The Way We Roll
A seriously funny take on life from the disability driven duo... Simon Minty and Phil Friend.
The Way We Roll
Rolling back: what does disability mean in 2025? The DWP is making a mess of Access to Work and employment tribunals.
Depending on where you read it, there could be 13 million or 16 million disabled people in the UK. Some statistics suggest 1 in 4 of us, while others indicate 1 in 5. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch recently suggested the term ‘disabled’ is in danger of losing all meaning. Is she on to something? What is the point of a definition, and what measure do we use?
Some who are disabled under the Equality Act 2010 definition are having a terrible time working for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The DWP has lost more disability discrimination tribunal cases than any other UK employer. They have paid out nearly £1 million in awards. The pot calling the kettle black… The DWP administers the "Disability Confident" scheme to help employers recruit and retain disabled people.
Finally, Government ministers are saying they want to "get Britain working," including disabled people, whilst simultaneously cutting Access to Work (AtW). AtW is the scheme that pays for the more expensive adjustments that enable disabled people to obtain employment and stay in it.
Show Links:
Kemmi Badenoch has no useful meaning of disability now
Employers ‘have rational fear of hiring disabled workers’
Access to Work Collective Dr Shani Dhanda
Announcer 0:12
this is the Way We Roll, presented by SimonMinty and Phil Friend. You can email us at mintyandfriend@gmail.com or just search for minty and friend on social media. We're on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Simon Minty 0:32
Hello and welcome to The Way We Roll with me Simon Minty
Phil Friend 0:35
and me Phil Friend.
Simon Minty 0:37
Guess where I am Mr. Friend.
Phil Friend 0:40
I think I know, but I'll ask anyway, because the listener won't Where are you, Simon, you're looking very different location.
Simon Minty 0:47
Yeah, I am in Edinburgh at the Fringe. At the time of recording. It's still very early days. We bought Abnormally Funny People up for our 20th birthday.
Phil Friend 1:00
Brilliant, brilliant. And I remember coming to the first one in Edinburgh all those years ago, and my 14 year old thinking it was brilliant, because everybody was swearing.
Simon Minty 1:13
That hasn't changed.
Phil Friend 1:15
Oh good The 20th celebration of swearing,
Simon Minty 1:19
the lineups change. We've gone from our five disabled and one token non disabled person to 18 or 19 comedians on the run. They're going to we'll rotate them right? We say at the beginning of the show, don't try and guess the disability. A lot of them are not visible. It's not disability bingo and and that's true because there's lots of mental health people with mental health conditions, or neuro diversity, or whatever it might be, non visible conditions, the two disability bits I just mentioned, which one is, we're staying in student accommodation, and I'm 20 years older, and I'm like, oh, what? And it's accessible. Of course it is. But just getting in and out the shower, and it's got a little step, and lifting my legs up, and it's tiny, you know you're about, you're hitting the sides as you do it, and we all know it. You've got all your creature comforts that work at home for you. If you have some sort of impairment, and you go away and you're like, you can survive, but it's not,
Phil Friend 2:23
no, I know that only too well you didn't tell us in your opening few remarks there, you've got 18 people who are variously disabled in various ways. Have we still just got the one token non disabled person, or have they been eliminated.
Simon Minty 2:42
Steve, best, my best friend, and there's a comedian, the photographer he has, he's part of it. He's producing, but not on stage.
Phil Friend 2:52
Ah, interesting. So disabled have taken over.
Simon Minty 2:56
Yeah, however, and I that's not a deliberate ploy. It's just the way it's been. I don't know whether the token non disabled person is a bit, but it was a 20 year old joke. It may not be as strong as it was,
Phil Friend 3:09
still funny if you haven't seen it, though.
Simon Minty 3:10
Yeah,exactly. The other side is what was linked to that disability bit. I have changed our listings, although we are very proud about what we are and what we do at one point, rather than be listed as a comedy show, we were listed as disabled led. And I'm sad or maybe pragmatic or a realist, or maybe I'm negative, I don't know, but I think if you start with disabled led, you lose people. I think, start with the comedy, and then you say, and the comedians, are , people with disabilities. So just tweaking that,
Phil Friend 3:49
I kind of buy that. I don't think you can change people's minds if they're not coming through the door, yeah, yeah. You gotta get them through the door, and then you can hit them with the message. But if you give them part of the message before they open the door, they can immediately say, I don't want any of that.
Simon Minty 4:03
A perfect example was two of our flierers who are students here, and they're helping us to give out fliers to get punters to come. They were like, I don't know what to say about this. What do I say about the disability? What do I do? What do I do? They came to see the show, and they're like, Oh, I got it. I can do it. This is great, yeah. So you got to get them in, then they get it. Yeah, but we're at the Pleasance courtyard, which is the, for me, the most prestigious place to be in Edinburgh. There's lots of brilliant places, and we played them. But the thing that's lovely is when we wrote to the Pleasance and chap called Anthony, who runs it, and said, Can we come back? And he wrote back and said, Whenever you want come back. Tell me the venue you want. We'll make it work. Tell me the time. And he was saying, when you came 20 years ago, you made us rethink what we do about disability at the fringe and the Pleasance to welcome you back 20 years ago and show off about what we've done now and what we still need to do. So it's like, really cool, really lovely.
