FURTHER PROVISION AS TO DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR NEEDS OF THE DISABLED

HC Deb 10 July 1981 vol 8 cc754-8

Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 5 insert— ("B.—(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs for the disabled).—

1. (a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and
2. (b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of state is satisfied, afer carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such provision should be made; and different bodies and different procedures may be prescribed for different classes of buildings or other premises to which this subsection applies".

(2) After the said section 4(1), there shall be inserted the following subsection— (1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Pracice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979.". (3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)— Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section."; and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970. (4) The following subsection shall be inserted after the said section 8(1)— (1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with so much of the Design Note as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either house of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Design note" means Design Note 18 "Access for the Physically Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.". (5) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define certain expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted"—(a)" and at the end there shall be added the words"; or (b) amend—

1. (i) the difinition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act; and
2. (ii) the definition of "the Design Note" in section 8(1A) of this Act.".

(6) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument. (7) This section extends to England and Wales only.

Mr. Wigley

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 17.

Mr. Wigley

This is an important amendment. It extends the way in which the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 provides for facilities for the disabled in buildings to which the public have right of access. That matter has been debated at length. It was a major part of the Silver Jubilee committee report "Can Disabled People Go Where You Go?" published a couple of years ago.

The main recommendation in the report for central Government action was that Legislation should be introduced to make the access sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 mandatory. Further, the law should be amended to place on developers the burden of proof that to make a new building accessible would be unreasonable or impractical. The words "practical and reasonable" in the 1970 Act have caused difficulty. They provide a loophole for those who do not want to abide by the spirit of the Act.

I accept what the Minister said in the previous debate, namely, that we can overstate the extent to which the 1970 Act has been abused. But it is those instances of abuse on which our attention is focused. There have been sufficient examples of important public buildings where provisions for the disabled have not been made, which has caused the strength of feeling which manifested itself in the report of the Silver Jubilee committee.

The planning laws deal with access, but there needs to be a more detailed consideration, in terms of BS 5810, of provision inside buildings. If a developer does not abide by the spirit of the 1970 Act, as amended by the Bill, what is the redress? This amendment removes the words "practical and reasonable" and puts in the words "appropriate provision". It introduces the concept of a body that will determine whether a provision is appropriate. That body will be an outside body to ajudicate on the developer. The developer will be ruled upon by an external body on whether the provision is appropriate. That is changing the onus in the way that was called for by the Silver Jubilee committee.

However, the provision will be operated by order. The Government have said in another place that there will be widespread discussion of the matter, but there is some concern about the way in which it will operate. There is a feeling that, ideally, the provisions of the British Standards code of practice on access for disabled people to buildings should have the same status as building regulations, and that they could be imposed in the same way. That would not do what Baroness Young said that the Government feared would happen, that there would be a new type of offence and a new structure of fines, which the Government want to avoid. It would bring the provisions of BS 5810 into the realm of building regulations, and it would be subject to the same controls as building regulations.

When the Government discuss the matter with bodies outside the House—local authorities, the bodies which represent disabled people, and everyone else—I hope that they will bear in mind the possibility of moving towards the application of building regulations to cover that aspect. I know that the Government have considered that in the past, as parliamentary answers have shown, and I hope that the Government will act quickly in the context of the amendment.

Several questions that arise would be covered if the code of practice were given the status of building regulations. One is the question of appeal. Another is the question of sanction. It would also cover the whole question of the body that deals with the matter—the local building regulation authority, normally, the district council.

A number of such questions are unanswered. The amendment itself is highly desirable, and moves in the right direction. If I have any criticism, it is that we do not know the answers to all the questions and implications. My criticism is not of the amendment. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will cast further light in this connection.

Mr. Rossi

I shall explain briefly the purport of this amendment, which was a Government amendment moved in the other place. Its intention is fourfold.

First, the amendment moves the onus on to the developer, to show that it would not be reasonable or practicable to provide facilities for disabled people. At present, the statutory requirement in the 1970 Act provides him with an escape which is, to all intents and purposes, unchallengeable. That is now being changed.

Secondly, the amendment incorporates the BSI code of practice on access for the disabled into the legislation. Thus, the developer will know exactly what he needs to do to comply with the Act, and the public will know whether it is being complied with.

Thirdly, the amendment provides for a body—which still has to be prescribed—and I understand that it is this uncertainty that is causing the present worries of the hon. Gentleman and of people outside the House—which will adjudicate as to whether it would be reasonable or practicable in the circumstances to provide for the needs of disabled people.

Fourthly, the amendment will enable pressure to be brought to bear on developers who do not abide by the prescribed body's views.

The criticisms that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and by other like-minded people are to the effect that "It is all very well, but no sanctions are imposed for non-compliance. Who will the prescribed bodies be, and what will be their effect?" I understand those worries. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no preconceived prejudices about how the provision should be implemented. We intend to consult all the interested bodies, including local authorities and the representatives of disabled people, to see how the machinery can best be set up to make the new clause effective.

There are a variety of possibilities for the prescribed bodies. I mentioned last week during our debate on the International Year of Disabled People that perhaps local authorities could deal with problems relating to the provision of induction loops for buildings. But that was an illustrative example, because we could have not only local authorities but independent bodies such as the Institute of Arbitrators and even bodies specially established for this purpose, or even voluntary organisations. No decision has been taken.

We have to bear in mind that we are having to cater for a variety of circumstances. One body could be an expert on the design of schools or railway stations, or shops or cinemas, and it might be necessary to have a number of different prescribed bodies to adjudicate on different types of buildings. This is one of the matters which will deserve and will receive the widest possible consultation to see what kind of framework of prescribed bodies we should set up to exercise the adjudicating function being given to a prescribed body in the amendment.

1.45 pm

Mr. Wigley

Does the Minister accept that one of the major problems about access under the 1970 Act has been the lack of sanction? Therefore, in considering the prescribed body perhaps the Government could pay special regard to that aspect.

Mr. Rossi

I hope that the views of the prescribed body will have considerable status as does, for example, a report by the Ombudsman when matters of alleged maladministration are referred to him.

As the clause stands, I agree that there are no penalties for non-compliance. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if it turns out that developers are flouting the views of the prescribed body, we shall give urgent consideration to whether penalties for non-compliance should be provided. But we have not done so at this stage because the evidence is that there has been no widespread flouting by developers of the provisions of the 1970 Act. That will apply with greater certainty now that we are placing a positive burden upon developers with an outside independent body to check upon their activities.

The cause for complaint is very unlikely to arise. We reserve our position to take measures and to take action if experience shows that it does. But at the moment we do not think we should use the traditional sledgehammer to crack a nut. We prefer to leave this to the good faith and good sense of those concerned in the design and provision of buildings now that we have in legislation clear guidelines for their use.

Question put and agreed to.