Memorandum by the Inconvenience Committee
of Blue Badge Professional Tourist Guides
Please find attached the written submission
of the Inconvenience Committee of Blue Badge Professional Tourist
Guides. The "Blue Badge" is the highest level of professional
tourist guide qualification and guides holding it work in all
parts of the UK, with the greatest number working in London. The
Inconvenience Committee was formed in 2005 in response to increasing
concern by Blue Badge guides at the lack of appropriately sited
and free public toilets, when guiding a group on foot or by coach.
The members of the Committee represent the two leading organisations
for guiding, the Association of Professional Tourist Guides and
the Guild of Registered Tourist Guides. The majority of Blue Badge
guides work independently but serve on committees with other representatives
of work in tourism, eg Visit Britain and coach operators. Through
our guiding work, we have first hand experience of the problems
encountered by tourists needing to use public toilets.
In addition to my part time guiding work, I
am an independent public health consultant (GMC registration no:
1735730 Specialist register for public health medicine), with
particular experience of the public health aspects of water and
sanitation and hold an honorary academic appointment at the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Dr R Stanwell-Smith
Chair, Inconvenience Committee of Blue Badge Guides
INTRODUCTION
There has been a growing concern over recent
years amongst the UK's Blue Badge Tourist Guides over the provision
of public toilet facilities. The problem is particularly acute
in London, which as a global centre for tourism draws in millions
of visitors each year from the domestic and overseas markets.
In response to these concerns, Blue Badge Tourist
Guides formed an "Inconvenience Committee" to document
both problems and progress. The committee has provided evidence
to the London Assembly Inquiry into Public Toilets (Report, March
2006), and has campaigned successfully for Unite (the UK's largest
trade union), to include provision of free public toilets as part
of their policy. However the committee remain concerned that despite
some progress in ideas, the importance of public toilets to UK
tourism continues to be at best neglected and, at worst, of no
concern, at either UK national or local government levels. Our
response to the current call for evidence is detailed below, using
the reference headings of the Inquiry.
1. The need for public toilets—access
to public spaces, needs of older people, disabled people, children
and families
Walking, cycling and visiting parks etc. is
increasingly recognised as an important way of improving community
health. With an ageing population, access to public toilets is
even more essential. Yet many parks and open spaces have poor
toilet facilities or lack them altogether—open spaces in
London are particularly badly served and demonstrate the lack
of a coherent policy for public toilets:
— No suitable public toilets in the
public areas of More London/Potters Field/ Hays Galleria. Just
a single pay toilet for each gender in More London!
— Only one [shabby but free] public
toilet (in St James's Park) in the vicinity of Buckingham Palace
for visitors to the Guard Change.
— Insufficient toilets in Trafalgar
Square and with limited opening time provision.
— General lack of sufficient toilets
for women [and children].
— Need for disabled toilets should
not lead to closure or replacement of other public toilets.
— Limited opening hours makes difficulty
for people who walk or cycle to or from work.
2. Why provision has declined
a. The main reasons are the lack of legislation
and planning strategy. Increasing legislation for other services
has allowed the budgets for public conveniences to be plundered
and reduced.
b. Vandalism, drug-taking & other anti-social
behaviours are often cited as a reason for closure or restricted
hours—but without measures being taken to counteract these
threats, although there is ample research and empirical evidence
that much of the abuse can be prevented—plus innovative
design eg vandal proof toilets.
c. Loss of civic pride in the great achievements
of British sanitation: plus it no longer seems to be popular (not
respectable enough?) for wealthy benefactors to see public toilet
provision as an important charitable contribution to the community
(Dick Whittington famously bequeathed a public toilet to Londoners;
more recent benefactors, such as George Bernard Shaw, were proud
to be recognised as helping to fund or be associated with provision
of public toilet facilities).
d. Neglected by architects (although recent
RIBA award to a public toilet in Gravesend and award-winning loos
in Cambridge are encouraging signs).
3. Who pays: should local authorities provide
free toilets; should the public pay; should local business contribute?
a. Public toilets should in general be free
at the point of use: apart from issues of equality of access for
all citizens and visitors, it cannot be assumed that all those
with need to use them will have the appropriate small change.
This particularly applies to foreign visitors: the pattern of
tourism now includes groups making "flying visits" to
the UK of a day or so.
b. It would appear that some people do not
mind paying for toilets if they are clean and safe, but pay toilets
should be restricted to commercial areas and not to "tourist
destination" areas such as Parliament Square in London or
centres of major tourist destination. The lack of free toilets
around Parliament Square is one of the most persistent trying
problems encountered by tourist guides.
c. There should be free public toilets at
all main rail stations and most central tube stations in London:
it is disgraceful that there are charges at most of these, plus
turnstiles (illegal under the ignored Turnstile Act). Ticket prices
are high so why can't this simple service be free? Also, the difficult-to-negotiate
toilets at rail stations such as Paddington and Victoria make
a very poor welcome to London.
d. Options for paying for toilets include:
— Contribution from local businesses,
especially those benefiting from tourism and visitors, such as
hotels, shops and restaurants.
