reactions to the proposal have been quite positive. This newspaper reported (December 7) that a spokesman for the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin agreed with most of the policy proposals but believed employers should be asked to pay more than 20 per cent of the minimum wage. This should even go up to 75 per cent, depending on the size of the business, he said.

That makes sense, since the actual obligation is for each employee to receive at least the minimum wage. The Times also reported that a spokesman from the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry felt the quota should be staggered and raised to four per cent in the case of larger companies. An important added proviso was that one had to ensure that employers did not recruit disabled people simply to meet the quota but then offer them lower working conditions.

The opinion of interested individuals was also sought. A student sensibly called for better support structures to ensure disabled young people were encouraged to further their studies and pursue careers. "When we finish secondary school there should be comprehensive assessment to help us better understand our capabilities so we can then channel our aptitudes to find a job," she told The Times.

I believed that the National Commission Persons with Disability showed that, as always, it is ready to approach sensitive situations with unbounded sensibility.

It is against the law remaining a dead letter, barely alive in spirit. At the same time it did not opt for hard enforcement.

Much as I am always in tune with the commission's sentiments and admire its approach I believe that, in the first instance, the spirit of the law should be resuscitated and enforced. Medium and large scale companies should be required to comply with the disabled-employment requirement within six months from a given date, say, March 21, 2010 to mark a new spring of hope in this matter.

Should they fail to comply, they should be fined until they do so at a rising scale. I say this in shared recognition with the commission and those prepared to think positively that disabled persons who can be useful to society in the economic sector should be seen as an asset and not a troublesome factor to be avoided.

There are persons with disability who, with all the help and goodwill in the world, will never be able to work.

They have to be cared for outside the economy, in the first instance by their parents and close relatives, but later on, as was pointed out in this newspaper a few days ago, by the state.

The state already contributes substantial financial resources. They are still not enough, in the same way that the donations made, say, to Dar il-Providenza fall short of its requirements.

But people with disability who are able and willing to work should not continue to be denied the opportunity to do so. Employing them in suitable positions would not be to do them a favour, but to confirm their right to work.

Unfortunately strong prejudice remains around to deny that right, even to people who have overcome their disability and therefore, as the commission president Joe Camilleri recently pointed out, are no longer operationally disable. Prejudice should be given short shrift.