Phil Friend 4:58
I think that's very interesting, because going back to that first show, you had a lot of support, didn't you from the corporates to pay for things and get things done, but the sheer logistics of getting six, eight people with various impairments, accessible accommodation, you know, that kind of thing, was an absolute nightmare. I remember you pulling your hair out as you tried to sort now you've got 18 people. Now, I know some won't have any physical access needs. They'll have other needs, but it's kind of, I'm guessing the logistics, as it would be anyway, are very difficult, because 18 people trying to look after them all is going to be tricky in any event, but it sounds like the venues have now, as you said, have now got the idea. So access is less of an issue, perhaps, than it once was. And I don't know,
Simon Minty 5:45
The Motability scheme have been involved in supporting us. And, I mean, one of the lovely things they've done is they've got this matting, so the Pleasance courtyard is all cobblestones, yes. but the Motability scheme paid for this, matting that takes you up to the venue. So it's all, I mean, it's never level, but it's easier
Phil Friend 6:04
so but it's easier in a manual chair to do that. It's much easier, or a scooter, yeah.
Simon Minty 6:09
So, yeah, um, there's lots of places that they're pleasant, sorry, at the fringe that are still not quite accessible, but it is a million times better. And there's way much more awareness. I mean, I don't mean that, and they're all disability awareness. It's more like, if you have a non visible condition, we can do all of these things for you. We do relaxed performances. We've got all these access stuff built in. So there's a whole in the Fringe brochure, third, page, two, page spread about access. I mean, it's, that's brilliant.
Phil Friend 6:37
That's brilliant. ,
Simon Minty 6:39
I Phil and I. Listener, dear. Listener, we, we've sort of planned the topics and come up with three, see how we go. And I felt there's a theme about disability going through the ringer right now, there's something making it pretty difficult.
Phil Friend 6:55
I think it's not even it's not subtle, is it? It's full on, really. I mean, let's pick up the first thing. So while I was looking at various publications, good old Big Issue, which, for those who don't know Big Issue, is a newspaper, magazine. I guess it's a bit in between that people sell on the street in cities, particularly, obviously London, that I'm guessing in other big cities, and you can also get it on subscription, but I've always had a regard for Big Issue, partly because of it raises money for homeless people and so on and so forth, supports people. But also the journalism is really good. They produce good journalistic articles, and a couple in the Big Issue recently that caught my eye and is really relevant to this conversation were two. One was about the number of tribunals that the DWP have been involved in involving disability over the last five years. They're the worst performing large employer based on statistics of that kind, and they are the organization that polices Disability Confident. Now I don't, I call it kind of, I have a little headline, which is the Department of Irony. You know, on the one hand, we're looking out for disabled people, so help them get into work. On the other we're being sued for being a terrible employer.
Simon Minty 8:25
I'm going to do the Rory Stewart and the people who sell the Big Issue on the street are homeless people. Aren't that's part of the deal. Yes, yeah, and they've lost 20 of their 130 discrimination cases. Said the Big Issue?
Phil Friend 8:39
Yep, they lost 20 out of 130 they paid out nearly a million pounds in awards and settlements. And in one particular case they the damages awarded against them was 373,900 pounds, and that was because colleagues were calling a particular disabled person a nutter, so they got hammered. But that Royal Mail, which is a far bigger employer, 1000s more staff than DWP, doesn't get anywhere near that kind of settlement, rate? It's, it's just, it's appalling. And when they were asked about the figures, when they were figures, were told to them they were, they said they were totally shocked by DWP was, yeah, they said they were totally shocked by the figures. But actually, they didn't say they were shocked by the discrimination. They were shocked by the figures. It looks bad, doesn't it? Kind of approach. So that is the first story.
Simon Minty 9:37
Well, hold up, slow down a bit. Let's have a little interrogation into this before we move on. I've got to be really careful here, because I don't know well enough, but when the government department or civil service, oh, we can't believe this, you're like, well, there's sometimes a very incompetent these people. You would think someone would be sitting there going, we have a trend. We've got a worry here. And maybe they just think doesn't matter. Know, with the DWP, we're going to have it. We take a hit. We've got money in the budget. I don't know there's, there feels to be a lack of accountability to say, why are we the number one here, and what are we doing about changing it? I know there's really good disabled people from the DWP running various networks, staff networks. Now, are they completely sidelined? Are they furious about this? Are they? How are they being engaged? We could do this better. I was surprised. The DWP, second largest government employer, 94,000 staff, one in four whom were disabled through now is that self declaration?
Phil Friend 10:36
Well, I'm guessing some of it will be, yeah. I mean, and that, for me, that was an impressive figure. I thought that's good. You know, to have that many disabled people in your employment is good. But there's also a lot of these employees who are feeling discriminated against and taking action against the employer.
Simon Minty 10:54
And if you've got one in four, is that higher than Royal Mail if Royal Mail, have got one in 10 saying it does that change the numbers
Phil Friend 11:04
that I can't tell you. I don't know that. But you know, when you think Royal Mail has something, I think is around 150,000 employees, it makes the DWP look pretty small, and they've had fewer cases. They've lost fewer cases Royal Mail than DWP, even though they've got a lot more staff
Simon Minty 11:24
But I'm being detailed, but the DWP got 25,000 disabled people working for them. If Royal Mail, yeah, only had 20 Yeah, yeah, then their numbers are different. It's what's but yeah, we, when we have ran a company, we had 90% disabled. Yes, we did. So you kind of go, well, oh my god, we would expect a bit more. The point of it as I think your bit, which is the most obvious, is they are the leaders of this disability company,
Phil Friend 11:53
exactly. They're also the referees. They're the assessors, aren't they? They tell you whether you can have the bloody confident label or not,
Simon Minty 12:01
and they must be level three of their own, whatever it is, just you'd have thought so game, and yet they are failing all over the shop. I mean, the million quid as well, you would think that's a huge amount of money that could be better spent. I mean, forgive me for even just on disability issues or training or getting your managers to do this better. It's, it's in every way. It's pretty terrifying. Who's their reasonable adjustments provider? Because they all outsource it these days.