— Increase in the revenue that can
be retained from business rates in main tourist destination areas
eg Westminster, ring fenced to pay for public toilet provision.
— A "toilet card" purchasable
at tourist centres that would provide access to charging public
toilets—probably only feasible when public toilet design
has been more standardised....
— A standard levy on the Oyster card
used in London, that would allow the user free entry into toilets
eg in tube stations.
— Condition of trading licence to pay
levy for public toilets in all public areas and shopping centres.
— Local authority contribution to provide
toilets in local parks.
— Linked businesses eg refreshment
booths that generate the income needed to finance the toilets;
machines selling appropriate products inside toilets.
— Advertisements in and outside toilets.
— Corporate sponsorship of particular
"high profile" toilets—possibility of tax incentives?
4. Opening hours and other accessibility
issues
a. There is a particular shortage of toilets
in the early hours (when cafés are not yet open) or after
business hours—eg early evening.
b. Accessibility is an issue, but the unintended
consequence of the Disability legislation, in encouraging local
authorities to close or sell off their facilities, should be urgently
addressed. Most of those seeking to use public toilets are not
in wheel chairs and can manage steps with appropriate rails etc—therefore
the provision of facilities for wheelchair users should not be
used as an excuse to provide no other facilities.
5. Security—should toilets be staffed,
unstaffed, automated?
Any unstaffed toilet becomes unpleasant in a
very short time—a depressing fact (how about including appropriate
toilet use on the primary school curriculum?). Automated toilets
become frankly dangerous when something goes wrong. Staffing,
regular cleaning and replacement of toilet paper, soap etc. is
therefore essential.
6. The gender balance—are men and women
being fairly served by current provision?
a. The answer is of course no—in any
group of tourists, the ladies" loo rapidly builds up a long
queue.
b. Public toilets should include twice as
many cubicles for women.
7. Provision beyond the local authority—innovative
schemes to encourage shops, cafes, pubs and other businesses to
provide toilets to more than paying customers
This currently favoured idea has huge drawbacks—
a. It is only feasible for individuals or
very small groups.
b. Who wants to pay to eat in a café,
only to find a long queue for the loo formed by non-customers?
c. The hygiene of pub and café loos
often leaves much to be desired—with greater use, they will
be even worse.
d. It does not answer the need of tourist
groups.
e. It is extremely unlikely to be taken
up in highly frequented tourist areas:
— Businesses in tourist areas (eg Westminster)
often display notices saying their toilets are only for customers.
— Very few establishments have appropriately
large public toilets.
f. There is nothing wrong in encouraging
this idea in shopping areas etc, but not if it is seen as an alternative
to well designed public toilets.
8. Tourism—does public toilet provision
play a part in the attractiveness of our towns and cities?
Yes of course, but the design of toilets could
be examined to make them a feature rather than a smelly eyesore
eg with design competitions and specific initiatives to improve
the public toilets in parks and open spaces, as well as at tourist
destinations. We support the excellent points made by VisitBritain
on this subject and would also add the following points:
a. Tourists ALWAYS remember problems with
toilets.
Examples:
— Toilets at coach parks often close
at 5pm but for some parts of the country this may be the only
place where a coach can stop—and local cafés and
pubs can be hostile to the arrival of a large group looking for
a toilet...
— Destinations like Westminster Abbey,
with no public toilets available to their paying visitors, frequently
cause problems for tour groups. A relaxing and enjoyable visit
to a tourist attraction often means ensuring that members of the
group have a chance to visit a public toilet first.
We would be happy to provide oral evidence based
on tourist guide experience of the public toilet provision.
b. Public toilets are not just about loos—they
provide hand washing and nappy changing facilities, for example:
this helps to maintain good hygiene and safe eating on the move.
c. Street urination and other fouling is
undoubtedly on the increase—not the image we want to promote
for tourism and well placed public toilets can help to stop this
[as well as ensuring some are open in night hours]. The public
toilet needs of the homeless and the very poor also need to be
addressed if street fouling is to be reduced.
d. The increasing concern about protecting
the environment provides an opportunity to design "eco-loos"
that use rainwater for flushing etc.
e. Civic pride in public toilets needs to
be re-generated and appropriately funded.
f. Tourists come into all the groups for
which there may be particular concern: eg elderly; disabled; families
with children; people with chronic urinary or bowel ill health.
g. Tourism is not just about coach parties:
walking tours account for an increasing proportion of foreign
and in-country tourism. And people on walks need public toilets,
just as those in large coach groups.
h. The two most important tourism-strategic
areas for free public toilets in London are Parliament Square
(near Westminster Abbey) and St James Park/ Green Park (near Buckingham
Palace).
| 
