Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)
(SNP) I beg to move, That this House has considered
publicly accessible amenities for disabled people. It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. As chair of the
all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have the privilege
of hearing about the lives of disabled people from across the
United Kingdom. From what I have heard, it is clear that disabled
members of...Request free trial
Dr (East Kilbride, Strathaven
and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered publicly accessible amenities for
disabled people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. As
chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have
the privilege of hearing about the lives of disabled people from
across the United Kingdom. From what I have heard, it is clear
that disabled members of our communities are being prevented from
obtaining full access to fundamental services, including public
transport, sports grounds and shopping centres, to name but a
few.
To begin with, I would like to share the experience of one of my
constituents who was prevented from attending his Department for
Work and Pensions fitness to work interview because the
assessment centre was unable to provide access to him in his
mobility scooter. To reiterate, he was not able to be assessed
regarding the impact of his disability on his social and
occupational functioning because the very building in which
assessments occurred was not accessible to him.
The assessment was rearranged for a different centre in a
separate location, at great inconvenience to the gentleman. At
that centre, the car park, including both of the two disabled
parking bays, was occupied. As such, he struggled to make his way
to the building for the assessment. That situation effectively
summarises the lack of consideration that widely abounds for
individuals with disability, such that they are prevented from
seeking support for their disability as a result of the lack of
reasonable adjustment for it. It is particularly shocking that
that occurs even in Government-approved contractors’ buildings.
How can we expect individuals to seek support to reach their full
potential in life and lead full lives when they are prevented
from accessing basic public services?
There are currently about 11.6 million disabled people in Great
Britain, constituting 16% of the working age adult population.
That means that about a sixth of our population is likely to hold
factors that, by definition, could act as a barrier to their
engaging in valued activity.
As we know, legislation exists to support the access needs of
disabled individuals. The Equality Act 2010 makes clear that
service providers must take reasonable steps to ameliorate the
substantial disadvantage experienced by an individual as a result
of their disability. That requirement holds whether the cause of
disadvantage is the manner of provision, a feature of practice, a
physical feature of a service or, in fact, the absence of an
auxiliary aid. Similarly, the 2006 United Nations convention on
the rights of persons with disabilities, which the United Kingdom
has signed up to, states that member countries
“are to guarantee that persons with disabilities enjoy their
inherent right to life on an equal basis with others”.
Given the legislation, it is remarkable that such substantial
disadvantage continues to take place.
The House will be aware of the recent experiences of Anne Wafula
Strike, an award-winning Paralympic athlete, who was unable to
access a toilet on a three-hour train journey and was therefore
forced to urinate herself. That demonstrates the huge practical
and emotional toll of the lack of equitable access for people
with disability. In Ms Wafula Strike’s situation, the train did
have an accessible toilet but it was out of order and no
appropriate alternative was provided. Simply providing a basic
level of service and assuming accessibility is achieved in
insufficient. It is surely reasonable in this day and age to
expect access to a disabled toilet. Anything less than that is
simply unacceptable. As Ms Wafula Strike stated:
“People with disabilities don’t want perfection, we just want the
basics and to have our independence. But lack of access and
inclusive facilities make us feel as if we are an afterthought.”
The Government, working alongside business, industry and public
service providers, need to ensure that individuals with
disability are not an afterthought, and indeed that services are
designed with accessibility right across the United Kingdom.
Experiences similar to Ms Wafula Strike’s were reported in the
BBC investigation of late last year in which two researchers with
disability attempted to engage in leisure activities such as
going to a restaurant or taking a taxi. That highlighted the vast
proportion of companies and service providers in the United
Kingdom that do not act in proper accordance with the 2010 Act.
Disabled individuals are being marginalised and excluded from
public services every day of the week. As a result, they are
excluded from a wide range of leisure activities. Data indicate
that disabled individuals are less likely than non-disabled peers
to participate in cultural, leisure and sporting activities.
I would like to spend some time speaking about three important
areas: public transport; sporting and leisure grounds; and
shopping centres. I am sure colleagues will add other issues to
the debate. In terms of public transport, the key issue for the
disabled population is accessibility. It is a basic issue: simply
being able to gain access to public transport services. The
recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Paulley v. FirstGroup
PLC, the bus company, gives a good example of the difficulties
faced by disabled individuals.
In February 2012, Mr Paulley, a wheelchair user, was refused
transport on a bus, as the dedicated wheelchair space was in use
by a non-disabled service user. We must support the calls made by
Lord Toulson in the ruling for greater clarification of the law.
Clarity in legislation will ensure the appropriate and consistent
application of the law such that disabled individuals can be
confident that it will be applied on all occasions and in all
settings. One such opportunity presents itself with the upcoming
Second Reading of the Bus Services Bill, which includes
recommendations for improved information to be provided to
passengers in an accessible format on all bus services
nationally.
Achieving a fully accessible public transport system is a key
element of policy. Some work has been done on UK railways, with
the Access for All programme ensuring that 150 of the UK’s 2,552
railway stations—a small proportion—are step-free, with
smaller-scale adaptations at other stations. However, I
understand that funding for the programme is being cut. I would
be obliged if the Minister responds to that point. Work is
already being done at only a proportion of stations, and the
cutting the programme would simply make accessibility even poorer
for the disabled population.
