Clause
30Application
of this
Part
Mr.
Harper: I beg to move amendment 11, in
clause 30, page 22, line 6, leave
out paragraph
(a).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 7— Reasonable adjustments for babies and
infants— ‘(1) The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to a duty on
providers of public services, where a physical feature puts a baby or
infant aged under 5 at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a
relevant matter in comparison with persons of other ages, to take such
steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the
disadvantage. (2) A reference
in this section to a physical feature is a reference
to— (a) a feature
arising from the design or construction of a
building; (b) a feature of an
approach to, exit from or access to a
building; (c) a fixture or
fitting, or furniture, furnishings, materials, equipment or other
chattels, in or on premises or a
vehicle; (d) a feature arising
from the design of a
vehicle; (e) a feature of an
exit from or access to a
vehicle; (f) any other physical
element or quality. (3) Any
reference in this section to chattels is to be read, in relation to
Scotland, as a reference to moveable
property.’.
Mr.
Harper: It is always good to start promptly—it has
all sorts of advantages. This simple amendment would leave out
paragraph (a) and is nothing more than a probing amendment tabled
because, having read the section and realised that the part on premises
does not apply to the protected characteristics of age and marriage and
civil partnership, I could not think of good reasons why we would want
to exclude age. I have therefore tabled an amendment to leave out that
paragraph simply to provoke a discussion and give the Minister the
opportunity to set out the Government’s thinking about why age
should be excluded from the section. That is the purpose of the
amendment. I look forward to what the Minister has to
say.
John
Mason: The purpose of new clause 7 is to require public
service providers to make reasonable adjustments to physical features
to make their services and facilities accessible to babies and young
children. The DDA introduced the concept of reasonable adjustments into
UK legislation. The duty to make reasonable adjustments means that
providers of services are required to make changes called reasonable
adjustments, so that disabled people can use the services more easily.
The duty has led to improvements in relation to accessibility for
disabled people and others, so it might now be a good time to extend
the protection specifically for the benefit of babies and young
children. The
new clause suggests reasonable adjustments for under-fives in relation
to the physical features of public transport and public premises. For
public service providers, that would simply be an extension of the
existing duty relating to disability. Older people with accessibility
needs may well qualify as disabled under the DDA and enjoy reasonable
adjustment rights under that legislation. Babies and young children,
and their families or carers, are clearly not disabled, but they suffer
similar limitations on their access to many services. There is
currently a lack of safe and available seating for infants and young
children and inadequate space for pushchairs on public transport.
Constituents frequently come to me and complain that, because there was
already a pram on a bus, a second pram was unable to be taken on.
Adults travelling with young children often experience problems getting
on and off public transport and feel that they and their child are
frequently treated less favourably than others.
A survey
found that parents in the UK are put off using public transport by poor
access, sometimes inconsiderate staff and a lack of suitable
facilities. Some 72 per cent. of the 500 mothers who were surveyed
thought that public transport was difficult for mothers and babies to
use, 60 per cent. found that bus drivers were unhelpful, and only 12
per cent. had a fully buggy-accessible train or underground station
near them.
Research by
the then Equal Opportunities Commission, which was conducted in 2006,
concluded that the designs of
buses “take
insufficient consideration of the difficulties experienced by women who
are encumbered by accompanying
children.” I
assume that that could relate to men as well. The research recommended
that a balance should be sought between providing adequate seating
capacity and providing enough space for shopping bags, pushchairs,
wheelchairs and mobility scooters. The new clause, for which I am
grateful to Young Equals, would allow the Secretary of State, by
regulation, to require transport providers to make reasonable
adjustments to ensure the safety and comfort of very young
passengers. Moving
on to public buildings and spaces, babies and young children experience
similar difficulties when trying to access and use public buildings
with their parents and carers. Cardiff county council carried out a
detailed inquiry into how family friendly its city is. The conclusion
was that people
experienced “considerable
problems in finding stores or buildings with baby changing
facilities...buggy access into and around shops, restaurants and
other buildings was also very difficult and in some places
impossible.” The
new clause would allow for a reasonable adjustments duty in respect of
public buildings to be placed on public service providers to ensure
access for families with babies and children under the age of five. I
believe that a similar duty exists in some regions of Germany; for
example, Baden-WÃ1/4rttemberg requires a barrier-free environment
for facilities used by small children, people with disabilities and the
elderly.
Lynne
Featherstone: I strongly support new clause 7. When I was
on the London assembly, I was for four years the chairman of transport
and for one year the deputy chairman. One of the key issues was the
design of buses and their inaccessibility, particularly for mothers
with buggies. It is difficult enough to get out the door with a young
baby, let alone find oneself at a bus stop when a bus driver drives up
and refuses access. I have
seen mothers with a double-buggy or, if there is already a buggy on the
bus, with a single buggy refused access. A reasonable adjustment should
be made, so I support the new
clause.
