Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-135)
BARONESS ANDREWS
OBE
9 JUNE 2008
Q120 Anne Main: That is talking about
specific money that has been allocated to one group of people,
and it just happens to be that one that is very focused at the
moment in the east of England, to deliver outcomes and there is
money available to do that. If everybody, or the government, believes
this is a good outcome, and local authorities have enormous pressures
on their funding, why not put some money that can be specifically
applied to deliver particular outcomes, maybe disability access
in toilets, or whatever?
Baroness Andrews: I would argue
that there are resources available to do that if, in fact, it
is framed within those sorts of objectives. If a local authority
has prioritised, for example, its health outcomes, because of
the flexibility now on funding arrangements and with the removal
of ring-fencing and so on, there ought to be resources which might
be able to be used for this.
Q121 Anne Main: But that would be
moving one pot to another. There is not extra money for this.
This is an add-on that we are talking about here; let's be honest.
We have a very low, poor level of provision and we want to do
more, so as a result local authorities are saying: "Where
are we going to get this from?" And if you have not got your
big stores to part-sponsor, or your big railway station in this
area, where is this money going to come from? Only some other
poor budget within a council?
Baroness Andrews: Well, I think
there are ways. I do not want to repeat myself but if one looks
at the sort of funding going into objectives like, for example,
health priorities, you have said it is an add-on but I would argue,
from the point of view of the Committee's work that this is not
an add-on; that this is something that can make a significant
difference to how people feel and to local hygiene and environment,
and it could be seen as being pretty central to meeting that objective,
and, therefore, to using some of the identified money for other
resources.
Q122 Anne Main: So there is no extra
money?
Baroness Andrews: No.
Q123 Mr Betts: The community toilet
schemes seem to have attracted quite a lot of welcome publicity,
but is there a sense in which local authorities might simply say:
"Here is a solution to all our problems, it is nice and cheap,
it does not cost us much money, we will get on with that and close
our old provision down"?
Baroness Andrews: No, because
I think one of the things we have tried to say throughout the
guide is that every local area is different, and every local area
has to find its own solutions. In some, and I take the point made
by Anne Main, the partnership is less easy to facilitate and,
therefore, the local authority has a very clear responsibility
to make adequate provision, and in other areas there can be easier
ways to find a mixed economy, shall we say, but I do not think
community toilets are by any means an alternative or a way of
shuffling off responsibility. I would be very surprised if this
is what you hear tomorrow in Richmond. It is another way of putting
responsibilities to match alongside each other; it is a way of
expanding provision; it is a way of innovating so you do actually
share the burden but, frankly, it also creates opportunity. In
Richmond they pointed to the increased footfall in their businesses,
for example, so it is very much in their interests. I keep coming
back to the point that a lot of this is about proving benefit
to local authorities, about making them see the benefit, not least
in reduced costs of anti-social behaviour. Another thing that
Richmond has found is that their anti-social behaviour (ASB) has
dropped significantly in their new provision.[2]
Q124 Mr Betts: But there must be concerns
and presumably you want local authorities to address these when
looking at a scheme. First of all, some of the provisions, say,
in shops may not be available later in the evening when a lot
of the worst problems occur, and there may be people, for whatever
reason, maybe older people, women, people from the Asian community,
who do not like going into pubs, for example, so that is not an
option for them, so the provision is effectively only available
for one section of the community, if that is what it is. Are these
issues you would expect local authorities to address in coming
to a community and having an overall look at toilet provision
in the areas?
Baroness Andrews: That is really
important because there is no doubt that what will suit Westminster
in terms of having to provide for its night-time economy is not
going to be particularly useful in a market town with less going
on, and that would be reflected in the nature of investment, for
example, in attitudes towards charging and the balance of provision
that is made. Westminster, for example, is expecting to make a
small profit on its loos because it is able to charge because
it knows that there are so many people who need to use them and
so on, but every area is different.
Q125 Mr Betts: In looking at a more
comprehensive approach to provision, would you also encourage
authorities to look at business improvement districts which incorporate
some form of toilet provision within them as part of a package?
Baroness Andrews: I do, and there
are a couple of examples where this has been done very successfully.
Q126 Mr Betts: Have you got information
about those?
Baroness Andrews: I can certainly
let you have information about those, yes. Of course, it is in
the nature of a BID that businesses have discretion how they use
that additional levy, but, again, because the evidence is that
it adds to the attractiveness of an area and businesses and, therefore,
people are more likely to go there and stay longer and so on,
there is a real argument here for economic benefit. In fact, interestingly,
one local authority used its LABGI fund, the Local Authority Business
Growth Incentive, and put some of that money towards piloting
a community toilet scheme, so that is another business opportunity.
But if I may I will write to you about that and give you some
examples.