That situation can be contrasted somewhat with London, where
Mayor has committed a further £200
million to increase the number of step-free underground stations
from 70 to at least 100. That still represents just over one
third of all the capital’s underground stations, leaving the rest
inaccessible. With recent increases in disabled individuals using
rail transport—research indicates a rise in train assistance for
disabled individuals of 21% over the three years up to
2015—further support to facilitate use is sorely needed.
I for one would like to know whether providers anticipate meeting
targets. If not, what steps can be taken to ensure that they do
so in as timely a fashion as possible? A programme of clear
checking of improvements with timescales and appropriate
penalties when an Act is not adhered to will help to ensure that
disabled individuals can have faith in the frameworks used to
ensure their wellbeing and inclusion. In that regard, we can look
for guidance from excellent third sector organisations,
including, for example, Changing Places, which is doing admirable
work to ensure that toilets are accessible for all of those who
might need them.
In relation to sports grounds, I am sure that colleagues will
join me in the assertion that the many impressive achievements of
UK athletes in the Olympic and Paralympic games have been a
source of tremendous national pride, and an opportunity to
increase participation in sporting activity throughout and across
our communities. The stated legacy of the 2012 Olympic games
included that:
“Every man, woman and child can find a sport they enjoy and in
which they are able to get involved easily, regardless of their
ability or disability”.
However, sufficient progress has not been made in the
infrastructure and accessibility of sporting centres to
successfully capitalise on the national mood.
The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport recently
published its “Accessibility of Sports Stadia” report, which
details the results of the investigation in to the basic
accessibility of sports stadia, primarily football stadia. It
found
“a shocking lack of provision for supporters with disabilities of
all kinds, including in some cases a failure even to train staff
in basic disability awareness.”
Despite the assertion from all premier league football clubs that
accessibility would be improved by August 2017, a recent update
has demonstrated little discernible improvement. We should also
be looking at stadiums right across the United Kingdom—people
enjoy sports, particularly football, in other nations too. The
Committee reports:
“Detailed best practice guidance exists at both national and
European level, but some clubs seem content to do the minimum
legally required, without considering whether access is really
adequate.”
That strongly echoes the findings on accessible travel I already
discussed. Although legal and policy frameworks exist to protect
the accessibility rights of disabled individuals, there is a
fundamental absence of appropriate mechanisms to monitor
adherence to that guidance and to follow up with reasonable
consequences for breaches.
If we consider that access to grounds for disabled spectators is
insufficient, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the direct
involvement of disabled individuals in sporting activity is
similarly poor. It is important to note that, where accessible
leisure facilities are already available, they are not
invulnerable to the pressures of our current climate. For
example, I understand from people across the United Kingdom who
have contacted me in my capacity as chair of the all-party
parliamentary group for disability that the council-run Jubilee
pool in Bristol, which has a range of accessibility aids, is due
to be closed following recent council budget cuts. Surely that is
a retrograde step. It cannot be taken. Given the paucity of
freely accessible sports and leisure facilities, it is
particularly sad that increasing financial restrictions are
stopping local councils from continuing to support their citizens
with disabilities to access vital public services.
The final area of accessibility I would like to discuss today is
shopping centres—I am a bit of an expert on them, as my husband
would attest. The 2014 DisabledGo investigation audited 27,000
high-street retail outlets and found that one fifth of stores
failed to provide wheelchair access, only one third of department
stores had wheelchair accessible changing rooms and one third did
not have an accessible toilet. Only 15% of retailers had hearing
loops to support customers with hearing impairments. Again,
despite the framework provided by the Equality Act, shoppers with
disabilities are restricted in the simple act of shopping. A
follow up to that investigation to track more recent advances
would certainly be welcome.
The situation is also an economic error. As a large segment of
our population, disabled individuals and their families hold a
combined spending power of £200 billion—what the Department for
Work and Pensions has termed the “purple pound”. For us to block
the financial contribution of this segment of the community from
our economy is both unnecessary and absolutely illogical.
Furthermore, the employment capabilities of individuals with
disability are vastly underused, with a gap in employment between
disabled and non-disabled individuals of 32%, which clearly
results in further economic disadvantage. Accessibility—accessing
potential workplaces or public transport to workplaces—is
relevant in that respect. It is my belief that tackling
accessibility will take us in the right direction towards the
Government’s stated aim of halving the disability employment gap.
In Scotland, the 2010 framework, “A Working Life for All Disabled
People”, underscores the importance of local authority support
for employment, and the need to work with business partners to
improve support and access for disabled people to enter the
workplace. A new Scottish employability programme that will be
introduced from April 2018 emphasises working in tandem with
stakeholders to tackle the barriers to employment that face
disabled individuals. It goes without saying that people with
disability have a vast ability to contribute to their
communities, their places of work and our society, and problems
of accessibility should not prevent them from so doing. Further
investment in creating advanced accessibility on the high street,
in our stadiums, across our leisure facilities and in the
workplace is needed.
The needs of disabled individuals throughout our communities and
across the UK are not being met by the accessibility of our
shops, transport and leisure facilities. We are therefore
marginalising and excluding one sixth of our society—one sixth
who are able to contribute so much, but who are prevented from
doing so by simple, solvable issues of accessibility. I call that
we amend the legislation so that consequences are put in place
for business and industries who do not act in accordance with the
law. In doing so, we can protect and support the rights of our
fellow citizens to engage with valuable community activities,
live the lives of which they are capable, and achieve their full
potential.