Phil Friend 12:29
I have no idea. So is it whoever they are, they should be fired, shouldn't they? Well, they, Oh, maybe it's not their fault. I mean, it may not be a discrimination around reasonable adjustments. It may be like bullying, calling somebody a nutter at work is clearly not about reasonable adjustments. It's about downright nasty. I don't know what behavior
Simon Minty 12:49
and why isn't someone saying that isn't how we act here
Phil Friend 12:55
Yeah, values of the organization, if
Simon Minty 12:59
someone does something that's silly or inappropriate. And I mean both the person saying those words, but also the person, if you call someone a nutter, I'm presuming they've done something unusual, but that's a whole different way. How do you react to that sort of stuff? Yeah? Okay,
Phil Friend 13:16
well, so that's, that's number one, yeah. Number two, again, is the DWP, but this time, it's about their involvement, or lack of it, in the Access to Work scheme. So while the government, on the one hand, is saying, we want to get people back to work, we want to get people in work, we're going to diddly diddly der, we're very keen on this, and in some ways, the benefit cuts are about incentivizing it to make people go to put to work and so forth. What you find is that Access to Work Support, according to the articles, which obviously will provide show notes for listeners, they're looking at slashing support by 60 and 70% to individuals. And there are three particular individuals that are cited. One is comedian, and I think you know pretty well, Simon Jess Thom had to quit her job because her Access to Work Support was cut. There's an entrepreneur, Rachel Parker's bakery that was shut down because the DWP refused to communicate with her via email. Her reasonable adjustment, and they deemed her non compliant. So I know you can't, you can't make this stuff up. So we've got the disability confident employer discriminating against disabled staff, and we've got the department responsible for access to work, who are incent supposed to be incentivizing it to help us get into work and keep our jobs and so on and so forth, slashing and burning individual people's access to work support which leads to either closure or the fact that they have to stop working. Now, these are not isolated incidents. There is, there is a groundswell now of people that. Waiting lists for access to work are increasing exponentially. So people are waiting months and months to get what they need. And obviously employers can't hang around. You know, they want staff to start quickly. They can't. These are stories that you and I were telling 20 years ago, and it's still going on.
Simon Minty 15:18
And as much as anything, I think employers, more often than not, could probably upfront fund it, but you won't upfront, upfront fund it if you don't think you're ever going to get it back. I mean, if, if you know, okay, six months, you know access to work. It's got a rule to backlog. It's going to take four to six months. All right, we'll, we'll swallow it. We'll take the cash flow. Here. It's when you go, I have no faith in the system anymore. It's not going to come. That's when it's suddenly a problem. There's a lovely line from Shani Don, the disability rights person, who says, this is a trend. No, no, it's a pattern. Jess Thom, who performs under Tourette's hero. Sometimes it's been phenomenal. I mean, 10 years ago, when we were here at the Fringe, she was just everywhere. I mean, big shows, everyone was loving her, and that's basically cut her dry. 60% of her funding, Access to Work Support is going there for all her helpers. And she's a wheelchair user has Tourette's unsurprising of being called that name has ticks. She's I've worked with her, and she said, you've gotta be careful. Sometimes I might have a seizure, and this is what we need to do. So she does need the support for her to do work, but she's a phenomenal artist. The stuff she's done around theater and access and just shows her that are phenomenal, really interesting stuff.
Phil Friend 16:44
I think what's interesting is the the irony is that in the same year that this is all going on, Chris McCausland wins, Strictly the blind guy who absolutely wowed, you know, absolutely he wowed audiences. The pinnacle, you know, disabled people's representation, good old Chris, and before that, Rosie, you know the deaf woman. It's all you'd think. The great British public might think disabilities, you know, up there, we're doing really well, but when you look behind it, what you're seeing going on, and we haven't talked about benefit cuts, haven't even touched on that. So there's this trend whereby, as you kind of started with your opening remarks, there's a trend here, which seems to be saying that disability is not something you should have if you want to be successful or supported or to have a kind of independent lifestyle like so many people, because it's slash and burn, the cuts are all falling on disability or poor people, disabled people, as we know, are much higher represented amongst poverty groups than just about any other group. So this is not good news, and this is under a Labour government who you might think, going back in history, is much more about the working people. And, you know, supporting the needs of working people doesn't appear to be the case, does it?
Simon Minty 18:13
Now, I've got a couple of what's the word balance questions for you, Mister Friend, yes. Um, shame. This, the first one I'm going to ask is, I already know my answer to this, but I'm going to ask you anyway, I do know that there will be instances that someone will get access to work funding, and maybe they get pa support, but actually 50% of that pas work is not related to impairment. It is like a business. PA, someone who, yeah, yeah, rather than the impairment related stuff, um, How do you work out what is and what isn't? How does Access to Work? DWP, how do you how do you monitor, evaluate that kind of stuff?
