Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of reasonable adjustments in public sector recruitment processes for disabled applicants.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Government is fully committed to the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), which protects disabled people from discrimination in the workplace. The Act prohibits direct and indirect disability discrimination and requires employers - including those in the public sector - to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and applicants who meet the Act’s definition of disability, to ensure that they are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to their non-disabled colleagues.
The reasonable adjustment duty on employers requires them to make adjustments to any element of a job, job application or interview process, whether on an anticipatory basis or at the request of the disabled person.
The failure of an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee or job seeker, or discounting a job application simply because the applicant is disabled could amount to direct disability discrimination under the Act.
The Act recognises the need to strike a balance between the needs of disabled people and the interests of employers. What is ‘reasonable’ will vary from one situation to another. This is because factors like the practicability and cost of making the reasonable adjustment, and the resources available to different employers will be different. It will therefore be for the courts to decide, in the event of a claim of alleged disability discrimination, and on a case-by-case basis, what reasonable adjustments should be made.
It is a matter for individual public sector employers as to how they ensure compliance with their legal obligations under the Act, but many will be subject to the Act’s Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which requires public authorities, and those carrying out public functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination (including on grounds of disability), advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different people. The duty to have “due regard” obliges a public authority to consider the equality aims set out in the duty when exercising its functions, like taking decisions, and then to decide what weight to accord to them. Public authorities place themselves at greater legal risk if they do not interpret the law correctly.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) provides authoritative and impartial advice free to employees or employers in relation to employment discrimination issues via their website. and telephone helpline 0300 123 1100 or text relay service 18001 0300 123 1100. You can access the website here: http://www.acas.org.uk. Acas also provides employees and employers with Early Conciliation to help them resolve/settle their workplace dispute without going to court.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps he is taking to improve accessibility for disabled candidates seeking employment in the public sector.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Government is fully committed to the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), which protects disabled people from discrimination in the workplace. The Act prohibits direct and indirect disability discrimination and requires employers - including those in the public sector - to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and applicants who meet the Act’s definition of disability, to ensure that they are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to their non-disabled colleagues.
The reasonable adjustment duty on employers requires them to make adjustments to any element of a job, job application or interview process, whether on an anticipatory basis or at the request of the disabled person.
The failure of an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee or job seeker, or discounting a job application simply because the applicant is disabled could amount to direct disability discrimination under the Act.
The Act recognises the need to strike a balance between the needs of disabled people and the interests of employers. What is ‘reasonable’ will vary from one situation to another. This is because factors like the practicability and cost of making the reasonable adjustment, and the resources available to different employers will be different. It will therefore be for the courts to decide, in the event of a claim of alleged disability discrimination, and on a case-by-case basis, what reasonable adjustments should be made.
It is a matter for individual public sector employers as to how they ensure compliance with their legal obligations under the Act, but many will be subject to the Act’s Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which requires public authorities, and those carrying out public functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination (including on grounds of disability), advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different people. The duty to have “due regard” obliges a public authority to consider the equality aims set out in the duty when exercising its functions, like taking decisions, and then to decide what weight to accord to them. Public authorities place themselves at greater legal risk if they do not interpret the law correctly.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) provides authoritative and impartial advice free to employees or employers in relation to employment discrimination issues via their website. and telephone helpline 0300 123 1100 or text relay service 18001 0300 123 1100. You can access the website here: http://www.acas.org.uk. Acas also provides employees and employers with Early Conciliation to help them resolve/settle their workplace dispute without going to court.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of (a) anonymised CVs and (b) name-blind recruitment on diversity outcomes in Government departments.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
As set out in the Civil Service People Plan 2024 - 2027, we are committed to ensuring we attract, develop and retain talented people from a diverse range of backgrounds to create a modern Civil Service.
Anonymous CVs and name-blind recruitment, which are already used widely across the civil service, limit the impact that bias may have on recruitment, so that candidates are judged on the skills and experience they have outlined.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether he has had discussions with his counterparts in the G7 on creating a common investment-ban list for companies credibly implicated in (a) forced labour, (b) genocide and (c) mass surveillance in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China.