We may also follow the guidance of our Scottish Government
counterparts, who in 2016 developed a cross-governmental
disability delivery plan, in which accessibility problems were
identified as a significant barrier to improving outcomes for
people with disability. A series of clearly defined actions,
including, for example, the development of a Government-moderated
accessible travel hub to collate information and share good
practice on accessible transport, and a help guide with practical
advice for businesses in increasing accessibility, have been
identified and can now be monitored.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. What plans do the
Government have to continue to increase access to public and
leisure services for disabled people in our country? What power
are the Government willing to use to ensure industry compliance
with the terms of the Equality Act? Do Ministers anticipate any
barriers to obtaining ongoing compliance, and how will they deal
with them? What steps are the Government willing to take to
ensure compliance with the Equality Act within publicly provided
services? What value do the Government place on ensuring access
to leisure activities for disabled people? Can they indicate
whether it is held in parity with work access, which I am aware
is a priority? I suggest that the Government undertake a
wide-scale investigation into the inaccessibility of leisure
activities, so that the full scale of the current situation is
understood, and so that well-targeted plans to ameliorate
disadvantage can then be devised. Will the Minister lend support
to the development of a UK Government disability delivery plan,
detailing commitments and actions to improve accessibility for
all members of our communities?
I thank all the organisations, constituents and individuals from
across all parts of the United Kingdom who contributed their
thoughts and experiences for the debate today. We are in 2017—let
us make 2017 the year in which we deliver for people with
disability.
1.49 pm
-
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride,
Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this
important debate—I apologise if I got my pronunciation
completely wrong there.
It is absolutely right that we consider how we as a society
can be as inclusive as possible. Too often, people with
disabilities are left in uncomfortable, inconvenient and
distressing circumstances because of the lack of adequate
facilities.
In particular, I want to raise awareness of a local
campaign in my constituency, which has the
innocent-sounding title of “No More Floor”. I am pleased to
be involved with the initiative, which seeks to install
changing facilities in Leamington to make a huge difference
for children with severe disabilities and their families.
As the name indicates, those children and young adults
often have to be changed on the floor of a public
convenience. I admit my ignorance: until I was approached
by the campaigners, I thought that a disabled toilet would
be perfectly adequate and cover all eventualities. I now
understand the need for a hoist, which is the only
alternative to changing someone on the floor. Such
facilities are absolutely imperative and, as the hon. Lady
mentioned, Changing Places is one of the organisations that
helps to install them.
I am grateful to the Royal Priors, a shopping mall in my
constituency, for giving up the necessary space to make
such a changing facility possible and for making a
financial commitment to the campaign. It is a shame,
however, that a private sector organisation has had to
deliver something that ought to be accessible to all. There
is certainly an argument to be made that provision of such
facilities ought to be put on a statutory footing, so that
local authorities construct them within a particular radius
or for a certain size of population. There is a facility in
Shire Hall, the county hall in Warwick, but the next
nearest is in Solihull, which does not give people many
options. Such heavy restrictions on families must be
addressed.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the two families
involved in the campaign, and specifically to Emily
Naismith and Francesca Anker, for their hard work and
persistence in their aim to make a real difference to their
community. I look forward to continuing to work with them.
I have tremendous respect for the families who—I am sure
they will not mind me saying—have already had to jump
through a number of hoops just going through their daily
lives. I wish they did not have to fight for such
facilities but, as the campaign gets going, there will be a
great deal of support for what they are trying to achieve.
Also in Warwick, I am delighted that Network Rail’s Access
for All programme includes the installation of lifts at the
train station. Warwick is a wonderful town and attracts
thousands of visitors every year. Making access easier for
people who need wheelchairs or have other disabilities will
be a major step forward. The Rail Minister, the hon. Member
for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), is not
present, but I thank him for taking the time and trouble to
look at that issue so we can bring the date of the project
forward.
I look forward to the response of the Minister present
today. In particular, I am interested in hearing his views
on whether to put such matters on a statutory footing.
1.53 pm
-
(Ayr, Carrick and
Cumnock) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride,
Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this
important debate. I am delighted that we are having it at a
crucial time for disabled people.
Disability policy should be based on the social model of
disability—that disability is caused by the way society is
organised, rather than by the person’s impairment or
difference—and it is hugely important to look at ways of
removing barriers that restrict life choices for disabled
people. When barriers are removed, disabled people can be
independent and equal in society, with choice and control
over their own lives. It is therefore not the impairment or
condition that disables, but society’s inability to adapt
and to accommodate different needs. Our duty as
parliamentarians is to ensure that disabled people are not
left at a disadvantage when using facilities and services,
that they are not disadvantaged in accessing employment or
education and that we seek to remove the barriers that many
people face in their everyday lives.
Much work has been done on the issue, and we have come a
long way in recent years. The Equality Act 2010 provided
some statutory protections, but we cannot sit back and
suggest that means we are now all equal—we are not. The Act
does not spell out what “reasonable adjustments” are in all
cases, and it does not place a duty on all service
providers to make specific disability adaptations. We have
seen great improvements in accessible toilets, but
wheelchair and ambulant-accessible toilets do not meet the
needs of many people with profound learning disabilities,
for example, or of those who need the help of at least one
carer to lift or change them, such as people with muscular
or neurological conditions, a stoma or limb loss, so I
understand why people continue to campaign for facilities
with additional space, hoists or an adult-sized changing
bench.
