Examination of Witnesses (Questions 780
- 784)
WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH 2004
MS MARIA
EAGLE MP AND
MR TONY
MCNULTY
MP
Q780 Mr Williams: Finally from me—and
perhaps I should declare an interest here because I have just
moved my constituency office to a listed building and believe
I have made reasonable adjustments to provide access to it—we
have heard that private clubs will face difficulty in gaining
consent from English Heritage to make changes to listed buildings.
Which is the greater priority—accessible buildings or the
preservation of the historical integrity of listed buildings?
Maria Eagle: That is a nice fair
question to end on, is it not?
Q781 Mr Williams: Yes, it is! I was
discussing this with our local access group on Tuesday morning,
perhaps you could give them an answer.
Maria Eagle: The DDA does not
supersede other legislation like the protection for listed buildings,
however, its requirements are that reasonable adjustments are
made. "Reasonable" can take into account things like
whether or not the building has listed status, what the cost of
the adjustment will be, what the detriment to the disabled person
is of not being able to have access, can you provide the service
in another way. If you are a Member of Parliament and you have
a constituency office, it is your services which need to be accessible,
it is the surgeries which need to be accessible, you need to be
able to make provision for your constituents or those who want
to see you to see you in some accessible venue. Your office might
have to be accessible if you have a disabled employee but your
constituency office does not have to be accessible to meet the
Part 3 duties. That aside, you have to get a balance, and "reasonableness"
of course ought to guide you in seeing what that balance should
be in any given situation.
Mr Williams: Thank you.
Q782 Mr Berry: You mentioned earlier
that political parties are regarded as private clubs, which I
assumed would be the case, but it has just occurred to me that
there is a great similarity between members of political parties
and volunteers. We are members of a political party and we are
volunteers, the only difference is we are paid for the privilege
of volunteering to do things. If there is a case for private clubs
being required to have certain minimum standards of behaviour
in relation to disability discrimination, does that not suggest
that volunteers should also have protection? Why are private clubs
in and volunteers out, because they are very, very similar in
many respects?
Maria Eagle: I think there can
be some similarities. Our thinking in respect of volunteers is
that the range is such you can go from something which is almost
akin to an employment relationship right down to something which
is not at all akin to that, which is very much less than that.
We have to make sure we get the balance right between putting
obligations on organisations and trying not to deter volunteering,
for example, which we would not want to do. So we want to try
the voluntary way of doing things and we think that is the best
way to proceed. In respect of private clubs—remember, we
are talking here about larger private clubs, they have to have
over 25 members, so we are not seeking to intervene in private
social arrangements, you have to get the cut-off point right—we
are going to be consulting about that because we think that is
about right but, as I have said, it is not an area we have had
lots of consultation and discussion about. This is about how private
clubs treat their own members really, and in respect of the fact
that many private clubs are already covered by Part 3 obligations
it seems anomalous they are not covered by how they deal with
their own membership. So I think there are differences, although
I do understand the point you are making because we could come
up with some examples which were pretty similar.
Chairman: This is actually the last session
on which we are taking evidence, so I think we should give the
privilege of the very last supplementary question to Lord Tebbit.
Q783 Lord Tebbit: Minister, would
this legislation—and is it intended—extend to private
clubs to the extent of requiring residential clubs to ensure bedrooms,
or a minimum number of them as in hotels, should be accessible
and suitable for people with disabilities?
Maria Eagle: That is something
we could eventually do. What we envisage in respect of private
clubs is that the sorts of duties we will be looking at will mirror
the duties we have seen in respect of other DDA aspects of coverage,
which have tended to be initially changes to policies, practices,
then auxiliary aids and finally perhaps changes to physical features
at some point. We want to consult on how this will work, whether
it will be too onerous for some clubs or how we should pitch it.
Certainly it is a Part 3-type arrangement, and in that regard
if there are clubs which are residential clubs only—and
I do not know if there are—it is conceivable, yes, that
could be the end result at some point in the future, because of
course as with other parts of the community which have been covered
by the DDA it does not all come in at once, we intend to roll
it out gradually. But the first thing we need to do is consult
the sector, which is wide and disparate and goes from very small
to very large, and see what they think about that and that we
intend to do.
Q784 Chairman: Minister, thank you
very much indeed. You have been very patient and extremely informative.
You are going to send us some more information, I know. Obviously
the transcript will be sent to you, if there is anything you wish
to add to the transcript we would be pleased to receive it. Thank
you for an extremely helpful session.
Maria Eagle: Thank you.
|
