§ Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the legal position regarding access for disabled people to buildings not constructed to modern standards.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)My Lords, the Disability Discrimination Act—the DDA—requires employers and providers of services to the public to make reasonable adjustments to improve access for disabled people. The duties apply irrespective of the age of the buildings occupied.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the brilliant performances by her and others in the recent Palace of Varieties Show in St John's Church, Smith Square, could not be seen by anyone in a wheelchair owing to lack of access? Further, does she agree that access is not the only issue in such buildings? The lack of availability of suitable lavatories presents a further difficulty. Are any funds available to overcome such problems in that type of building?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I agree that not only disabled people but all people were severely deprived when they were not able to hear the smoke-soaked, gravelly voice of the noble Baroness at the performance. This is a serious issue, and I am grateful that the noble Baroness told me that she was concerned, in particular, about St John's, Smith Square. It is one of the most superb baroque buildings, dating back to 1728. As she rightly says, it is inaccessible from the outside stairs, although inside there is a fair degree of physical accessibility, but not yet to loos.
As I understand it, in 1997 St John's applied for money from the Heritage Lottery Fund in order to make the building physically accessible. The application was refused on the grounds of shortage of funds, although subsequently additional money was made available for repairs and maintenance. However, I am pleased to say that the noble Baroness's Question has generated a flurry of activity. English Heritage inspected the building this morning and is working with St John's in order, we hope, to put in a further bid, which I hope will be attractive. Not only is the audience affected; performers and musicians, too, are 122 denied access to a very important venue. Therefore, I express my congratulations to the noble Baroness, and I hope that St John's will be successful in its bid.
§ Lord Ashley of StokeMy Lords, many of the difficulties referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, could have been avoided had the Government not delayed the implementation of Section 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Instead of making heavy weather over the consultations, as the Government are doing—they could have been carried out in a couple of weeks; after all, landlords have known about the proposals for over six years, since 1995—why cannot the Government get on with implementing the Act in full?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, the DDA, as it applies to access to buildings for services, will come into force in 2004. Far be it from me to challenge my noble friend's information on this point because he knows more about the subject than perhaps most of the rest of us put together. But his statement certainly does not tie in with my understanding of the law, which is that all such adaptations for listed or non-listed buildings must be reasonable in terms of cost. Therefore, in relation to St John's it would not necessarily be reasonable in terms of cost to install an outside lift and it might not be appropriate in terms of listed planning consent to install other forms of adaptation. The DDA does not override existing requirements under the law, as I suspect my noble friend knows perfectly well.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that access does not imply simply provision of a ramp? Some disabled people are not in wheelchairs and find ramps not only difficult but dangerous. What they need instead are shallow steps and sturdy handrails.
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, it is perfectly true that when one thinks of a disabled person, one tends to think of the wheelchair and the white stick. The noble Lord is absolutely right: wheelchair users account for possibly fewer than 5 per cent of disabled people, and white stick users account for an even smaller percentage. Of course, what may be helpful to a wheelchair user—that is, a ramp, a smooth surface or a dropped kerb—may be counter-effective for someone who has a visual impairment and who needs to use a white stick. Therefore, problems do arise in relation to this matter.
I emphasise that at present the law states that buildings must be made fully accessible to employees who work in them, provided that it can be done at reasonable expense. In relation to services, it is the services which must be accessible rather than the building in which they occur. If the building can be altered, it should be; if a secondary access can be found, that should be made available; and if ramps are appropriate, they should be installed. But if none of those is appropriate, then providing the service—for 123 example, by bringing goods to a disabled person or adjusting the height of a door bell—may be a more appropriate way in which to proceed.
§ Baroness WilkinsMy Lords, does the Minister agree that much resistance to making historical buildings accessible lies in the notion that the adaptations will be ugly? Will she join me in refuting that notion and in issuing a challenge to architects by arguing that it is perfectly possible to provide disability access with historically sensitive and graceful solutions? Will she say whether the Government intend to extend Part M of the building regulations to alterations to existing buildings?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend. The English Heritage guide to easy access to historic buildings gives the example of Liverpool Town Hall. In my own city, major adaptations have recently been carried out, courtesy of the Heritage Lottery Fund, to a 900 year-old building—the Castle Museum. Some 15 years ago I was involved in making adaptations to the finest Unitarian chapel in the country—the Octagon Chapel. In all cases, the adaptations not only enhance the building for disabled people; they do so for many other people, too, including women with children in prams and buggies, people carrying baggage and elderly people. The result is certainly an enhancement for us all. Part M of the building regulations has applied since 1999 to domestic and non-domestic buildings alike.
§ Lord AddingtonMy Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major problems has been that the run-in period has taken so long? Can she assure the House that in future we shall not speak of such matters in terms of half a dozen or so years but will have a realistic timescale which will concentrate the minds of those involved?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamYes, my Lords. However, some of the issues to which we refer, for example the possibility of increasing access to underground stations, are hugely expensive projects, which take time. In other cases, employers and service providers need time to make reasonable adjustments to their premises. I am sure that the House will accept that it is important to work with consent as far as possible. To do that, we need to ensure—this goes back to a point made by my noble friend—that both employers and service providers recognise that disabled people collectively have around £45 billion of expenditure at their disposal. If we can get employers and service providers to recognise that such measures are in their interests, I am sure that we shall reach solutions which are satisfactory to all concerned.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, would the noble Baroness care to accept an invitation to lunch with me at the Royal Air Force Club? There, she will find that the difficulty of access is not about available funds, nor the 124 willingness of the club authorities to provide access; it is about the difficulty of persuading the authorities, such as English Heritage, to allow the facility to be erected at the front steps of 128 Piccadilly. Perhaps she could come along and tell them how they would be able to encompass that desirable objective.
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I do not know whether a ramp would be the right solution in that case. However, I am happy to do for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that which I have done for his noble friend Lady Trumpington: that is, to ask English Heritage to let me know what proposals, if any, are possible for that building.