Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I have worked closely with Lord Freud, particularly on the jam jar bank accounts that will probably have to be introduced because of universal credit and the fact that some people are less adequate than others at coping with money, bills and so on. He has such an insightful mind and his only focus is on finding ways to assist people who do not have all their faculties to cope as best they can in society. It is the most disgraceful situation when a gentleman such as that is traduced and he cannot speak for himself because the Opposition have brought this debate to this Chamber and not the other place. I find that astonishing and cheap. The Opposition should look themselves in the mirror—

[Ian Lavery]

Does the hon. Lady also find astonishing the remarks that Lord Freud made initially?

[Heather Wheeler]

The difficulty we all have is this is a garbled piece of tape; we are listening to an answer to a question from a father who was asking Lord Freud whether he would allow something to happen for his child. That is where this synthetic anger and the appalling political football that this has turned into—

[Ian Lavery]

Did the hon. Lady say “garbled message”? Is she saying that Lord Freud did not say what the press are claiming he said?

[Heather Wheeler]

The tape is very difficult to hear. The father who asked the question has clarified the situation. Lord Freud felt that he needed to apologise, and people should accept that apology. He was answering a question from the father who was asking for that to happen. Which bit of that do the Opposition not get?

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady believe that disabled people should have the right to be paid at least the minimum wage for employment?

[Heather Wheeler]

What I would really like is for us to see more than 10% of severely disabled people getting into work. This matter goes back to the work that we as MPs do in our constituencies. I am talking about the help that we give to those who come to our constituency surgeries—help with volunteering and help with references. The people I have seen over the past few years have gone on and secured really good jobs. Fitting people into the right position is so difficult. The truth is that people have bad days, and that is tough for the employer. The employer may be involved in the white heat of technology, and Gladys cannot turn up because she is having a bad day. We have to find suitable positions, because employers want disabled people to be fully functioning parts of society. They want to provide really good jobs and to help people. I see all sorts of jobs available, and have made many friends over the past four years—as MPs we collect friends in this Chamber and outside in the constituency. We now have 400 extra people working in jobcentres specifically helping disabled people to get into work. That is the sort of positive stuff we should be talking about.

The aim of all of us has been totally clouded by this ludicrous debate today. We should be going back to the days when we had a bipartisan arrangement and when what we all wanted was for everybody to get on, to get a proper job and to feel that they were contributing to society. I can see plenty of people in this Chamber hanging their heads in shame. It is absolutely amazing. I really hope that the cameras are picking that up —[Interruption.] No, I will certainly not name them.

This has been a poor debate, and we have not seen the Chamber at its best. It has been a wasted opportunity for the Opposition. It would have been so much better if they had come to this debate with real ideas, so that they could work with us. I heard just one idea from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). That is just not good enough. The Opposition have played the wrong ball. The public and the audience in “Question Time” had it right: playing the man and not the ball is not a good idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on a fine maiden speech? I was a great admirer of her predecessor, who was a wonderful man and an ornament to the House of Commons. He was, among other things, a papal knight. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is following in his footsteps with her excellent speech.

I want to move on from excellent speeches and things that made politics look as though they are for good and honourable people to the less pleasant subject of political opportunism. Political opportunism, of course, is something that plagues the political world and which we all have to deal with. Some people are very good at it. Alex Salmond comes to mind as an expert in that art. Some people might say that Nigel Farage is good at political opportunism, although others might think that he is more inspired than that. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is not good at political opportunism; she is far too serious-minded and able a figure to lower herself to such depths.

It is interesting that the Labour party’s heart is not really in political opportunism. I notice that the shadow Secretary of State is not here. No doubt that is for very good reasons, but very good reasons for detaining senior political figures sometimes align to a remarkable degree with the disagreeability of the subject they have to discuss. I recall that a former Prime Minister, John Major, was detained by a serious toothache at a crucial point when the leadership of the Conservative party was at stake.

[Heather Wheeler]

His wisdom teeth.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State is not having problems with her dentist and that her absence is merely because she dislikes the subject under discussion.

This motion is an example of political opportunism, and we have known that from the first. How did the subject come into the public domain? Was it done in an upright and what we might call manly way? No, not a bit of it. Somebody was sent undercover to the Tory party conference. Some socialist, no doubt wearing a dirty mackintosh, crept in to hear the noble Lord Freud make a few comments at the party conference. Was that the upright fashion we expect even from the Labour party, or was it actually a rather underhand approach to political debate?

What was then done with the tape recording, this gold dust of political embarrassment? Was it brought forth and released to the newspapers? No. As the hon. Lady said, it was kept to the most important part of the parliamentary week. Parliament was in recess, so we had to wait for the revelation to come forth. One wonders why Prime Minister’s questions was suddenly in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition. He must be a glutton for punishment if that was his view, for surely most Leaders of the Opposition think that other occasions are more enjoyable, for example when it is they, rather than the Prime Minister, who have the final word. The recording was held back as an example of pure political opportunism, to be used at a point when it could inconvenience the Prime Minister the most.

Even our great Prime Minister cannot know everything that is said by every junior Minister at every meeting at a party conference. His mind may be full of many things, but even his mind, great as it is, cannot hold that many things all at once. Inevitably, the Minister came under a bit of flack, and he apologised. I do not know the noble Lord Freud—I have been in the same room as him, but I have never met him—but the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said that he is courteous and compassionate. So we have a courteous and compassionate man who is contributing to the development and discussion of public policy, and in so doing he said some words that he should not have said.

How is public policy to be developed if every time somebody says something that is a little bit interesting or beyond the consensus, their name is hauled before this Chamber and their resignation demanded? Are we to allow no development of public policy? Are we always to have witless comments being made in a politically correct way that allows nobody to consider what is in the real interests of people who are sometimes the most deprived in society? Are we to do nothing to help them improve their condition or enable the state to assist them in getting out of the levels of deprivation they are in? Are we to be so fearful, so frightened and so terrified of people sent around to spy on public meetings that we never develop policy at all? If that is what the socialists want, they are wrong.