The
Solicitor-General: Amendment 11 and new clause
7 both raise the issue of age in relation to premises. Let me put on
the record, in response to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, that our
reason for excluding premises from the ban on age discrimination is
that we want to tackle harmful discrimination only, as I have been
saying throughout. During preparation for the Bill and in the
consultation, we looked for evidence of discrimination because of age
in the field of housing but did not find sufficient evidence to justify
applying the provisions on premises to
age. On
the other hand, there are many examples of housing provision
exclusively for people in a particular age range, which we would
probably regard as desirable and would want to preserve. Age limits may
be imposed to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups or to cater for
the preferences of individuals who simply wish to live exclusively with
people of a similar age. If we included age in the ban, those age
limits would have to be objectively justified. Since we did not find
evidence of harm from the exclusion, we did not think that that was
necessary. We simply do not want to interfere unnecessarily with the
private arrangements that people make. In a nutshell, that is why we
have not included that strand in the
clause. If
that is satisfactory, I shall turn to new clause 7, which is about
making premises and public transport accessible and safe for babies and
young children by means of a reasonable adjustment, which is a concept
that was introduced in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure
that disabled people get increased access to services, among other
things. It necessarily entails a measure of positive discrimination for
that protected group. It is not permissible in relation to the other
protected groups because it is unjustifiable and unduly burdensome, but
it is absolutely necessary to ensure that disabled people have access
to all that they are entitled
to. I
recognise that parents are keen that buildings and transport should be
child-friendly, but we are probably stretching equality legislation
beyond what is appropriate. Instead, such things should be approached
in a more targeted way. A substantial disadvantage test does not really
fit babies and children. Obviously, they are disadvantaged by their
size and the fact that they are babies, but, by and large, they will be
with parents or carers. Comparing them with persons of other ages does
not work and would not achieve the aim underlying the new
clause. In
addition, by way of reassurance, legislation already exists to deal
with some of the issues that the new clause seeks to address: for
example, part M of schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2000 ensures
that people, regardless of age, sex or disability, should be able to
gain access to and within buildings, and use their facilities. The
approved guidance document to the regulations sets out considerations
such as ensuring entrances are wide enough to allow unrestricted access
to parents with pushchairs; incorporating separate facilities for baby
changing, or including changing tables in toilets; and providing lower
handrails on stairs and lower urinals for children in male
washrooms.
On public
transport, in particular buses and trains, an extensive regulatory
framework currently addresses comfort, safety and access for disabled
passengers. Many of the adjustments made for them—for example,
ramp access and widening of doorways—will also benefit
passengers who have young children in
prams. On
rail services where wheelchair-accessible toilets are fitted,
baby-changing facilities are also required and EU regulations protect
the rights of people with reduced mobility. That would include pregnant
women and people travelling by air with children and babies. Similarly,
EC proposals, although that is all they are at the moment, about
travelling by sea and on buses and coaches have been published. There
is also, yet to come, a public sector equality duty, which encourages
public bodies to take account of the particular needs of people of
different ages when planning, designing and delivering services. The
needs of women in relation to pregnancy and maternity are particularly
covered, as is breastfeeding. Therefore, parents will also see
improvements as a consequence of the Bill.
On reasonable
adjustments, we think that it is not an appropriate means of tackling
this problem. It is being tackled in a number of specific ways and it
is far better to do it in that targeted fashion than incorporate it
into discrimination law. We therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member
for Glasgow, East not to press new clause 7, and I hope that
I have answered the points that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean
raised in tabling his
amendment.
Mr.
Harper: The amendment was probing the Government’s
thinking about why the age provisions had been excluded. The Minister
outlined that very well and reiterated that there was no harm being
done that needed to be fixed. Indeed, there were lots of positive
things about premises, to do with age, that we would want to protect.
In view of her assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Lynne
Featherstone: I beg to move amendment 163, in
clause 30, page 22, line 7, leave
out paragraph (b). This
amendment extends protection against discrimination because someone is
married or in a civil partnership as it relates to
premises. This
is another probing amendment. It seeks to extend protection against
discrimination because someone is married, or in a civil partnership as
it relates to premises. The Minister will recognise that we have been
here before, but I would like to probe her because premises is one of
those areas where I might have expected some evidence of discrimination
against, for example, someone in a civil partnership. I would be
interested to hear from her whether there is any evidence of that. If
there is, I do not think that they should be excluded, because people
can be prejudiced. I await her comments.
The
Solicitor-General: Put simply, there just is not any
evidence.
Lynne
Featherstone: That is hard to believe, but I am encouraged
to hear that there is not any evidence. If there is not any
discrimination, the Government, rightly,
do not need those protected characteristics in the Bill. On that basis,
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
30 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
31 to 33 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
34Leasehold
and commonhold premises and common
parts
Lynne
Featherstone: I beg to move amendment 164, in
clause 34, page 25, line 27, leave
out subsection (8). This
amendment removes the powers of Government to remove specific types of
premises from the application of this
protection. We
have some concerns that the provision will make the protection of
premises open to the whims of the Government of the day. If a
Government were to decide that they disagreed with protection in all
its forms in all these premises, they could remove all types of
proposed buildings and premises from the application of the protection.
I am seeking reassurance from the Minister that she is not as worried
about this as I
am.
The
Solicitor-General: I assure the hon. Lady that we have no
sinister reason to exclude any particular premises. Property and
housing legislation is complex and the provisions in the clause are
novel. They will take a bit of time to bed in and we will monitor how
they work in practice. In time, there may be aspects of common parts,
for instance, that mean that we have to exclude certain things from the
provisions, so we have given ourselves the power to do so. There is
nothing sinister at all in this. Of course, I cannot predict whether
future Governments will have sinister motives, but it seems to us an
important power to have in
reserve.
Lynne
Featherstone: I thank the Minister. She alluded to my
concern in her last sentence. Given that the future is unknown, I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
34 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4Premises:
reasonable
adjustments Amendment
made: 61, in schedule 4, page 166, line 14,
leave out ‘5(4)(b)’ and insert
‘5(4)(c)’. .—(The
Solicitor-General.) This
amendment would correct a minor drafting
error Schedule
4, as amended, agreed
to. Schedule
5 agreed
to.
| 
