| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Football (Disabled Supporters)
4. Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): What progress has been made with the implementation of the football task force report "Improving Facilities for Disabled Supporters". [77371]
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): On 25 November, I wrote to all the organisations identified in the report as having a role to play in implementing the task force's recommendations. The responses that I have received have been positive, indicating that the task force's proposals either have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. On 17 March, I wrote to those organisations that have yet to reply, asking them for an indication of the progress that they are making.
In addition, I have taken steps to implement the practical recommendations made in the report that fall to the Government through the Building Regulations. Those relate to amending the approved document for part M of the Building Regulations to require all new stadiums, new stands and extensions to existing facilities to provide
wheelchair spaces in accordance with the "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds"; to drawing up a sliding scale for the numbers of designated seats in new stands and stadiums for people who are ambulant disabled or visually or hearing impaired, and to amending part M accordingly; and to extending the future role of the Football Trust to improve disabled facilities at grounds.
Mr. Rammell:
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree with me that facilities for disabled people at most English grounds still leave a great deal to be desired? Will he ensure that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are fully implemented by all those clubs? Does he also agree that, to succeed with the world cup 2006 bid--which is a key priority for the Government and for most hon. Members--the new national stadium and access to it for the disabled must be world class?
Mr. Banks:
I agree with my hon. Friend. Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will undoubtedly improve access at sports venues for people with disabilities. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we now have a real opportunity in the construction of the new Wembley to ensure that it is a state-of-the-art stadium for not only able-bodied but disabled supporters, whatever their disability. The building of the new Wembley stadium is crucial to our 2006 bid, and I am delighted that we have cleared the hurdle of the approval of Wembley plc, and we can now proceed to the design stage.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
Does the Minister agree that we should try to improve facilities for disabled supporters not only of football, but of other sports? Will he bear in mind the needs not only of disabled spectators, but of paralympic athletes? I have discussed this matter with the Minister, and I know that he is aware of the concerns of many paralympians about the lack of proper facilities for disabled competitors at Crystal Palace. I hope that he can tell us that that matter is being addressed.
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the very good new facilities, including facilities for the disabled, opened yesterday by Trevor Brooking, the acting chairman of Sport England, at the Lightwater leisure centre in my constituency?
Mr. Banks:
I most certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I acknowledge the part that he plays in the promotion of disability sport in this country. He is right to point out that our paralympians are among the finest in the world. We should see them in terms not of their disability, but of their sporting achievements and prowess, about which we have much to feel proud. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will apply to all sporting venues, not just football stadiums. There is much that we can do to improve our grounds, whether for athletics or for football, to ensure that we provide the best possible facilities for disabled spectators and our disabled sportsmen and sportswomen.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford):
Does my hon. Friend agree that some clubs have made considerable progress in opening up their grounds and making football accessible particularly to the disabled, but also to families and children? Does he also agree that the decision by Chelsea football club to keep open the job for Graham Rix after
Mr. Banks:
Football clubs such as Blackburn and Northampton have provided facilities for disabled supporters. That is admirable and should be replicated around the country.
On the matter of Graham Rix, it is for the club to decide. Mr. Rix is rightly paying the price for his criminal act. Whether the club should have made such an announcement so soon after the sentence had been passed is a matter of judgment, and some people may feel that it has erred in its judgment. However, it is a matter for the club, and Mr. Rix will suffer his due penalty, as he should.
5. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
If he will make a statement on the renewal of the BBC charter. [77373]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith):
The BBC charter was renewed in 1996 to run for 10 years. It will next be reviewed in the run-up to 2006.
Mr. Baker:
Will the Secretary of State try to ensure that the BBC spends a greater proportion of licence payers' money on programme making? Is he aware that the BBC is awash with--indeed, submerged in--management strategies, management consultants and mission statements, and that the situation has reached such a point of absurdity that Broadcasting house has no broadcasters in it, only managers? Will he ensure that licence payers get better value for money by having more spent on programmes and journalists and less on gobbledegook managers?
Mr. Smith:
I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is entirely a matter for the governors to allocate the BBC's resources, and it is very important that the Government do not intervene in those decisions; but it is also important to ensure, as hon. Members of all parties would wish, that the BBC devotes as much of its resources as possible to making good programmes for its viewers and listeners.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne):
Since the BBC is the prime cultural institution in the country, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to promote its cause up to and beyond the renewal of the charter?
Mr. Smith:
I will certainly seek to do that. The BBC is our premier public service broadcaster, and I was delighted to read a week ago of the comments made by Mr. Alan Yentob, who seized strongly on the point that the BBC's pre-eminent task is to act as a benchmark of quality in the broadcasting environment.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
If the BBC is indeed a benchmark of quality, is the Secretary of State not concerned about declining standards in both television and radio? What does he think about the recent announcement that the licence fee is to be increased to more than £100? Is that not too much for, for example,
Mr. Smith:
We are, of course, following the five-year programme of licence fee settlements put in place by the Conservative Government. We felt that it was correct to follow that prospectus, because all the BBC's plans had been based on it. It is, however, important to bear in mind the affordability of the licence fee, especially for those who are not particularly well off. The review panel that I established to report to me in July on the licence fee is considering that issue.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Has my right hon. Friend seen last week's BBC report, showing that 3 million fewer people now listen to parliamentary coverage because of the transfer of "Yesterday in Parliament" to long wave and the dumping of "The Week in Westminster" in a graveyard slot? Is he aware that, according to the same report, the "Today" programme has not gained a single new listener between 8.30 and 9 o'clock? Does that not show that the BBC's decision to move parliamentary coverage out of the mainstream was a complete disaster? It was a disgrace when it was made last year, and it should be reversed. There has been a general drop in BBC listening and viewing figures, which are now at 30 per cent. To what percentage of the national audience does the BBC have to drop before the licence fee itself is called into question?
Mr. Smith:
The BBC has indeed published its study of what happened following the changes to "Yesterday in Parliament". I know that it is of great concern to many hon. Members, and indeed to you, Madam Speaker. The report is out for consultation, and the closing date for responses is Friday 30 April. I very much hope that hon. Members of all parties will express their views forthrightly to the BBC.
BBC1 and BBC2 between them have not 30 per cent., but 40 per cent. of the national viewing figures. That is a healthy and substantial segment of the viewing population. The important factor to sit alongside that is the reach of BBC programming, which is well over 90 per cent. in an average week.
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a subsidy of £2 billion from the licence fee payer means that the BBC has a clear obligation to protect the public interest? I echo the comments by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane); in that regard, does the Secretary of State share my concern that, since the Radio 4 changes a year ago, "The Week in Westminster" audience has dropped 65 per cent. and the "Yesterday in Parliament" audience has fallen by fully 73 per cent? Will he remind the director-general of the corporation's clear public service responsibility to react to those figures?
Mr. Smith:
I will remind the BBC, the governors and the director-general of their duty as a public service broadcaster not only to entertain, but to educate and inform. My personal view is that accurate and full coverage of what happens in Parliament is part of that duty, and I am sure that that is a point that many hon. Members will wish to make. However, it is not,
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |