Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH 2004
MS ANDRE«E
DEANE, MR
STEPHEN DOBLE
AND MR
KEVIN SMYTH
Q380 Lord Tebbit: But the doctrine
now is that we should be proactive and not reactive, and under
proactive doctrine there should be a hoist there in case a disabled
person came in, in the same way that a ramp must be there in case,
and you must not wait until somebody turns up?
Ms Deane: I agree, and we are
trying to engender that culture into the sector. So I completely
take that point on board.
Q381 Mr Goodman: I think Andre«e
has already answered this question, and Stephen may have answered
it, but I will put it again. Do you have examples of good practice
where clubs have already opened up their membership to people
with disabilities by making reasonable adjustments? You were talking
about this a moment ago in relation to facilities that have access.
Mr Smyth: We do not open it up
specifically. Application has to be made within the rules of the
club and if people propose and second it that is the case. Usually
disabled people perhaps become disabled after becoming members,
in which case the problem does not arise, or they are youngsters
who can come in with their parents: because one great thing about
clubs, our type of clubs anyway, is the social ambience of the
family all being together. I do not think we have ever had a problem.
I am confident we have not.
Mr Doble: Of course the Association
of London Clubs does not, and never has, discriminated. It does
select, and it is a truth that sometimes you have to be Scottish,
some others you have to be an actor, some of which you have to
be a lawyer, some of which you have to be a politician, but we
never ever would discriminate on any other ground whatsoever.
This is a selection process. If a person turns up of any colour,
creed, religion, belief, whatever, that would never ever come
into the equation.
Q382 Chairman: Are the London Liveries,
the City Liveries—within your association or do they have
their own association?
Mr Doble: They have a separate
one.
Q383 Chairman: They are different?
Mr Doble: Completely separate,
my Lord.
Q384 Chairman: Most of those would
be in Grade I buildings, I would imagine?
Mr Doble: Almost certainly. I
am not qualified to answer, but I would have thought almost certainly
Grade I or II, mostly Grade I.
Chairman: I think you have answered the
next question, but if you would like to ask it for the record.
Q385 Baroness Wilkins: Sport England
anticipates that clause 5 will result in more disabled people
becoming members of sports clubs. Do you think this will have
the same effect for fitness clubs and would you welcome it?
Ms Deane: As I have already explained,
most of the Fitness Industry Association members have had to comply
for some time, so I do not think clause 5 will make a significant
difference to the number of disabled people that use our clubs.
I think that we have some excellent examples of good practice
already, and we do welcome disabled users because clearly with
the Government's health agenda and the upcoming White Paper on
health, regular physical activity for mentally and physically
disabled people is tremendously beneficial, and we have fully
engaged with that agenda. So, yes, we definitely would welcome
more disabled users, but I would comment that the definition of
"disability" as is given to me by the English Federation
of Disability Sport states that any condition that is of at least
12 months duration that can affect our ability to do every day
activities is a disability. I would class obesity as a disability,
if that is the definition, and our clubs are actively engaged
in working with obese people through exercise referral, GP referral
schemes, with which we feel we are making fantastic achievements.
I do not know if that answers your question.
Q386 Baroness Wilkins: You have already
said that you have hardly had requests for a hoist to a swimming
pool, which would indicate that very few certainly wheelchair
users actually use fitness clubs. I wonder how many, for instance,
could weigh somebody in a wheelchair, which requires a platform
on which to weigh you?
Ms Deane: Many of the gyms and
fitness facilities within health clubs and fitness centres, many
of them can provide facilities for wheelchair users. Most of our
large operators are able to accommodate wheelchair users in the
gyms; not so much yet however in swimming pools.
Q387 Tom Levitt: Section 21F(2),
as I am sure you know, provides that a club cannot be held to
have discriminated under this legislation if it held a reasonable
opinion that one of the various conditions listed was met, such
as adverse health and safety implications for admitting a disabled
person, irrespective of whether the condition is actually met
or not. Some witnesses have argued that this justification is
unnecessary and unfair because it is not objective. How do you
feel about this as the proprietors of clubs? Anybody.
Mr Doble: If you would like me
to start. I think, generally speaking—again I have not consulted
anyone about it—I suspect those people were very happy with
it, for the reason I have already explained about lack of discrimination
anyway. I do not think we see a problem with it.