I have spoken in this place before on behalf of the many
people in my constituency with inflammatory bowel disease.
Almost 2,000 public toilets have closed throughout the UK
in the past decade, which has had a direct impact on people
with IBD. A survey by Crohn’s and Colitis UK found that a
quarter of young people with IBD believed that their
condition made socialising almost impossible, and many
cited the need to know the proximity of a toilet as a key
factor. Members will be familiar with the “Breastfeeding
Welcome” signs displayed in many shops, cafés and public
buildings. I want to see a similar initiative for people
with the “Can’t Wait” card, issued to those with Crohn’s
disease, colitis and IBD. I am aware of a pilot scheme for
the card, and we would welcome a national roll-out, because
it could give people with IBD more confidence to take part
in the kind of everyday activities that the rest of us take
for granted.
A substantial number of buildings in the UK receive public
funding, from libraries and museums to council buildings
and town halls, and they could all be open to people with
conditions such as IBD. The impact on those people’s lives
would be significant. The issues faced by people with IBD
are indicative of many of the barriers faced by people with
hidden disabilities. I have heard repeated reports of
people being berated for using accessible toilets or
parking bays when they “do not look disabled”. The issue of
hidden disabilities is very close to my heart, and I was
delighted to hear of the moves made by Asda, which will
hopefully be adopted by other major supermarket chains, to
adapt its signage to reflect the reality that many
conditions are not immediately apparent. That kind of
action helps to combat stigma for many people, and it
should be applauded.
Disabled people can live the life they choose,
participating equally alongside other citizens, their
families, communities and workplaces—but only if they are
given the support to do so. There are many examples of good
practice across the country, where voluntary groups have
identified barriers to participation and come up with
innovative solutions to enable access to services and
amenities.
I take this opportunity to highlight the sterling work of
the Girvan Youth Trust in my constituency to make the beach
at Girvan accessible to wheelchair users. Its Family
Sandcastles initiative will allow wheelchair users the
opportunity to feel the sand between their toes and to
spend time at the beach with their friends and family,
rather than having to sit on the prom watching from a
distance. The only other barrier to their enjoyment of this
part of our fantastic Ayrshire coastline will be the one we
all face—the Scottish weather. Another local group, the
Carrick angling club, has installed wheelchair-accessible
fishing platforms to ensure that mobility issues are not a
barrier to participating in that popular activity. The club
has been investigating further options to extend its
accessible offerings.
We need to encourage those kinds of local initiatives to
remove barriers to involvement and participation, and we
need to emulate them when setting Government disability
policy. It is extremely disappointing, therefore, to see UK
Government policy so utterly condemned by the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities inquiry. The findings of the UN report starkly
illustrated that the Government are undermining the rights
of disabled people by imposing their obsession with
austerity and social security cuts on some of the most
disadvantaged people in our society. In this job I have
witnessed the real hardship and distress caused by the
Government’s policies. The Government’s Green Paper on
disability employment support alludes to reform, but the
process is fundamentally flawed and needs a radical
overhaul. The Green Paper was a critical opportunity to get
the system right for sick and disabled people, but one
cannot help but be sceptical when the Government continue
to insist on pressing ahead with cuts to employment and
support allowance.
-
Dr Cameron
Does my hon. Friend agree that one outcome of those cuts is
a drastic reduction in people’s accessibility and mobility
due to the removal of Motability cars, which they depend on
and feel are a lifeline that has helped them to get into
employment and achieve full lives?
-
I completely agree.
In Scotland, we aim for a fairer, more equal and more
inclusive society. To that end, the Scottish National
party-led Government announced just before Christmas their
plan to transform the lives of disabled people in Scotland.
That plan was developed with disabled people, because we
believe that the more than 1 million disabled people who
contribute to our society should have control, dignity and
freedom to live their lives as they choose and be supported
to do so. That is in stark contrast to the cuts agenda that
runs through every UK Government announcement about
disability support, and we now face a further hurdle to
equality for disabled people: a hard Brexit. That poses a
real threat to disabled people’s rights. The Government
must ensure that rights and protections for disabled people
are not diluted as a result of us leaving the EU and stop
paying lip service to equality issues.
2.01 pm
-
(North Ayrshire and
Arran) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride,
Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is a great
champion for disabled people’s rights.
It is always a pleasure to speak in debates where there is,
broadly speaking, so much consensus. We all want disabled
people to be socially included to the fullest possible
extent. We all want to live in a society that sees the
person, not the disability. We all want to remove the
barriers that fate has placed in the way of any individual
so that they can play a full role in society.
-
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the challenge that some
councillors and individuals undertook in Inverness during
the week? They took to wheelchairs in the streets to get a
better idea of those barriers. Would she encourage other
people to do that in cities around the UK?
-
I would indeed. That useful initiative gives those of us
who are lucky enough not to have to live with a disability
a unique insight into the kinds of challenges that disabled
people have to face every single day of their lives, and I
commend such practices.