Mr Betts: That would be helpful.
Q127 Chair: One of the issues raised
by the BTA was that, to encourage businesses to take part in community
toilet initiatives, maybe they could get business rate relief.
Would the Government consider that?
Baroness Andrews: I am sorry to
keep saying "No" to these specific ideas, but it is
not something we favour and I do not think it is something that
business would favour either. Once you start hypothecating bits
of business rate relief then you are into a rather complex situation,
so I am afraid I do not agree with Richard on that.
Q128 Chair: Some of the written evidence
we have points to the fact that London Underground tube stations
are very unlikely to have public toilets, I think there are a
few but not very many, and where they have them they are often
outside a station rather than inside, and obviously main line
railway stations are better providers. Have you had conversations
with the Department for Transport about improving toilet provision
at transport hubs which are obviously places where people might
need them?
Baroness Andrews: Yes.
Q129 Chair: And the Tube?
Baroness Andrews: I might need
to be corrected on this but, to my knowledge, we have not had
direct contact with London Underground but certainly in relation
to stations we were in contact with the Department for Transport
about the small grants that are available to improve station facilities.
When you get into providers themselves and train operating companies
and so on, however, you are into franchises and so on so we drew
the line at discussing what was available, shall I say, in terms
of what we knew could be accessed in relation to stations. We
did not go into it in huge detail, however.
Q130 Mr Betts: Given the franchising
rates are drawn up and government asked companies to tender on
the basis of what they can provide and what they cannot provide,
would it not be a good idea for your Department to make some representations
to the Department for Transport that when they look at franchising
in the future this issue will, at least, be addressed?
Baroness Andrews: I certainly
take the point in the sense that one of the unique things about
this guide was that we had cross-government support for its significance
and usefulness, but certainly those conversations can go on, yes.
Q131 Mr Betts: There is obviously
a major issue, not just in terms of provision but in terms of
the type of provision and the provision for disabled people, and
concern that sometimes authorities latch on to the Disability
Discrimination Act and say: "This toilet does not comply
and should be shut down for that reason", when, of course,
it does not apply to an existing toilet provision in that way.
Has that issue come to you, and have you noticed any attempt by
authorities to misuse the Disability Discrimination Act?
Baroness Andrews: It certainly
was part of a discussion, I believe, that we had with our expert
group while we were drawing up the guide, and it is absolutely
unacceptable that the DDA should be used as a reason for closing
public toilets, because it is perfectly clear from the Act that
what is required is a reasonable adaptation and, therefore, that
has to be addressed, but to make it an excuse is, as I say, not
right at all.
Q132 Mr Betts: And should there be
more encouragement—and how can you achieve that—to
local authorities to ensure that they recognise that there is
not a requirement to go around now and refurbish and bring up
to disability standards every toilet, but that at least part of
their strategy in the future should make sure that all our citizens
have access in the future, and not just some?
Baroness Andrews: We drew attention
to it in the guide fairly clearly, but what I can say is that
the guide is not the end of the story. We are going forward with
a toolkit which will give local authorities very simple and practical
advice based on the Richmond experience of how to put in place
a community toilet strategy. I did not really answer the question
that Mr Cummings raised earlier about it sitting in a drawer.
It will not sit in a drawer because we are going to follow it
up with this toolkit and that gives us an opportunity again, because
we are trying to do something practical there, to make sure that
people understand the reasonable adaptation proposals, what is
meant by that and what can be done, and that would give us an
opportunity to reinforce that, I think.
Q133 Mr Betts: There is one stage
further, however. We had some discussion at the last evidence
session about Changing Places and very specialist provisions which,
again, virtually anybody can use and which cater for people who
would otherwise probably be stuck in the house or going on very
short journeys and who will have their whole lives changed. What
more can government do to really encourage this sort of provision?
They ought to be across the country. I think there are about 50
now which means you have to go an awful long way to find one in
many cases.
Baroness Andrews: Yes. It is a
significant number of people, actually: 40,000 people, who are
affected in that way. We have been working with the Changing Places
campaign and have gone on working with them to promote what is
needed practically as well as the need for them, so if I may I
will write to you about that as well.
Q134 Mr Betts: When you are writing
to us would you give a little thought to the fact that, even if
there is lots of government money around to run a comprehensive
public toilet provision across the country, there might be a little
to develop these very specialist toilets, which really do serve
some of the most disadvantaged people in our community, and it
might be a little bit that Government could do practically to
help?
Baroness Andrews: Yes.
Q135 Chair: I thought Clive was going
to ask for special money for Sheffield, but he was much more altruistic!
Thank you very much indeed, Minister.
Baroness Andrews: Not at all.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
2 Note by witness: There have been no incidents of
ASB in premises associated with the scheme. Back
|
