 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates London Olympics Bill |
London Olympics Bill |
|
Column Number: 19 Standing Committee DThursday 13 October 2005(Afternoon)The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chairmen: †Mr. Jimmy Hood, †Mr. David Amess†Brown, Lyn (West Ham) (Lab) †Caborn, Mr. Richard (Minister for Sport and Tourism) †Foster, Mr. Don (Bath) (LD) †Hillier, Meg (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op) †Lait, Mrs. Jacqui (Beckenham) (Con) †McFadden, Mr. Pat (Wolverhampton, South-East) (Lab) †Mann, John (Bassetlaw) (Lab) Miller, Mrs. Maria (Basingstoke) (Con) Pelling, Mr. Andrew (Croydon, Central) (Con) †Reed, Mr. Andy (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op) †Robertson, Hugh (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con) †Robertson, John (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab) Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con) †Swinson, Jo (East Dunbartonshire) (LD) †Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) †Ward, Claire (Watford) (Lab) †Wyatt, Derek (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee [Mr. David Amess in the Chair]London Olympics BillSchedule 1The Olympic Delivery AuthorityAmendment proposed [this day]: No. 7, in page 27, line 15, at end insert
2 pmQuestion again proposed, That the amendment be made. The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 30, line 28, at end insert
Amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 40, after 'Olympics', insert
Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 35, at end insert
Amendment No. 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 21, at end insert
Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert—
New clause 1—Grants for accessibility improvements—
Perhaps I should say at the outset that it is certainly warm in the room so it is perfectly in order for hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets and hon. Ladies to do likewise, but I really think that it should stop there. The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): May I first welcome you, Mr. Amess, to the Chair. As I recollect, you were a good supporter of our bid for 2012; somebody who saw that it could be used in the wider areas of health and tackling obesity in young people. I have no doubt that we will get a favourable wind from the Chair. As I come from Sheffield, we can always do the full monty as well if required, for a little bit of entertainment. Amendments Nos. 8, 2 and 3 would all impose specific powers and obligations on the Olympic delivery authority to promote access for disabled people, where general duties already exist in legislation. I will deal with them amendment by amendment. Amendment No. 8 would ensure that the ODA is made subject to the new disability equality duties. I would like to make it clear that the ODA will be a public authority within the meaning of the relevant provisions and so will already be subject to the general disability equality duties in section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when they come into force. Section 49D, which the amendment refers to, allows Ministers to place listed public sector bodies under specific duties to publish equality schemes, involve the views of disabled people in their planning, and report on progress. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reminded us, the Government last year published the criteria they would apply when deciding whether specific duties were appropriate for a body in the consultation document ''Delivering equality for disabled people''. The criteria are that the body has significant dealings with disabled service users; has a significant impact on the lives of disabled people; could be a significant employer of disabled people; and is of sufficient size to support the duties. The Government believe that the public sector disability duties are important tools in transforming our society into one that is more equal and provides greater opportunities for disabled people. The Government also believe that to be effective the duties should have wide application across the public sector. In that spirit, the Government will apply the published criteria to the ODA in determining which duties are appropriate once Parliament has decided, through the Bill, on the shape and functions of the authority. Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. I am sure that you will give all parties favourable treatment, and not just the Minister and others on the Government Benches. I welcome, I think, what the Minister said, until the end when there was the implication that decisions about what specific duties would be placed on the ODA in respect of the disability discrimination legislation would be made after Parliament has agreed to the establishment of the ODA. Since establishment is likely, can the Minister not give us a clearer indication of what the duties will be and an absolute assurance that the shape in which the ODA is likely to emerge from the legislation will lead to those requirements being placed on it? Mr. Caborn: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How can we instruct the ODA before we have set it up? However, I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman, because it is an important subject. There is no disagreement, but it is simply a matter of how we effect the process and take into account what was said when the amendments were moved and has been said by the Opposition parties. I do not disagree. The ODA would satisfy all the criteria that suggest that it should develop a disability equality scheme. It will have significant dealings with disabled service users; a significant impact, as I have already said, on the lives of disabled people; it could be a significant employer of disabled people, and I hope that it will; and it will be of sufficient size to promote a scheme. I would imagine that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions are likely to regulate at some point in the next year to place the ODA, along with any other relevant new bodies, under the specific duties of the Disability Discrimination Act. I cannot give a definite time for that at this stage, but nor can I foresee any reason why that should not happen. I entirely accept the general points that have been made and we will pursue them. The bodies subject to specific duties are listed in regulations. As yet, however, we do not have an ODA, although I hope that we shall have one when the Bill has been through all its stages in both Houses. I hope that the ODA can then be one of those listed organisations. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that we take his comments and the sentiments behind the amendments seriously. Amendment No.2 would require the ODA, when fulfilling its functions under clause 4, to ensure that premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people. Such an amendment is not necessary. From 4 December 2006, the general duties in section 49 of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 will require every public authority, in carrying out its functions, to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and others, the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than others, and the need to encourage participation by disabled people in public life. The ODA will therefore automatically be required to take the needs of disabled people into account. In developing the Olympic park, in particular, it will be tied to the terms of the planning permissions already granted. Those insist on the production of an access-for-all framework approved by the local planning authority. Mr. Foster: The Minister has given us an assurance that there will be a requirement for a plan. Perhaps I could tease out from him an assurance that the plan will include issues such as making available facilities for guide dogs for the blind and for car drivers with blue badges, as well as making certain that we have an adequate amount of what the bid document describes as ''accessible seating'', although it does not properly or clearly define what that is. More specifically, he will be aware that, in relation to the Paralympic games, the bid document refers to making a minimum of 1 per cent. of the seating accessible. Is he convinced that 1 per cent. is anywhere near adequate? Mr. Caborn: On the debate about whether 1 per cent. is adequate, the hon. Gentleman will know that the matter was decided after extensive consultation with representatives of disabled people. That, as I understand it, is the position. On the hon. Gentleman's more important point about the access-for-all framework, let me lay out the principles involved, because they cover his point. The principle of inclusive design will inform and be fully integrated into the proposals. Best practice standards—not minimum standards—will be used in the design. A framework will be created to ensure that designers and users work together to deliver the best reasonable practical solutions in terms of achieving inclusive access. The establishment of an access forum after London was awarded the 2012 games will provide for engagement with all stakeholders, particularly disability, minority and disadvantaged groups, at appropriate stages in the Olympic development legacy development. A list of appropriate access groups is to include the London Access Forum and representatives from the established access groups in the boroughs. Individual venue access plans are to be provided before commencement of construction or conversion of each venue. We will also see the provision of more residential developments, which will be designed to further access for all and to meet lifetime home standards, including a 10 per cent. wheelchair access provision as a legacy development. The development will be undertaken in accordance with the advice of the Disability Rights Commission on access, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee principles on inclusive design and the best practice planning and access guide produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The establishment of appropriate mechanisms for the implementation of the framework is to be monitored and reviewed at annual intervals—unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority—to achieve the framework's objectives. That is pretty comprehensive at this stage. We are serious about making sure that disabled people will not be disadvantaged in the developments that are taking place under the ODA's auspices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that. Amendment No. 3 would require the ODA to have regard to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality in carrying out all its functions. As an employer, the ODA is already covered by race relations and disability discrimination legislation that ensures that it offers equal opportunities to all. The Bill sets out specific responsibilities for the ODA, in its role as the manager of a huge construction project, to contribute to sustainable development and to keep a constant eye on legacy, which means social as well as economic and environmental legacies. The amendment would not add much to those requirements. The Government support the concepts of social inclusion and equality. Part of our role in the Olympics is to ensure that our ambitions in those areas are fulfilled, and that east London is regenerated in the right way. Those concepts are too general to require the ODA to adhere to them in all its day-to-day tasks, most of which will be technocratic in nature. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments Nos. 8, 2 and 3. Amendment No. 7 and new clause 1 would provide the Secretary of State with additional powers and
to the criteria that the Secretary of State should consider in making ODA board appointments. It might make sense to have some such expertise at board level, but we do not wish to specify that in the Bill. It is important that the Secretary of State should have maximum freedom to pick the best people for the job at different stages in the life of the ODA. In doing so, she will want to consider a wide range of criteria. New clause 1 would provide the Secretary of State with a specific power to make grants to a range of bodies to assist them in making Olympic facilities accessible to disabled people. She does not need that power. All the relevant public authorities must take account of their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. It is not for the Bill to specify how they are funded to do so. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 7, and not to press new clause 1. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are about ensuring that the Olympic transport plan takes account of the needs of disabled people. I shall first address amendment No. 4. In developing the transport proposals that formed the basis of London's bid to the International Olympic Committee to host the games, London 2012 and the Olympic transport team, which is based within Transport for London, were determined to ensure that the provision of transport that is accessible to disabled people was fully integrated into the transport requirements for both the Olympic games and the Paralympic games. That approach was one of the bid's strengths, and was recognised as such by the IOC. We expect the transport plan that was submitted to the IOC to form the backbone of the ODA's transport plans for the games. As disabled people's needs are already integrated into the plan, I expect the ODA to continue that approach and to ensure that they continue to be included in its plans. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to the ODA, but I do not expect that power to be used to ensure that it considers the accessibility of transport to disabled people in the Olympic transport plan. Although I fully accept the need to make sure that there is suitable transport for disabled people for the Olympic and Paralympic games, those needs have been taken into account and that will continue. There is no need to include those considerations in the Bill, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment. 2.15 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 13 October 2005 |