We have heard poignant and human examples of such barriers
and the effects that they can have on individuals who live
with a disability, such as the constituent that my hon.
Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and
Lesmahagow mentioned. She also outlined the distressing
example of Ms Wafula Strike, which I am sure is not an
isolated one. Like the hon. Member for Warwick and
Leamington (Chris White), I commend the work that Changing
Places has done to promote fully accessible toilets. The
problem is that work still needs to be done, which throws
into stark relief how far we still have to go in catering
for people who live with a disability and removing the
barriers they face.
The Equality Act 2010 is important legislation. It contains
the public sector equality duty and requires “reasonable
adjustments” to be made to avoid a person with a disability
being placed at a “substantial disadvantage” to a
non-disabled person when accessing services and facilities.
However, we have heard that there are loopholes in that
Act. It does not prescribe what a reasonable adjustment is
in particular circumstances or place a duty on all service
providers to make specific disabled adaptations such as
installing lifts or hearing loops, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) so
clearly set out.
There is no doubt that we have an absolute duty as a
society to ensure equality of access to facilities. That
ought to apply equally in the private sector and the public
sector. It was absolutely correctly pointed out that
equality of access should not be an afterthought. We must
always guard against the marginalisation of disabled
members of our communities. The disability employment gap
shows that that is a real and present danger, and we cannot
afford to be complacent, as my hon. Friend the Member for
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow so eloquently
pointed out.
This issue is not just about access to work, important
though that is. It is about all elements of life: work,
social life and leisure. Justice and fairness demands that.
I commend the No More Floor campaign in the constituency of
the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but the fact
that such a campaign is needed should be cause for shame.
It is a reminder of how little progress we have made in
reality. A shortage of basic facilities consigns some
people with a disability to being trapped in their homes,
which can have a hugely negative impact on their lives, as
my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
pointed out. It is surely bad enough that people living
with a disability often face negative attitudes without
finding themselves excluded in and from public
spaces—although perhaps those negative attitudes lead to
exclusion.
It is worth repeating that there is an economic dimension
as well as social and moral elements. Some 7 million
working age people have a disability. That adds up to an
awful lot of spending power. The so-called purple pound is
apparently worth £249 billion to the economy. Is it not
madness for 7 million people to be excluded from the
ordinary, mainstream life that so many of us do and should
take for granted? As has been mentioned, many people with a
disability rely on Motability vehicles to access amenities
in our communities, and Motability must continue to be
supported.
I am proud that the SNP Scottish Government have devised a
new disabled delivery plan—a policy commitment to disabled
people—based on the need to remove any further barriers and
ensure full access to buildings, including
disability-inclusive housing, transport and communication.
Some 93 actions will be achieved by 2021. We aim to secure
transformational change in support for disabled people in
Scotland. I urge the Minister to look at the Scottish
Government’s plans to see what can be learned from that
policy commitment.
It would be remiss of me, while we are debating publicly
accessible amenities for disabled people, not to mention
that, with their new powers, the SNP Scottish Government
are committed to establishing a social security system
based on dignity and respect that will allow people with a
disability to live as full and independent a life as
possible, which I am sure we all agree with. Unfortunately,
the UK Government have made cruel and punitive cuts to
support for people living with a disability, as my hon.
Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock set out.
I hope the Minister will pledge that any laws regarding
disability rights and equality will be fully repatriated to
Scotland in the wake of Brexit. It is essential that the
SNP Scottish Government’s good work continues and develops.
[Interruption.] The Minister really should pay attention.
There is a very real concern among disabled people that
their rights in law will no longer be protected by European
Court of Justice judgments post-Brexit. That could lead to
equality rights being more narrowly interpreted, as well as
the loss of vital research funding and pooling of expertise
that EU membership provides. Through European research,
important treatments have been developed for diseases so
rare that no one country could have developed them alone.
As we agree that people living with a disability must have
access to amenities, so we should agree that the rights of
disabled people should be protected in the widest sense. I
hope we do.
2.08 pm
-
(St Helens South and
Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.
I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and
Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this important debate.
Disabled people were not necessarily born disabled. In
fact, 90% of disability is acquired. I am one of the 90%.
As some Members may know, I have a disability. For the last
20 years, I have worn a bone anchored hearing aid, without
which I cannot hear a sound. I understand the difficulty
facing many disabled people and the trauma that they go
through.
Since the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995, it has been illegal to discriminate against a
disabled person. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on
providers of goods, services and facilities to make
“reasonable adjustments” in order to avoid a disabled
person being placed at a “substantial disadvantage”
compared with non-disabled people when accessing services
and facilities. Service providers’ failure to comply is a
form of disability discrimination.
How many times have we seen disabled people denied basic
access to vital services such as public transport? As
recently as mid-January, the Supreme Court ruled, on a case
bought by disability campaigner Doug Paulley, that bus
drivers must ensure that there is sufficient space for
wheelchair users to ride the bus safely. Outside the big
cities and in many rural communities, the local bus service
is often the only lifeline for disabled people to get out
and about. Without access to that vital service, many
disabled people may be left alone and housebound.
