Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government why the status of the Minister
for disabled people was downgraded from that of Minister of State
to that of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe)
(Con)
All Ministers speak with the authority of the Government, and it
is for the Prime Minister to decide how responsibility is
allocated. The role of Minister for Disabled People has been
undertaken at both Minister of State and Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State level in the past. The new Minister has
been at the Department for Work and Pensions since 2019 and has
the ability to get things done and extensive experience of the
issues that disabled people face.
(LD)
My Lords, disabled people are horrified by the Prime Minister’s
decision. DWP estimates that 16 million people have a disability—
that is one in four—and they face multiple barriers in their
lives beyond DWP. It is harder to get a job— 29 percentage points
less—their financial position is much worse, they have to spend
much more on energy, and other barriers remain for health,
education and transport. The former role of the Minister of State
for Disabled People could focus on influencing change but the new
PUS is covering a large portfolio including housing benefit, the
military covenant and youth. Why have this Government once again
downgraded support for disabled people?
(Con)
I do not see it as a downgrade at all. The previous Minister was
also the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. To the
extent that portfolios are changed, when Ministers are
experienced—I know this myself—you can sometimes improve how the
work is done through these other areas. There is a big example
here in the back to work package announced in the Autumn
Statement. We really need that multibillion-pound package pushed
through with vigour and energy, which I am sure the new Minister
for the Disabled will deliver.
(Lab)
My Lords, not only have the Government downgraded the role of
Minister for Disabled People but a recent report of the Women and
Equalities Committee concluded that:
“The National Disability Strategy does not resemble a
strategy”,
and that engagement with disabled people in its formulation was
poor to say the least. What steps are the Government taking to
try to restore—or perhaps I should say build—the confidence of
disabled people and the organisations that represent them?
(Con)
The Government are doing just that. The noble Baroness will know
that the national disability strategy promised in the 2019
manifesto was held up in the courts. That is now behind us
because the courts found in favour of the Government. We are also
developing a disability action plan for the next 12 months. These
are immediate actions to help people. The consultation on the
action plan closed in October, and we will carry that forward
very soon.
(PC)
My Lords, when the definitive Disability Discrimination Act 1995
was passed, not only was there a senior Minister of State in
charge but the then Prime Minister, John Major, took a direct
personal interest in that matter. Does the present Prime Minister
take any personal interest?
(Con)
The present Prime Minister does take an interest. I re-emphasise
that the Budget had a major package for the disabled. The
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions represents the disabled
at Cabinet. Even more importantly, we all have a duty in relation
to the disabled. I work to try to get the disabled into public
appointments; we debated One Login in the Moses Room and talked
about its accessibility. The whole point about the strategy is
that it is cross-cutting, and it helps us to move forward and
help the disabled into life, because they can make such a great
contribution.
(Con)
My Lords, so important is the title “Minister for Disabled
People” that I managed to persuade Mrs Thatcher, when she was
Prime Minister, to change the name to that from its original
name, Minister for the Disabled, because disabled people do not
like being called “the disabled”. At first the Prime Minister
objected, saying, “They’ll want to change all the notepaper”. I
said, “Yes, they will, but make them use up all the old notepaper
first”. Using this economic principle, could we not find some way
of doing what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, suggested and
restoring the name, even though the pay may not be restored to
what it should be?
(Con)
is the Minister for Disabled
People, Health and Work, but I do not think we should spend all
our time focusing on titles. I do not want to tread on my noble
friend Lord Younger’s toes but, having studied this subject in
preparation, I was trying to talk a little about what we will
actually do for the disabled. Of course we need to respect them
and talk about them in an appropriate way but, as noble Lords
will know, it is important to have action and get things
done.
(Lab)
My Lords, words matter, but action matters even more. Are my
back-of-an-envelope sums right—is now the 13th Minister for
Disabled People since the Government came to power in 2010? If
so, does the Minister think that all this moving around is
damaging things? For example, it is introducing massive delays to
the Access to Work scheme, which left one autistic woman waiting
13 months to get a job. We need some action now, do we not?
(Con)
The noble Baroness may be right: perhaps Ministers do move around
more than is ideal on occasions. I was delighted to discover that
I was not moving in the last reshuffle and can continue. The key
thing is to focus on the work in hand, and I believe will do that, with support
from across the Cabinet.
(Con)
My Lords, was not one of the greatest Ministers for the Disabled
the late Alf Morris, and was he not a Parliamentary
Under-Secretary?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend. I also mention my noble friend , who in the 1990s took through
Parliament some ground-breaking legislation on the disabled that
has changed the infrastructure of the UK. Those of us who were in
business found it quite challenging at the time—I see noble Lords
around the House nodding—but it has had a beneficial effect
across the UK economy.
(CB)
My Lords, even with a Minister of State in place, we have
repeatedly seen regulations and legislation over recent years
ignore the needs and concerns of disabled people. You can point
to Covid regulations, the aborted social care cap and, most
recently, the Online Safety Act, which was silent on the needs of
adults with learning disabilities. Given that, how will this
Government take a more holistic look at legislation and ensure
that the varied needs of the varied communities of people with
disabilities are addressed in regulations and legislation going
forward?
(Con)
I mentioned the convening work done across departments, which is
important in relation to legislation, as the noble Baroness says.
Obviously, the Covid inquiry is looking at what happened during
Covid, and these are the sorts of issues that I hope it will
tackle. On individual Bills, I know from those I have done that
we often debate disability—perhaps sometimes in response to
amendments from the noble Baroness and others. That is very
useful because it gives departments an opportunity to explain
what they are doing. We have duties to the disabled and other
groups, and we need to make sure that we take them seriously.
(Lab)
My Lords, given the cross-cutting work that the Minister has
described and feels so confident about, can she tell the House
when the Government are next due to report to the United Nations
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? What are
the challenges from the last reporting cycle that the Government
will be keen to address in that report?
(Con)
This not being my area, I am not able to answer the question
fully, but officials are due to represent the UK and attend the
meeting of the UN in March to discuss these issues. I am
certainly happy to take away any particular concerns that the
noble Baroness would like me to pass on.
(Con)
My Lords, many people, including everybody in this and the other
House, want to help disabled people. We have talked in this House
about their having work. Does the Minister agree that hundreds of
thousands of small companies would be prepared, if approached, to
give disabled people what they would really like: the opportunity
to work—if they can—and be part of society in the normal way?
(Con)
That is a great point, and noble Lords will know that I am very
concerned about small businesses and how we can help them. This
point needs to be taken into account in the work we are doing,
following the Autumn Statement, to help millions more disabled
people into work. I came from Tesco and we
employed a lot of disabled people who made a very valuable
contribution to the business over many years. Some noble Lords
will have met the leading official on the Procurement Act in the
Cabinet Office, who was a blind senior civil servant. It just
goes to show what a contribution they can make in both small and
big business.