Answered by Catherine West - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The human rights situation in China, including China's persecution of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities, remains a priority for the government. The UK regularly discusses issues of common concern with likeminded partners, including through the G7.
There are a number of ways in which His Majesty's Government currently tackles the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains. The Overseas Business Risk Guidance makes clear to UK companies the risk of operating in certain regions and urges them to conduct appropriate due diligence when making business decisions.
Last month, this Government launched a review of its approach to ensuring responsible business conduct, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK. This includes a review of alternative measures to tackle forced labour.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
o ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether he has considered publishing a consolidated UK list of Chinese companies (a) credibly implicated in forced-labour abuses in Xinjiang and (b) linked to the People’s Liberation Army.
Answered by Catherine West - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The human rights situation in China, including China's persecution of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities, remains a priority for the government. The UK regularly discusses issues of common concern with likeminded partners, including through the G7.
There are a number of ways in which His Majesty's Government currently tackles the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains. The Overseas Business Risk Guidance makes clear to UK companies the risk of operating in certain regions and urges them to conduct appropriate due diligence when making business decisions.
Last month, this Government launched a review of its approach to ensuring responsible business conduct, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK. This includes a review of alternative measures to tackle forced labour.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if she will commission a review of UK (a) pension fund and (b) insurance fund exposure to Chinese corporations sanctioned by allied jurisdictions.
Answered by Emma Reynolds - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
There are currently no plans to commission a review of UK pension fund and insurance fund exposure to Chinese corporations sanctioned by allied jurisdictions.
The Government does routinely assess the impacts of its sanctions.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of steps that local authorities are taking to help improve the representation of people with (a) a working class background, (b) a minority ethnic background and (c) disabilities in local government.
Answered by Jim McMahon - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Local authorities are independent employers responsible for the management and organisation of their own workforces, including recruitment practices. It is the duty of local authorities to comply with all relevant employment and equalities legislation and there is no role for central government intervening in this, except where specific provision has been made in legislation.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps her Department is taking to help ensure that local authorities offer adequate reasonable adjustments during recruitment assessments for candidates with declared disabilities.
Answered by Jim McMahon - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Local authorities are independent employers responsible for the management and organisation of their own workforces, including recruitment practices. It is the duty of local authorities to comply with all relevant employment and equalities legislation and there is no role for central government intervening in this, except where specific provision has been made in legislation.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of NICE’s severity modifier on people with secondary breast cancer.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for the methods and processes that it uses in the development of its recommendations. The severity modifier was introduced in January 2022 as part of a number of changes intended to make NICE’s methods fairer, faster, and more consistent.
NICE carried out a review of the implementation of the severity modifier in September 2024 and found that it is operating as intended. This showed that the proportion of positive cancer recommendations is higher, at 84.8%, than with the end-of-life modifier it replaced, at 75%, and the proportion of positive recommendations for advanced cancer treatments is also higher, 81.1% compared to 69%.
Since the introduction of the severity modifier, NICE has recommended all but one of the treatments for breast cancer that it has assessed. These treatments are now available to eligible National Health Service patients.
NICE has commissioned research to gather further evidence on societal preferences that will inform future methods reviews.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of NICE’s definition of a very severe condition.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) introduced the severity modifier in 2022 to replace the existing end of life modifier, based on evidence of societal preferences and as part of a comprehensive review of NICE’s methods and processes. The modifier was designed through extensive public and stakeholder engagement and in line with the principle of opportunity cost neutrality. NICE’s updated methods, including the severity modifier, have enabled it to recommend a number of treatments for conditions such as hepatitis D and cystic fibrosis, that it may not otherwise have been able to recommend for use on the National Health Service. Under these new methods, the proportion of positive recommendations is higher, at 86.5%, than with the end-of-life modifier, at 82.5%.
NICE has commissioned research to gather further evidence on societal preferences that will inform future methods reviews.