Phil Friend 19:07
I suppose I start from a very different place, which is to say that the reason this is all going on is because the country is skint, right? So if the vaults were full of gold, would we be worried about that kind of case? I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying, Would it attract as much attention? But when things are going very badly wrong with the economy, it's obviously true to say, we've got to cut our cloth. We've got to save money somehow. Why is it always the poor that saved the money for the government? Why isn't it, the rich? Why isn't there? Classically, now, the big discussions, IF listeners have never heard of Gary Stevenson, he's a young man. He has his own YouTube channel. He makes podcasts. He was a an absolute Whiz in the city, one of the richest young men to. Trading floors, all that stuff. He's an investment banker. Made Millions and millions and then got out of it and realized what was going on. And he's been talking about for the last two or three years, wealth tax. We need to make the rich pay more now. Why? So I just leave that out there. We'll put notes to to Gary's show as well, because he's a really interesting bloke, and he's written a very good book on the subject. But his argument is, why is it always the poor? Why are they the ones making the savings? Why aren't we finding ways of getting more revenues in from the very wealthy? And I think that's I turn the argument around, because it seems to me, before we start hitting somebody who may or may not be sailing close to the legal wind on access to work, why aren't we making sure that we've got enough money to pay staff appropriately, to administer the scheme and all that kind of thing. And you get that from wealthy people? Well, you, you should be able to get more from them, Amazon, famously, these other big corporates that don't pay any tax
Simon Minty 21:01
Let me just jump in because you You've not answered the question. You basically said,
Phil Friend 21:04
I kind of turned it on its head. I'm saying we do. You know that argument wouldn't matter so much if we had more money.
Simon Minty 21:11
So your argument is, if you haven't got much money, you can do what you want, but the but I'm kind of arguing that fair fairness here. Yes, I'm kind of you're saying that it's okay if you haven't got much money, well, they can bend the rules or exploit
Phil Friend 21:25
No, no, I'm not saying that, because I think what I am saying is, if you're okay, if you're going to administer the scheme like that, you need more staff who are monitoring the assessment processes, how the payments are being made. You're protecting the taxpayers money. That's what you're doing. But at the moment, the DWP, let's not beat about the bush. They're staff shortages everywhere. They haven't got the time. You know, look at the customs and immigration stories about all of that stuff. So if you have a better staffing ratio and more skilled people, then picking up these claims that clearly are not what they should be, gets a lot easier. And you deal with them. I'm not suggesting you, you don't. I'm just saying that I'm still struck by how we always go for benefits and the poor, rather than the rich, to say, let's increase revenues from them.
Simon Minty 22:21
And I my bit would be, I do want to make sure that those who are getting the support is appropriate support, and it helps and all the night, and I probably would have a margin as well, because I can't always tell that if that is exactly impairment related or it isn't. So I think you've got to have wiggle room. I completely agree with you. The wealthy have loads of wiggle room and opt out very clever scheme. So tightening them up to get that revenue in would be really, really good as well. So I always my business, is it fair for as many people as possible? So that's a bit naive, because it's never fair. But could it be more? Everybody is responsible, and they need to do the best,
Phil Friend 23:01
but with a better staffed, you know, let's not, you know, we're, I mean, a pop at DWP, and rightly so. But if, if we had much better staffing, if people had more time, if there were better kind of audit systems in place, then much of the kind of skullduggery would be being picked up and dealt with, because it isn't right that people cheat the system, whether they're rich or poor. That's not right.
Simon Minty 23:25
The thing is also and that's why, once in wiggle room around this, because there are examples in the Big Issues piece where someone said, I've got access to work that's allowed me to grow this business. I now employ people. So there's a whole and if we know disabled the high rates of unemployment amongst disabled people, and how do we get people back into work? If they are the support of access to work changes the game for them. It means that they are whatever they end up doing, and they'll start earning money, and then they start to pay back in all of these things. I know whenever they do the stats on access to work. I'm going to misquote it, but it's unlike every pound spent through access to work brings back one pound, 86 in income. We know this is a really smart idea. There's a lovely line in the picture. It's for the adjustments that aren't reasonable for the employer. So most adjustments are pretty cheap, and the employer does them and changes, and that's what these are the expensive ones that make a massive difference
Phil Friend 24:26
or they're very, as you were saying at the beginning, very personal. Going to the toilet at work, you know, have having somebody feed you, having somebody wipe your nose for you. Those are not things you'd expect an employer to provide for their members of staff. So you the government pays for that, but neither do the government expect that person wiping your nose to be the person that does all of your work for you while you read the paper. That's not the way it should be. You know, I know
Simon Minty 24:52
I was gonna make a really crass joke and reading the paper there, but
Phil Friend 24:59
Multi tasking, I suppose one small thing our listeners can do is one little thing they could do is to, aside from the usual stuff we always mention, write your MP or whatever, is buy the Big Issue, yeah, it helps.
Simon Minty 25:18
And by the way, you can buy it from the person selling on the street, or you can subscribe some of these stuff. You just pay a couple of quid a month. And if you can and you do it that way, that works better for me. I'm not always on the street meeting people to buy it, so
Phil Friend 25:35
no, and often you're in your car, aren't you? So you don't get the same when you're pedestrian, you tend to see stations and things there more. But anyway, we can put a note in the show notes for people to look at, if they want to. But I think that would be a nice thing to do if
Simon Minty 25:47
there was, like a drive through Big Issue. Probably do that.
Phil Friend 25:54
Now, I think you're being a bit fanciful. Mr. Mr. Minty
Announcer 25:57
this is The Way We Roll with Simon Minty and Phil Friend
Simon Minty 26:01
I want to continue this very complicated political rambling and I, I'm even hesitant of some of this myself, but I think this is a conversation that will be had more and more over the next year or two, and I don't have the solution yet. We are moving from labour to the conservatives. This is an article this. I'm reading this from The Guardian, but it was reported everywhere. And Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, the term disabled is in danger of losing all meaning. She said, um, she does not believe that one in four people are disabled, and the term is in danger of losing its meaning. And she used this linked to the criticism of the side of the welfare state, and she said there needs to be restrictions on disability benefits for those there were suffering conditions including food intolerances anxiety and mild depression. So hers isn't really a case of disabled people are getting too much money. It's there are too many disabled people. And I'm not bringing this up because it's not it's very complex as well. But I've been talking about this generally in saying, Will disability we have a definition, whether it's PIP assessment, blue badge, whether it's Equality Act, will there be a point where we have our Supreme Court ruling like happened with trans people recently, and the definition of disability may be clarified, revised? Is it gone too far, Mr. Friend, has the pendulum swung and everyone's got a disability now? Well, one word answer, please,
Phil Friend 27:49
Yes.
Simon Minty 27:52
Oh, my God,
Phil Friend 27:55
I can take you back to 1990 when I started in the disability world, and we had, I was running tiny little courses, and you and I hadn't met yet, and all that kind of stuff. And there were just four disabled people in the country. There were just six. Yeah, Jane Campbell, me, Jane Campbell and her, whoever the the figure that I quoted, and I've still got training notes based on, in my deep recesses, on my computer, was 6.9 million people, 6.8 Well, they'd obviously increase. When I looked, I remember 6.8 All right, let's, let's split a difference and say 6.85 anyway, it was, it was just over 6 million, nearly 7 million people. That was the official definition before the 95 act. And it was the, I can't remember. It was that kind of thing, that sort of stuff. But it was also based loosely on various things like the yes, the local government, oh God, the chronic sick and disabled persons act census. They did a big census where they knocked on every door of every council and say, Have you got someone disabled in there? And they go, yes. And then they tick a box or they wouldn't. So that was the figure I used to quote all the time. And then, of course, the 95 Act came in, and just before all that was a lot of arguing about what was disability, how would you define it, all that kind of thing, and the figure started to be something like 10 million. When you looked at this figure using that definition, you ended up with something like 10 million, an increase that's increased as we've included more groups, particularly neurodiverse groups, of people, and that range of impairments that increases the number of disabled peo
Simon Minty 29:55
I think, before that people with long term health conditions, we did a whole well that was brought in with the act. Right, yeah, but illness becoming part of disability, yeah?
Phil Friend 30:03
And then you you saw things like cancer being included as a disability. Obviously Changing Faces had a big involvement around getting facial disfigurement, included things like that. So what you saw going on was this very tight thing that linked mainly to blind, deaf, mobility impaired people, some with severe mental health issues, like schizophrenia, that kind of thing. That's the figure we used to use, and then gradually, over time, it's expanded to include more and more groups. And the idea that more and more groups are brought within the sphere because of, I'm guessing, because of the need to protect them, I against discrimination. You widen the definition of disability, so on one level, you could say, if there was no discrimination, we wouldn't need to do this.
Simon Minty 30:53
Uh, yes, and that's back to the we all got an impairment. We've got whatever. The thing is that might be different with our body or our mind, but the barrier being the whatever the society
Phil Friend 31:04
You can't find a job if you've got ADHD,
Simon Minty 31:06
but as Lawrence can't, as Lawrence Clark always used to say, there will be a day where I'm no longer disabled, but I'll still have my impairment and that. So here's a good example. I think it's in that one about food intolerances. Let's use that as an example. And I don't have any what I'm making this up, someone with a peanut allergy, yeah, if we're saying, Does it have a severe impact on your ability to do day to day activities in one way, I would argue yes, because if I'm around someone with nuts and I have a severe reaction to this, and we know some people have died because of intolerances, that is massive. That's way more complex than what you and I've got. I mean, huge, huge, huge. The flip side would be, is that has that have an impact on your day to day activities. How far does it go? Is it severe? It's almost like it might not on every day, although does it mean you I'm sharing a flat here in Edinburgh, and one of the first things someone said was, have any people got food intolerances because I or not? Intolerances because I like eat a lot of nuts and I don't want to mess anybody up. So I don't know. It's not someone who says, Oh, I don't really like fish. That's not a food intolerance This is, I don't know what my question is anymore.
Phil Friend 32:23
I think the question that we have to ask is, what is the purpose of the definition? What is it for now, mostly the 95 Act was about employment and service provision, so you needed protection if you were disabled because of discrimination, employment or customer service sake, however, if you want to access National Health Service, you have a different definition. If you want to use benefits Pip, you have a different definition. So what you've what you've got is you've got bits of legislation which are passports to so if you can get the definition of severely impaired, then you qualify for PIP. Say, yeah. So nut allergies wouldn't qualify for PIP, presumably, but they might for employment.