Q388 Tom Levitt: So you would be
happy, as it presently is phrased, that as long as you had a reasonable
opinion that the discrimination was justified, then you should
be able to discriminate?
Mr Doble: What I was saying is
that in my own particular organisation discrimination is not an
issue.
Mr Smyth: Yes, I would say that
justification is unnecessary and unfair.
Q389 Mr Clarke: Are you familiar
with section 21G(1)(a) and, if you are, what sort of adjustments
do you expect arising from that? I will give you some time to
think about it may be?
Mr Doble: A little explanation
of it would be of assistance, of what the question actually means
here.
Mr Smyth: Is it basically asking
what we think would have to be done to ensure a physical feature
within the building to get over the problem of disabled people?
Q390 Mr Clarke: If it helps, I will
read my own notes on it. I am sorry, but I thought it was something
that you very consciously flagged up to us. Under that section
regulations may oblige clubs to adjust the policy, practice or
procedure of the association or a physical feature which adversely
affects disabled persons. The trigger "adversely affects"
is not used elsewhere in the DDA, but the explanatory notes go
on to say that the duties expected to be imposed in clubs by regulations
are not likely to go further that the duties imposed on providers
of goods and services under Part 3 of the DDA. My notes tell me
that confusingly—and I think we are all agreed that we are
confused—the trigger for the rest of Part 3 of the DDA is
that it would be "impossible or unreasonably difficult"
for the disabled person to access the goods or service. Do you
want to comment on that generally?
Ms Deane: Does that refer, once
again, to the amendments that would need to be made to the actual
facility in order to offer equality, or to offer access, to be
inclusive in terms of offering access? I think that goes back
again to the issue of "reasonable" and what reasonable
costs should be incurred in order to offer access both to the
facility and to expertise in dealing with that disabled person,
particularly in my sector where there is a great deal of expertise
needed in terms of exercise programming. I know that my members,
particularly of small centres, are very concerned about the definition
of "reasonable" and the absence of test cases that may
mean that they would be one of the fore-runners to experience
a court case. So it is this grey area of what is reasonable. Where
are the bench marks? Can we define any more succinctly what that
word could mean?
Q391 Mr Clarke: So in your own particular
field it would be fair to say that you do envisage some difficulties
in making reasonable adjustments?
Ms Deane: Yes.
Q392 Mr Clarke: For both physical
impairments, sensory impairments and learning disabilities?
Ms Deane: For existing, not just
old or listed buildings, but for existing facilities, possibly,
certainly not for new buildings, of which in my sector there are
many, because they are being purpose built.
Q393 Mr Clarke: So you do definitely
envisage problems?
Ms Deane: Yes. We are currently
having problems.
Q394 Lord Swinfen: I wonder in the
fitness industry if the staff who supervised those who are trying
to keep or become fit are already trained in the specific requirements
of those with physical disabilities, or whether there would be
an additional cost in having the staff trained: because the physical
disabilities would mean that some of the equipment will have to
be operated in slightly different ways?
Ms Deane: Yes.
Q395 Lord Swinfen: Or there may be
dangers to the disabled person in using some of the equipment?
Ms Deane: Or to others around
them.
Q396 Lord Swinfen: Yes?
Ms Deane: It is an additional
cost. The YMCA have written the additional qualifications which
are on the Qualifications Curriculum Authority Framework, and
it can cost up to £1,000 per individual to train them; but,
bearing in mind that is not the total cost of training, they also
have to hold an underpinning qualification in fitness. So that
clearly is a cost which provides a barrier for smaller clubs.
Q397 Lord Swinfen: But it is an on-going
cost too?
Ms Deane: Yes, it is.
Q398 Lord Swinfen: The staff will
be replaced from time to time?
Ms Deane: There is a transience
of workforce and also there is an element of continuing professional
development that is required.
Q399 Lord Swinfen: Do you think it
a reasonable cost?
Ms Deane: I think that if there
is government subsidy, as there is for a great deal of vocational
training and education, then, yes. If the employer can receive
some help, I think that that would be significant in making our
employers put more employees through those training programmes.
| 