Many hon. Members here will have heard the frankly
appalling story—the hon. Member for East Kilbride,
Strathaven and Lesmahagow outlined it—of Anne Wafula
Strike. How disgusting that she was forced to urinate on
herself. That is humiliating, inhumane and totally
unacceptable; unfortunately, it is not uncommon. Last week
in Bristol, I came across a disabled lady in a wheelchair
who told me how she was pushed to the sidings and left sat
in her wheelchair while she waited for assistance to get on
a train that she had booked some days previously. For too
long, transport providers have failed to provide adequate
basic facilities for disabled passengers. When will the
Minister liaise with rail providers to ensure that they
make the correct adjustments, so disabled passengers can
travel in dignity and comfort?
I will quickly discuss the term “reasonable adjustments”.
It seems to mean one thing to disabled people and a
completely different thing to many employers. To some
employers, it means doing the bare minimum to meet the
legal requirements. Will the Government legislate for all
employers to provide disability awareness training for
their staff, and provide the right support for small to
medium employers to achieve that? A Government review found
that the number of cases taken to employment tribunals has
fallen by 70% since court fees were introduced. It has
therefore become very difficult for disabled employees to
bring their employers to task for failing to make
reasonable adjustments. Will the Minister urge the
Government to scrap the extortionate fees that make it
harder for disabled people to challenge bad practice in the
workplace?
Disabled people who believe that they have experienced
discrimination as a result of not being able to access a
good, a service or a facility are typically responsible for
taking action themselves, via the courts, against their
employer. That is often a difficult, daunting and arduous
process—more so for a person with a disability. Reasonable
adjustments do not only mean adjustments to accommodate
physical disabilities. Many people have learning
disabilities or a mental health condition. Those so-called
hidden disabilities are often forgotten. They require a
different set of reasonable adjustments to someone who has
a physical impairment.
I have experience of a case involving one of my
constituents, who suffers from autism, learning
difficulties and a severe form of tinnitus. He was called
in for an assessment by the Department for Work and
Pensions and was escorted by his 84-year-old mother. When
she tried to explain that her son was not able to hear
because of the noise around the room, she was told that the
hearing would be terminated if she did not refrain from
interfering. His assessment resulted in a major reduction
of points, from 32 to six. He and his 84-year-old mother
were left traumatised. It placed him in a difficult
situation, and he was placed in what they call a support
group. Anyone who meets this gentleman—he is a
gentleman—will fully realise that he should not have been
put in that group.
I took the case up. He had a reassessment in an appropriate
place where there was no noise, his mother could accompany
him, and there was someone who empathised with his
difficulties. He wears ear muffs around his neck. He puts
them on. Just one sound can set him off and make him
severely ill. His reassessment resulted in the
reinstatement of the original points. It was the most
traumatic experience that that man has gone through. His
mother still suffers from the after effects of being with
him.
For too many disabled people, the legal requirements are
nowhere near good enough. It is a shame that the Equality
Act 2010, which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act
1995, failed to set out exactly what reasonable adjustments
entail. That lack of clarity has a real impact on disabled
people’s ability to live full and independent lives.
-
I thank the hon. Lady for the great case that she is
making. I have spoken to a number of organisations based in
my constituency that work with deaf people, which have also
found it difficult to get around the phrase “reasonable
adjustments”. They feel as though they do not get access to
the interview stage, never mind getting past that and
getting a job, because people think that they will unable
to do it because of their disability.
-
I concur. I know of and have been involved in many cases
like that. I urge the Minister to provide urgent clarity on
exactly what constitutes reasonable adjustments to stop
irresponsible employers from skirting around the law.
There are too few disabled people in public office,
including in this place. The access to elected office fund,
which enables disabled people to stand for elected office
and meet additional access requirements, has been
suspended, and the Government’s evaluation report has been
kicked into the long grass. Will the Government publish
that evaluation and ensure that disabled people seeking to
represent any party have support to meet the additional
costs they face in standing for election?
A recent report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee
on the accessibility of sports stadiums highlighted the
failure of some clubs to provide adequate facilities for
disabled fans attending matches. Having a disability should
not prevent someone from attending and enjoying a sports
match. Provision for disabled fans should not be patchy
depending on which club they support. Everyone has the
right to see their favourite sports team win or lose. What
steps are the Government taking to ensure that premier
league clubs, with their huge revenues, prioritise
improving access for disabled fans?
The majority of the daily problems faced by disabled people
arise from confusion over the rules, poor or insufficient
communication, inadequate training of service providers
and/or a lack of enforcement by the relevant authorities.
Will the Minister explain what mechanisms are in place to
enforce the Equality Act to ensure that disability
discrimination does not go unchallenged?
Organisations such as Euan’s Guide offer information on
accessibility for disabled people by offering access
reviews of a range of service providers. It aims to inspire
disabled people to try out new places and
“remove the fear of the unknown.”
What are the Government doing to ensure that more
organisations like Euan’s Guide are better supported to
ensure that disabled people get the information that they
need to access all facilities? That fear of the unknown
prevents too many disabled people from being able to fully
participate in society—and society suffers for that. The
Government must do more to provide disabled people with the
right information. By doing so, they would empower so many
more disabled people to go out and lead full and
independent lives.
2.19 pm
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Buck. I
begin by thanking the hon. Member for East Kilbride,
Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—I got a nod there,
which is a good sign—for bringing this important issue
forward for debate. I know that as chair of the all-party
parliamentary group for disability, she has a particular
interest in issues that have an impact on disabled people.
