![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This study is concerned with the substantive representation of disabled people (SRDP) in legislative settings; in other words, addressing disabled people's needs and concerns in policy and lawmaking. Mixed methods analysis of post-1940 Acts of the UK Parliament, backbench MPs' use of early day motions (EDMs) and written parliamentary questions (WPQs) reveals long-standing institutional ableism. This is the situation whereby systemic practices disadvantage individuals based on their abilities. Inter alia, the findings show that although recent years have seen some progress, there remain significant party differences in the prioritisation of the SRDP – with gains largely dependent on the parties of the left, as evidenced in the data on lawmaking, and use of EDMs and WPQs. Importantly, the findings also support recent theorising on ‘claims-making’ by revealing the pivotal role played by ‘critical actors'. These are parliamentarians (disabled and, crucially, non-disabled) who, compared with their peers, are disproportionately influential in promoting the SRDP.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful and constructive comments of three anonymous referees when revising an earlier draft of this paper.
Notes
2. The 26 per cent are disabled as defined by the Equality Act (2010) (ONS, 2010a, p. 1).
3. An approach that emphasises the medical treatment of disabled people rather than social patterns and processes of disablism and inequality.
4. The year 1940, rather than 1945, was selected as the starting date in order to facilitate a decade-on-decade comparison () and to include the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, a key statute.
6. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/. ‘Disability-related’ EDMs and WPQs were identified by keyword searches featuring ‘disabled people’ and ‘disability’ in the text – as well as key terms such as ‘blind’, ‘deaf’, etc. corresponding with definitions of disability in the literature and law (for example, Equality Act, 2010).
7. Nvivo 9.
11. Mean number of EDMs per MP, by party over the four parliaments 1992–2010, were as follows: (1992) the Labour Party (LAB) 0.048, the Liberal Democrats (LIB) 0.050, and the Conservative Party (CON) 0.012; (1997) LAB 0.055, LIB 0.087, and CON 0.030; (2001) LAB 0.019, LIB 0.038, and CON 0.030; (2005) LAB 0.039, LIB 0.020, and CON 0.024.
12. Eddie McGrady MP, ‘DLA Mobility Component for Children Aged Less Than Three Years', EDM 484, 2004.
13. David Anderson MP, ‘Inclusion Now Campaign’, EDM 441, 2009.
14. Andrew Lansley MP, ‘Lost Without Words Campaign’, EDM 1719, 2008.
15. Kevin Barron MP, ‘Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists’ Giving Voice Campaign’, EDM 1107.
16. Chris Ruane MP, ‘Destination 2020 Campaign’, EDM 1116, 2009.
17. Chi square = 33.367, df = 18, p = 0.01506224.
18. Graham Allen MP, Labour Party, ‘Strokes', EDM 498, 1997.
19. Roger Berry MP, Labour Party, ‘Impact of Debt on Disabled People’, EDM 1078, 2005.
20. Mark Williams MP, Liberal Democrats, ‘Local Authority Access Officers', EDM 359, 2009.
21. Mean number of WPQs per MP, by party over the three parliaments 1997–2010, were as follows: (1997) LAB 0.081, LIB 0.060, and CON 0.012; (2001) LAB 0.075, LIB 0.067, and CON 0.020; (2005) LAB 0.069, LIB 0.048, and CON 0.010.
22. Anne Begg MP, WPQ 47,347, 21 March 2011.
23. Chris Ruane MP, WPQ 299,882, 12 November 2009.
24. David Willetts MP, WPQ 232,264, 30 October 2008.
25. Anne Begg MP, WPQ 93,527, 28 January 2003.
26. Chi square = 46.659, df = 12, p =0.00000534.
27. Chi square = 55.982, df = 18, p = 0.00000897.
28. The reason for this is that self-reinforcing intra-group dynamics are seen to operate. Inter alia, when part of a critical mass, group members are emboldened and empowered to challenge oppressive institutional cultures and offer moral and practical support (for a full discussion, see Dahlerup, Citation2006).
30. http://sta.geo.useconnect.co.uk/what_we_do/representation_in_public_life.aspx. As noted, these data are not collected by the parliamentary authorities – and the Equality Act (2010) gives the individual the discretion to disclose/not disclose a disability. Non-disclosure and non-visible impairments preclude accurate counting of the number of disabled MPs.
31. This quotation is adapted from the original, which referred to women's representation.
Additional information
Paul Chaney is Reader in Public Policy at Cardiff University School of Social Sciences, UK