Simon Minty 33:21
I see what you mean. So you get protected that your employer doesn't say we don't care about it. We're going to have nuts on everything that we eat. Yes, cafe, Yeah, but you're saying you don't need financial support because you have a intolerance to this food.
Phil Friend 33:36
No. And equally, the employer might argue that you couldn't work there because of Health and Safety Act, really, you know, which puts, I can't put my employees at risk, and we do cook with lots of nuts.
Simon Minty 33:48
Every blooming thing you buy says, made in a factory with, yeah, so there's always
Phil Friend 33:52
that slide. So using a nut allergy or example,
Simon Minty 33:56
a nut allergy or that analogy,
Phil Friend 34:01
and that analogy, you're kind of but I think, I think the ones that stand out, that I think Kemi Badenoch was much more interested in, without actually saying it, are those on the neurodiverse area,
Simon Minty 34:16
food intolerances, anxiety, mild depression. That's what she said. Yeah. Anxiety is probably that one in
Phil Friend 34:21
there. Now the mild depression, I can hear her saying it, you know, pull yourself together. Get a grip
Simon Minty 34:26
the distinction all of these. And this is a truism. When I do my training, I always say sometimes now people say, I've got a physical and mental impairment, therefore I'm disabled. They forget that there's a follow up, long term, substantial adverse effect, day to day, activity, all of these things. So just having something, yes, that may have some sort of impact on you in certain circumstances, or even every minute of the day. But it's back to our you can have asked two people with asthma, one might be covered by that, and one might not be. Two people with dyslexia, one might might not be. It's always about the extra impact. Yes, rather than the thing in itself. But she says a line about drawing a line in the sand. And I don't know when you and I used to do the training, I'd say, and there's this, this and this, and then these conditions, whether it was dependency on alcohol or drugs or whatever,
Phil Friend 35:15
yeah, Pyromania, famous nymphomania. That's the one that most people giggled at
Simon Minty 35:19
Yeah, things like tattooing, we know that that was the line in the sand. Yeah, I think I don't know where this is going to go, and half of me loves the fact way more people are quite happy identifying as disabled, or people are getting the right support and adjustments and being considered, all of that I love. I always then become selfish and hierarchical and all the things they don't like, which is saying those we can pick off quite easily. And when we were doing our tech planning here in Edinburgh, they, the people who are running our venue, wanted 40 minutes to ask us a whole load of questions about welfare and mental health and all of that stuff. And I was like, wow, this is amazing. The flip side of it was, I wanted to make sure the tech was right. It was, I want to know about your well being. But then what about the microphone? The microphone is fundamental. So my flip side of what I'm saying is, whilst I'm pleased that this is broader and more inclusive, I don't want us to cherry pick the easy ones. Checking that someone's welfare is good because they've got mild anxiety. One thing, can the wheeluser user get in? Can the person who's got Tourette's are they allowed to be there all of those things that we is there a hearing loop? Is there sign language, all of those essentials that cost money and time? Are they still being considered?
Phil Friend 36:31
It's about exclusion, isn't it, really? I mean, I think the definitions of disability in the different areas are about keeping people out. I you don't qualify, or making sure that the right people get in. I i you do qualify, and we're going to give you help. So it's a matter of degree in some ways, and it's a blunt instrument this definition, because it and I think the word reasonable is the problem and the salvation, because reasonable. I used to when we were working together, I used to say there are several tests of what's reasonable, and the first one is, can I afford it? You're asking me to to not serve any nuts, but can I afford to do that? No, I can't,
Simon Minty 37:27
but you're, you're going on to adjustments. That's not definition,
Phil Friend 37:31
no, but it the definition gets you to the point of whether you get the adjustment or not, and then the adjustment is under a different set of tests.
Simon Minty 37:40
But the argument here with Kemi Badenock is saying, if you want either PIP or protection under the Equality Act, you having mild anxiety doesn't meet that criteria. So I don't even have to talk about your adjustments,
Phil Friend 37:51
no, because it does say substantial, yeah, which mild tends to mean? No, it isn't
Simon Minty 37:58
the tricky bit here. This is the flip side. And as I'm talking, I'm working out. So now, if we really harden up on either PIP or equality act definition, an employer go, sorry to hear that you got mild anxiety. I don't really give a stuff, and I don't have to. And a good employer would go, what do I need to do? Yeah, that then you're right. That's when you're the reasonableness would kick in. But although that person is still not covered under the Equality Act, they don't have the rights, but they can still have the adjustment. Yeah,
Phil Friend 38:26
and we've always maintained, as I'm sure lots of other people like us have maintained, that actually what you want is the talent. So what are you going to do to accommodate the talent? You do that for anyone. So if you've got a member of staff, you want to appoint somebody. There are no impairments, none of that stuff at all, but they've got three kids. Well, okay, what do we do to make sure that I get one? What I want from you as my employee at the same time as making sure that you're okay with what's happening with your children, that's a perfectly sensible approach if you want this particular individual, because they've got what you look for. And I think it's all that stuff. It's all these other things. I suppose it makes it to be fair to the employer. It makes life a lot harder when you've got to go through a 40 page bloody questionnaire to make sure the venue's All right, which is what you were just using as an example. It's a lot of work, isn't it?
Simon Minty 39:23
We are both jumping about it because I can't we talk about equality act or pip,
Phil Friend 39:31
pip. You need, you need, you need the definition of disability as in the 95 act, don't you?
