§ 2.49 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice is now given to authorities responsible for designing new public buildings or modernising existing ones 851 about providing easy access for disabled people; what powers the Secretary of State can and does exercise if this advice is not followed; to what extent the new National Theatre fails in this respect and what modifications are to be made, and when and whether the facilities of the whole South Bank complex can now be reviewed and, where possible, improved as regards nearby parking and aids such as ramps, low kerbs and handrails to enable disabled people, whether in wheelchairs or not, to have easier access to these buildings including refreshment rooms and cloakrooms.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk)My Lords, local authorities have been advised of their statutory obligations and have been asked to remind private developers of theirs. My right honourable friend has no coercive powers. The National Theatre facilities are generally good, but improvements have been made and the South Bank Theatre Board are considering more.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, I confess that I find that reply very disappointing. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that, despite the excellent guidelines issued by the Government and despite Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, there are many examples of buildings which do not come up to standard where provision for the disabled is concerned, and that the National Theatre is definitely one of them? Secondly, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that there is often, even where provisions have been made, a breakdown in communications, as a result of which when disabled people make inquiries of staff inside or outside public buildings or premises they are quite unable to find out what provisions have been made for them? That is very disheartening.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I should be grateful if he would let me have details of any particular building where he is aware that they are falling below these 852 standards. On the second part —the question of information by staff to disabled visitors—this is a matter for the management concerned; but it would be extremely beneficial to everybody if visitors to a building so informed the management. If the noble Lord has any particular building or theatre in mind, I will do what I can about it.
§ Lord COTTESLOEMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—my noble friend Lord Donaldson will be—that, so far as the new National Theatre building is concerned, the two main theatres, only one of which has yet been opened, provide better facilities for the disabled than almost any other theatre in the country?—as should be the case.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that there is a great possibility of helping a considerable number of people by the Government bringing their influence to bear on sports authorities to ensure that, when rebuilding or remodelling of sports grounds takes place, facilities are made available for disabled people? Would she consider the possibility of inviting the attention of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Gambling—which is considering how to raise more money for sporting activities —to the desirability of considering this concept, which would mean that with little cost a great number of people could be helped?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I shall certainly pass on the points made by noble friend to my honourable friend the Minister for Sport who I am sure will take this into account. From the point of view of the Department—in my case, the Department's buildings which come under my care—I have already initiated discussion and investigation on how to improve facilities and access.
§ Baroness MASHAM of ILTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she thinks that the time has come to make mandatory Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, this is a matter for the Government generally and it involves Departments other than my own. It is something that I think 853 we should all support in spirit and intention; but, even if it is put into the Act, it is a case of it being practicable and of people carrying it out. I think that the circular which went to the local authorities with the 1970 Act made a tremendous start. Those authorities and private developers which have been able to undertake it have made a tremendous difference. But unless people are prepared to carry it out—and it is also unfortunately a question of resources there does not seem to be much point in making it mandatory.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, may I, in full support of my noble friend's Question, ask whether the noble Baroness agrees that it is quite deplorable that we have to go on asking for action without getting wholehearted support? Would it not be a good idea if the names of those local authorities who follow the guidelines were published as an example to those who do not? Would she agree that we must take some action to ensure that the requirements outlined by my noble friend are put into operation as soon as possible?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, a great many of the requirements have been carried into operation. As the noble Lord opposite pointed out, the facilities in the National Theatre are generally extremely good. In existing buildings and, too, as more buildings are put up, more facilities are being introduced and people are becoming more conscious of this. Of course, everything is not happening as it should overnight. Many of us would like to see it all going ahead much faster; but to imply that this is not being understood by Government Departments or being undertaken by most local authorities would he quite wrong.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, what does the Minister mean when she said that there is no point in making it mandatory unless you know it can be done? Surely the Government know it can be done. Ought it not to be an absolute condition of granting planning permission that every possible effort be made to comply with the law and the guidelines laid down by the Government?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, so far as planning permission is concerned, this is 854 to do with the Land Act. This matter does not fall within that Act. I was saying that it would not be practicable to make something mandatory that cannot be carried out. One cannot on the one hand —and we discussed this in the debate last week—cut down the expenditure of the local authorities and, at the same time, keep on adding other responsibilities to them. One must take a balance, however strong one feels about it. That is all I am saying.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us think that she has the balance absolutely wrong?
§ Viscount INGLEBYMy Lords, would it not be helpful if the local authorities could be asked to compile a list of buildings which have been made accessible since the 1970 Act, together with a list of buildings which are still not accessible, and that this list should be publicised locally?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, there is a directory, the distribution of which in the London area I have supported. We are encouraging this idea. I will inquire how far this has gone in other parts of the country and will write to the noble Lord.