We need public amenities in the right place. We want to be
sure they are well managed, clean and open, and we need to
find toilets with the right layout for our needs. I will
focus my comments on the issues that the hon. Lady
mentioned in relation to facilities for disabled people. I
will also try to answer some of the wider questions that
have been raised.
First, I will talk about building regulations, which play
an extremely important role in ensuring that facilities are
available for disabled people. The aim of building
regulation requirements is to ensure that toilet layouts
work for as many people as possible. The first building
regulations on accessibility were introduced in 1984, and
requirements have been updated regularly to ensure that new
building work takes the needs of disabled people into
account. Building regulations already set out minimum
standards for accessible toilets in most public buildings.
That includes standards for unisex accessible toilets even
in small buildings and additional provision in larger
buildings.
Because people’s needs and expectations evolve over time,
my Department has commissioned a research project to look
at the existing standards in part M of the building
regulations. That research is looking at how well standards
perform in meeting the needs of disabled people. The
finalised report will help us to establish where a change
to guidance is necessary and how guidance on accessible
toilet provision might evolve to suite a range of needs. I
understand that consistency of provision is important and
that even small changes in layout, such as the position of
wash basins or the omission of features such as shelves or
coat hooks, can become awkward. Another area that may need
to be considered is compliance with the requirements.
The number of people who need specialised toilet
accommodation has increased in line with broader
demographic and social change. We recognise that the
availability of facilities such as Changing Places helps
people to plan activities away from home. It is heartening
to see that here in the UK, we have developed a new
generation of accessible toilets, most commonly known as
Changing Places. That model is now even being followed by
other countries such as Australia and Germany.
Several hon. Members mentioned Changing Places, and I think
we can all agree that having more Changing Places is a good
thing. They provide an adult changing bench, a hoist,
washing facilities and space for carers and users to use
the facilities safely. Part M of the building regulations,
entitled “Access to and use of buildings”, was amended in
2013 to refer to Changing Places toilets as desirable and
to provide links to information on their installation and
use developed by the Changing Places Consortium. However,
building regulations are not retrospective, and building
control relates primarily to new buildings or works that
involve major refurbishment. They do not apply to all
buildings, so railway stations, airports and ports fall
outside building control. Important locations such as high
streets may not see the major development that would
trigger building regulation requirements.
In his evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee, my
hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said that
we need a mixed economy in increasing provision. He is
determined to look at the evidence we are now gathering to
see what more needs to be done to provide the facilities
needed for people with disabilities.
I am pleased to say that my Department has worked for the
past 10 years, and continues to work, to encourage more
Changing Places. We are working closely with Mencap, the
British Toilet Association, PAMIS and the Changing Places
campaign. The Government have supported great progress,
which at the moment has been mainly on a voluntary basis.
Since the Department for Communities and Local Government
became involved with Changing Places toilets in 2007, the
number of Changing Places in the UK has increased from
around 140 to 926 today. In March 2016 the figure was 813,
and it is now 926, so we can see that the take-up is quite
considerable and that momentum is growing.
We have also funded the development of a website to help
people find the nearest Changing Places toilet quickly and
easily. Using the site, anyone can find a Changing Places
toilet on their planned route or wherever they are.
However, I take on board the comment of my hon. Friend the
Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White); we
certainly need more Changing Places, because they are not
available in every place that people might want to visit or
across the transport network.
It is great to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled
People, Health and Work on the Front Bench today, listening
intently to this debate. I know that she raised the issue
of access and accessible toilets for disabled people at a
Premier League event last autumn. At the time, only three
premier league clubs had Changing Places facilities. That
has now risen to five clubs with registered facilities and
two further clubs with similar unregistered facilities. I
understand that 10 other clubs are now looking into the
issue to see what further action they can take, following
significant work from the Changing Places Consortium and
others.
Of course, other legislation supports the provision of more
publicly available disabled toilets. Section 20 of the
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, for
example, gives local authorities the power to require
toilets to be provided and maintained for public use in any
place that provides entertainment, exhibitions or sporting
events, and places serving food and drink for consumption
on the premises. Environmental health officers review plans
and premises’ licence applications, which includes advising
on whether the sanitary facilities provided are sufficient
in number, design and—most crucially in the context of our
debate—layout. Once buildings are in use, there are duties
on employers and service providers under the Equality Act
2010, which has helped to ensure that the needs of disabled
people are anticipated and catered for.
Through the planning system, local authorities can also
impose requirements or negotiate with developers to ensure
that enhanced accessible toilets such as Changing Places
are brought forward in new large-scale developments or in
buildings with strategic importance. Furthermore, the
Department for Work and Pensions has taken forward
initiatives on the wider accessibility agenda, such as the
accessibility hack, which explores ways to harness
technology, people power and its work with sector champions
to tackle the issues that disabled people face as
customers.
Figures for the spending power of people with disabilities
were mentioned on a number of occasions, which is a very
important point. The figure I have is that people with
disabilities and their families have £250 billion to spend.
That reinforces the reason why people developing new
shopping centres, motorway services and so on should really
think about providing proper facilities, particularly
Changing Places, that would be supported by customers with
disabilities and their families.