Simon Minty 39:36
No, I think it's variation. They then have their own tests.
Phil Friend 39:39
But you are. You start, you start with the act as your baseline, and then you apply other tests. Can you walk 500 meters? No, 399, Oh, you don't qualify. Well, I was covered by the act. Yes, you were, but you're not covered by our
Simon Minty 39:53
I don't know if the act is directly related, but neither. Either way, I think if they are, did a lot of things
Phil Friend 39:59
just base. Yeah, they base baseline on the ACT.
Simon Minty 40:02
So the problem is, we're flipping between, should someone get Pip, or should they get adjustments in the workplace? And we're kind of saying, yes, you get adjustments in the workplace. Might not get Pip, but both of those, we're saying you actually don't have a legal protection. This is the benevolence of the employer,
Phil Friend 40:20
employer or, yeah, I mean, you, it seems to me that what you've got to do, then, according to Kemi Badenock, I don't know what they'll do if they get back in power, is you've got to find some way of removing lots and lots of people that are currently seen to be covered by the Equality Act. Um, I anything with mild in it, forget it. You're not in
Simon Minty 40:41
so two thoughts. One, the government appointed the ex is it CEO or chair of John Lewis to try and get more disabled people back into work? And he's done his research and found out that employers are scared of either disability or scared of tribunals. And I wonder if he obviously didn't speak to the DWP. They didn't even know their numbers. They don't really care that report. But in truth, I'm it's almost we're going to get to a point where kemi babinok will look as mild a mild person, because if Farage gets in, I think this goes up a big level. I mean, he's contradictory. One minute he's like, no one should be on this, and the next minute, he's really soft. So I've no idea, and I feel the trend is going that way. Well,
Phil Friend 41:31
what we're moving towards is the kind of we haven't mentioned the words yet, but perhaps we will, and then by the time we do, it'll be time to close the podcast. Is the whole woke debate, and this what's going on in the States, for example, where they're just doing away with dei disability, inequality and diversity and inclusion schemes. They've all been closed. Money has been removed. People. I mean, I'm not showing every one of them, but from what I read, that massive cuts in, and it's all fallen, you know, blaming air traffic controllers for crashes because some one of them was disabled, all that kind of stuff that is the Farage territory, in my view, that's the kind of line that he will probably follow. So all of this mumbo jumbo, woke rubbish will get rid of it, and that puts people with mild, severe, whatever, ADHD autism, I mean autism at the moment, everybody, whenever I watch TV and somebody's being interviewed, they say, Oh, I discovered I was autistic. And there's a bit of me goes, Oh, come on. You know, for goodness sake, there are people I've met who are autistic, who really are in a different ball game to the one you're in. But that doesn't mean they don't have some traits that are interesting and different. Yeah, yeah. But you know, that's where Kemi Badenoch, of course, has got onto the little tale of something here. Because the great British public, I suspect, would say, well, there's nothing wrong with this. She's earning 200,000 pound of film. How disabled is she?
Simon Minty 43:00
I have a couple of thoughts on that, and as you say, we need to bring it to a close of the work that I've done. I'm and I've obviously spent some time in the States recently, and I'm hearing that the Trump government has withdrawn a lot of funding for lots of progressive publications or projects and USAID, that's conversation on one of my shows that is disappeared. So a lot of the funding is disappearing. The other bit I'm here with corporates is, or, if you want a government contract, you have to show that you're not you have to change what you're doing on de and I IE, you take it down a few notches so you won't get government money if you're too far down a certain way, I might quote one of the people up here is a woman called Ria Lima. She's one of our comedians. She's quite well known, and she's a fat person. She has had been autistic for a long time, and found out the other day she's got ADHD anyway, she does a little joke, and I'm going to do the joke. And we got pushback on this. She got pushed back yesterday. So her joke is, I think with all neurodivergent conditions, there's BC and AC. And she said, Oh no, AD, so BC is, you were diagnosed before it was cool. And she said, You have probably spent most of your life hiding it, trying to fit in. You've been masking that's what you have to do, because that's when you got it. You're like, oh God, behave this way. Don't behave the way you want. And then she said, and then there's after diagnosis for the people who have got it very recently, now that it's cool, they may not have a formal diagnosis. You see a lot of them on Tiktok, and I mean, one person is all that's harsh, but there's something. And halfway says, this is wonderful, that there's a whole bundle of people who are saying, This is what I've got, and I can't hide it. It is the way I am. What she's also saying is, though, how do we mix that in? Because it's. Very hard to balance everything and get it right for everybody. It's back to our original point, isn't it? So like with fairness, responsibility, support all those things, how do you get the balance right? Yeah,
Phil Friend 45:14
I don't know. I mean, in another 10 years, what we'll be saying is the then trend. You know, what is the issue that there's no question that the debates around mental health and neurodiversity in the extremes is much more publicly talked about now than it ever used to be. You never heard people talking like they do now. But there's also this other group, which is the Badenoch group, that you kind of, you're not saying, they're not, they're not telling the truth about what's going on, but you're wondering why it's such a big deal for them. In a sense, I guess that my judgments colored by, you know, when you've seen somebody with schizophrenia in in huge distress. I mean, really, really. I, when I worked as a mental welfare officer, I sectioned people for psychiatric hospital. I know it was a long time ago, but I never met a happy schizophrenic. I mean, it was awful, the pain and suffering they went through, and their families went through, and so on. To put that group in alongside something like mild depression, I know they're not the same conditions. Is difficult to do, because I think what most people still think of is that extreme end of things, whereas someone with dyslexia, for example, which is now much, much more talked about and recognized as quite a serious issue for people that have, you know, really affected by dyslexia in all sorts of ways, in everyday ways. It's, it's this fashionable thing that I suppose, I suppose it brings, bring disability into disrepute. You know, you're kind of, you're all charlatans. That's the problem, isn't it? Because you're all Charla. You said it yourself, if somebody's got a PA and they're not just helping them go to the toilet, but they're actually helping them do all these other stuff. Well, they're cheating the system. You know what I mean
Simon Minty 47:08
I do now. I don't have a problem with putting someone with mild anxiety and someone schizophrenia in the mental health or neurodiverse group. Yeah, I would put them in mental health conditions, and I would happily say they have a form of disability as well. Have all of that. It's fine. I think what we're trying to say is, and also, I think all of those people we should make adjustments for so they can get the best out of society, all of that. The question is this line in the sand that says, you it's a horrible it's a divide. It's not quite them and us, but it's there. Where are our limits? Where are our boundaries? How far can we go? And in the ideal, perfect world, there might not be but that's not where we live.
