What's keeping Theresa May from publicly reprimanding the adviser who said disability benefits aren't for people with anxiety?

After taking possession of the keys to Number 10 Downing Street, Theresa May made two bold claims about the type of government she intended to lead. First, she said that she would make Britain a country “that works for everyone”. She pledged to “fight against the burning injustices” of poverty, race, class and health. “The Government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.”

Second, she committed to creating a health system that took mental health more seriously. “If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help at hand,” she admitted. And in January she promised to do something about that, describing new mental health measures, including school and workplace provisions, as “a historic opportunity to right a wrong, and give people deserving of compassion and support the attention and treatment they deserve”.

Not yet a year in the job and her record on mental health is under question. Two days ago she was publicly embarrassed by a senior advisor who, in a debate over disability benefits, said that support should be given to “really disabled people” and not those “taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety”.

Parity of esteem for mental and physical health, May’s great promise of a commitment of wellness for all, apparently hasn’t reached as far as the desk nextdoor. The adviser in question – Conservative MP George Freeman – apologised for the language he used, but what hope is there for May’s big ambitions of a society with new attitudes to mental illness?

Freeman’s gaffe came in the middle of a debate about whether Personal Independence Payments, the award available to disabled people to help them meet the extra costs they incur just to live independent lives, should be extended to those who struggle to work and manage their lives due to severe anxiety. This can include people with agoraphobia, or those who need help to take their medication or to monitor their health.

A legal tribunal has ruled that facing “overwhelming physical distress” from mental health conditions should allow a person to qualify for the benefit. The Government, and in particular disabilities minister Penny Mordaunt, says they should not – despite opposition from other Conservatives, including backbencher Heidi Allen. But what does the leadership think?

If Theresa May wants to lead for all, then ensuring that disabled people receive an equal opportunity to live independently must be a key part of that. So where was the voice of our Prime Minister?

Welfare reform is already taking £28bn out of the pot supporting disabled people, so perhaps her silence is to be expected. But at the very least she should have publicly reprimanded a personal adviser who has exposed her ambitions as a sham. Her commitment to the interests of the ordinary person is made a mockery of by how little priority the Government gives to the disabled.

An added irony is that this has become a row over MPs and legal minds deciding what constitutes a disability requiring additional support, rather than doctors. Government, through its outsourcing of disability assessments, washed its hands of GP and specialist opinion years ago.

Under other governments, the rights, responsibilities and general welfare of Britain’s millions of disabled citizens might have been a sideline issue handled only by a dedicated minister. That minister then may or may not win battles with the premier and the Treasury over spending and benefits for those people.

May, however, doesn’t have that luxury. She’s staked her reputation as Prime Minister on her ability to see beyond privilege. That should include the physical privilege of being able-bodied as well as wealth and class. She’s also made clear commitments on mental health that ignoring the tribunal ruling on anxiety and other conditions would mean immediately breaking.

The modern Conservative Party has never been less convincing than in its position over welfare and disability. That a film such as I, Daniel Blake could even be made in modern Britain is a national embarrassment.

Where earlier Tory PMs may have waved a dismissive hand, Theresa May has no choice but to act. Her legacy, and her honesty, depends upon it. So what will it be, Prime Minister?