I will answer as many of the specific questions asked by
hon. Members as I can. The hon. Member for East Kilbride—I
will not push it any further; I will call her constituency
just “East Kilbride” from now on—asked whether anything was
being done to improve access at DWP buildings where work
capability assessments are undertaken. I can tell her that
improvements are taking place to assessment centres and DWP
offices. While I am on that subject, it is important to
refer again to the Green Paper and the work on health,
which has been consulted on. The Minister for Disabled
People, Health and Work is looking at a number of reforms,
particularly changes to the work capability assessment,
with the aim of ensuring that we have far better data so
that we cut down on the number of assessments that are
needed in the first place. As I understand it, that would
also help with the assessments for personal independence
payment.
The hon. Lady made several points about accessibility for
disabled people on public transport. That is a very
important issue. We have all seen the recent stories and
been shocked at some of the things that have happened.
Transport is clearly a very important issue. My
counterparts at the Department for Transport have recently
given evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee
inquiry on disability and the built environment. We are
looking closely at how transport services can be improved.
I will write to the hon. Lady to set out the Government’s
position in more detail, and I will also write to the hon.
Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) on
that point.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride also mentioned what plans
there were to increase access and asked about a UK
accessibility delivery plan. This is quite a challenging
area, because there are many issues that relate to the UK
Government, but there are also many issues—for example,
building regulations and transport policy—that directly
relate to the UK Government only here in England and to the
devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. The hon. Lady made a very good point. The Minister
for Housing and Planning recently gave evidence for the
Women and Equalities Committee inquiry on disability and
the built environment. The Committee has expressed an
interest in the possibility of a more strategic approach,
as the hon. Lady advocated, and we will certainly look at
those recommendations closely.
The hon. Lady asked what powers we can use to ensure
compliance. Compliance with building regulations, for
example, is a legal requirement. Non-compliance can result
in fines, which can be unlimited. Compliance with the
Equality Act 2010 is certainly also a legal duty—perhaps we
need to remind service providers that that is a duty, not
an option. That is a very important message that we can
send from the House today. We consider the public sector
equality duty carefully and expect every public body to
consider it in undertaking its work. Again, that is not an
option but a requirement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington made
very important points. I was pleased to hear about the new
lifts being installed at Warwick train station. I do not
like to say that my own constituency of Nuneaton is in
front of Warwick, but we have had lifts at our station for
many years. It is really good to hear that, at Warwick,
lifts are being installed to support people who have
disabilities and need access to lifts because of things
such as wheelchairs.
My hon. Friend also talked about putting Changing Places on
a statutory footing and requiring Changing Places to be
provided. I hear what he says. As I said before, we have
commissioned research, and we will look carefully at its
findings. The Minister for Housing and Planning will then
look carefully at the point that my hon. Friend makes.
In relation to the comments by the hon. Member for North
Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), we are working on
improving the issues to do with Motability vehicles,
particularly as regards appeals.
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston asked a
question about elected office. We are working across
political parties on this matter. All political parties
have signed up to the Disability Confident work, on which
the DWP is leading. I am informed by the Minister for
Disabled People, Health and Work that we are also looking
forward to introducing measures to ensure that we enable
people with disabilities to hold elected office, which is
extremely important. We do not have in this place enough
people with disabilities, who have more depth of
understanding of these issues when they are spoken about
here. The same goes for people who represent their local
areas on local authorities, and I will certainly be keen to
work on that with my hon. Friend, who is here representing
the DWP.
-
Dr Cameron
The Minister has given a thorough response so far. Given
that a number of research and evaluation projects are under
way, would he be able to come to the all-party
parliamentary group for disability to update us on the
progress being made in that regard and to inform us
directly about the way forward?
-
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. It is always a bit
risky to put a colleague in the frame to undertake a
meeting, but I will certainly bring that point to the
attention of the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is
always keen to engage with organisations in relation to his
area of responsibility.
This is an extremely important issue. We should always take
into account the needs of disabled people, and particularly
the accessibility of public buildings, public toilets and
Changing Places. We look forward to continuing a
collaborative approach not just with hon. Members from both
sides of the House, but with a number of voluntary and
charitable organisations that I have mentioned today. I
thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride for bringing these
important issues to the House.
2.39 pm
-
Dr Cameron
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate,
and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling it.
It would be helpful if a Minister could attend the all-party
parliamentary group for disability to update us on the
research. I am keen to take that forward.
We did not have a chance to speak about building regulations,
but I am keen to understand how the refurbishment of the
Palace of Westminster will be undertaken in relation to
accessibility. Perhaps we can also look at that issue. I have
previously spoken to the Minister for Disabled People, Health
and Work on the Floor of the House about the possibility of
allowing home visits where DWP offices are not accessible.
I thank everybody for taking part in this debate. We will
certainly continue to look at this issue.
-
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—I had plenty of time to
speak, but I just want to make two more points. First, my
hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work
is looking at the refurbishment of the Palace, and I am sure
she will have a discussion with the hon. Lady about it.
Secondly, on building regulations and the work that that the
all-party group is doing, my officials are engaged with
officials in the Scottish Government on those matters.
-
Dr Cameron
To conclude, it is important that we take these issues
forward across the nations and Governments of the United
Kingdom to ensure that there is not a postcode lottery for
people with disability. We must work together in a
progressive way to ensure accessibility for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered publicly accessible amenities
for disabled people.
|