Phil Friend 47:50
Actually, the boundary, of course, gets moved depending on the economy. So if you've got loads and loads of money, then we can afford to look after people with mild whatever, if, however, you're skint, then we're going to concentrate the money on the people that have got the most severe conditions, so the mild people now get ignored. It's that kind of economic stuff that comes up when you look at benefits. Pip is restricted because the country is broke. It would be far easier to expand the scheme. It would save a lot of money, actually, in terms of residential care and those kinds of things in the we haven't even talked about what's going on Independent Living and the cuts there. So it's very difficult. I agree. I mean, I think from the days when you and I started working in this field, to where we are now is light years different.
Simon Minty 48:36
The question would be, you've got to stop, for crying out loud, every time you say something. I've got another seven points, if I ask that original point 6.8 million. And now I've heard 24 million people who have disability in the UK, ridiculous. The question would be, is it a good thing that there's that many more people who are identifying and sharing and explaining what they've got, and we're recognizing this is a massive pile of people,you know, at various levels, or actually, is it over the top? Now that actually as Kemi is suggesting it's losing a little bit of meaning. I don't know if it's either of those. It's more about, when do we get involved? What are the best support mechanisms, and how much does someone need in terms of support, and how much is, you know?
Phil Friend 49:21
And I think the key is the support bit, because the more and more people, the poorer and poorer we get, the less money people have, the more they look at being in a qualifying group to get benefits. So what you find with PIP is that if I can say I've got this, maybe I'll qualify for PIP if I had more money where I didn't rely on what's the other bit, Universal Credit, that kind of benefit, if I didn't have to rely on those things to the extent I do now, would I be signing up to having a mild, whatever it is, to see if I can get more benefits through it? Because I'm sure that drives a lot of this. It's people feel they can qualify for something they don't. Currently qualified, but if I wear this label, used to be true of single mothers, didn't it? The only reason you got pregnant was to get a house. We all know that's absolute crap, but there's this idea that you know people in certain situations, remember the famous examples of people having amputations just so they could qualify for certain things. I mean, it's horrific, but people will do whatever needs doing to survive. That's the point.
Simon Minty 50:26
I think that last one's slightly extreme, too many of those. I mean, we know the devotees and all that stuff, but let's stop, because we have to stop and get on with our lives.
Phil Friend 50:37
I think we've solved it. I think we've solved it. I think we've got to the bottom of it. And probably enough said, Really,
Simon Minty 50:43
when I do the one of my debate things with training is I get people into groups of the word disability at its day, and we debate some of this stuff. And I, I think it is okay to have the discussion. I would love listeners to kind of go, first of all, what did you think of our points of view, which we're shooting from the hip, although there is years and years of experience, and the other bit is out, is there a line in the sand? Is that a horrible concept? Is it a realistic, necessary concept? What is what do we do? Yeah,
Phil Friend 51:13
so there we are.
Simon Minty 51:15
Thanks for coming.
Phil Friend 51:17
That's alright anytime. Come on. Listeners. Get the emails coming. We haven't had a little listeners corner for a long, long time. So it's about time you put keyboard to paper, or whatever it is we do these days,
Simon Minty 51:27
We do get listens. That's the lovely bit.
Phil Friend 51:29
Oh no, we get listens, but we have so brilliantly. Obviously, everyone agrees with us. They never write in to say they don't. I mean, that's the point.
Simon Minty 51:36
Or they probably don't get to this bit
Phil Friend 51:37
God, I went in the bath at 10, and they're still rambling on, and it's half past 12. I wonder if our famous man is still listening to us in his bath. I've not heard from him for a while.
Simon Minty 51:51
Nice to see you,
Phil Friend 51:52
and you too. And good luck with Edinburgh. I hope that continue the people flock in to see the show, because it is very good.
Simon Minty 52:01
Thank you very much. I will speak to you soon, and thank you listeners for listening.
Phil Friend 52:06
Yep. Take care everyone. See you soon.
Announcer 52:08
Bye, bye. This is The Way We Roll, presented by Simon Minty and Phil Friend. You can email us at mintyandfriend@gmail.com or just search for minty and friend on social media. We're on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. You.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai