London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

It is a pleasure to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As he said, we have often discussed these matters in the context of other Bills and on other occasions. I wish to reassure him as much as I can. I fear my reply might be somewhat protracted, but I am sure that I will have the indulgence of the Committee. The noble Lord has made the major case for how we should respond to the needs of the disabled in relation to the games. I want to give him as full a response as I can. He will know that we entirely share the objectives behind his amendments. I was going to suggest that we do not need them, but only because we have been assiduous in following our principles and priorities in these areas and in anticipating the principles and priorities that the noble Lord has put forward. We are greatly helped by two factors. The noble Lord has been assiduously involved in helping to ensure that this country is well advanced with regard to concern for the disabled. We may not have reached the highest point in any international table, but we have a record to be proud of—and I am talking about the product of more than one administration. The Disability Act 1995 was passed under the previous administration and we have extended that work. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was involved in those developments. So we have a good legislative basis to underpin that work, which provides obligations on public authorities. In addition, the International Olympic Committee requires that the needs of all disabled people be addressed. I made that point at Second Reading, as was recognised in the House. It is inconceivable that the IOC can put such a stress on the virtues and advantages of the Paralympics without being concerned about spectators and participants being able to access the Olympic Games and the Paralympics. So the Olympic committee has real concerns and stipulations in this area. The London bid would not have been successful unless it had included a very significant indication of how far we were advanced in legislative terms on concerns for the disabled in terms of our public bodies and those responsible for broad planning for the games, and particularly how we would meet some of the detailed points that the noble Lord has raised in his amendments. He will recognise that I am in some difficulty on the detail; the ODA is only just being established. I hasten to add that the work has already started. I will do my best to reassure him, but he will know that there is a great deal of work to be done. The ODA is a public authority within the meaning of the relevant provisions of disability legislation, so it would be governed by all the legislation that we have in place. Section 49D of the Disability Discrimination Act allows Ministers to place listed public sector bodies under specific duties to publish equality schemes, to involve the views of disabled people in their planning and to report on their progress. The ODA fits into those requirements as a public body. The Government believe that those duties on the public sector are important tools in transforming our society into one that is more equal and provides greater opportunities for disabled people. The noble Lord will appreciate the obvious point that legislation takes time to enact. I recall that he was very active in transport legislation, and we have huge investments in certain aspects of transport. He will know that already great progress has been made on disabled access to London buses, which then led to criticism that some old favourites did not match up—the famous Routemaster debate. I am not able to reassure him on the general position of disabled access to trains until we have reached a renewed rolling stock as far ahead as 2018. He also knows that we have progressive targets, and implementation of disabled regulations, that all new rolling stock has to be geared to the requirements. We have a programme of progress on this. Rome was not built in a day, and, when it comes to essential support for the disabled and the conversion of many existing structures, these things take time. I assure him that as a public body the ODA will be working against those timetables and in a framework in which we as a Government are concerned to improve the position for the disabled—of course to meet his points on the Olympic Games, but also in the wider society. The ODA will satisfy all the criteria to suggest that it should develop a disability equality scheme, and that will be a requirement. In developing the Olympic park, the ODA will be bound by the terms of Olympic planning permission, as I mentioned. The International Olympic Committee is concerned about these matters, and it requires the production of an access-for-all framework, which must be approved by local planning authorities. The noble Lord will be aware of the extent to which local planning authorities also have to have due regard to disability legislation. I could in this Committee—if the Committee had that degree of tolerance—list all the requirements on planning authorities. It would be a long list. The planning authorities will need to meet the requirements of the International Olympic Committee and our legislation concerning disabled people. The LDA commissioned the Centre for Accessible Environments to produce the access-for-all framework. It now exists in draft form and will be shortly issued for consultation with the relevant local authorities. So progress is being made. I turn to the amendments, having placed them in the context that we entirely share the noble Lord’s objectives and are working towards them. Amendment No. 3 would include experience of,"““equality matters, including disability access””," as an additional criterion for the Secretary of State to consider in making ODA appointments. We do not doubt the importance of ensuring that there are board members with real understanding of those issues. We are looking for one board member with significant experience of working successfully with disability groups as an adviser or lobbyist; an understanding of access for the disabled; a working knowledge of the Disability Discrimination Act; and the experience of staging or advising on national or international events, preferably sporting. So we are making specifications for a board member, but I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that it would add an inordinate amount of detail to specify all that for the ODA board in the Bill. I entirely recognise his point about the significance of the disabled, but we would then be obliged to specify a whole plethora of expertise that would be essential to the effectiveness of the board’s workings. That degree of detail would be out of place in the Bill. I assure him that we expect an individual to be appointed to the ODA by advertisement under that essential specification. Amendment No. 19 would require the ODA, when fulfilling its functions under Clause 4, to ensure that premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people. As I said, the ODA will be subject to the law of the land, including Section 49 of the Disability Discrimination Act, and we expect it to draw up the disability scheme that I mentioned. Amendment No. 28 would require the ODA to have regard to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality in carrying out all of its functions. As an employer, the ODA will be governed by race relations and disability discrimination legislation to ensure that it offers opportunities for all. The Bill also spells out some specific responsibilities for the ODA, in its role as the manager of a future construction project, to contribute to sustainable development and to keep a constant eye on the legacy, which will include the social legacy of the games as well as the economic and environmental legacy. I think that that is what the noble Lord was driving at when he said that he expected to see advancement of the interests of the disabled to be part of the social legacy of the games. So at the heart of that project, which will regenerate east London, is a crucial expectation of improvement in facilities for the disabled, but the noble Lord will recognise that the body with the overall responsibility for that is not the ODA. That is for the GLA. We cannot give the responsibilities of the GLA to what is essentially a technocratic delivery agency, such as the ODA. However, the ODA will certainly be governed by that broad framework. The noble Lord will know the extent to which the Greater London Authority is concerned to make progress on those matters. Amendment No. 84 would introduce a new clause to provide the Secretary of State with a specific power to make grants to a range of bodies beyond the ODA. That was discussed in Committee in another place. The Minister there made clear that the Secretary of State already holds the necessary powers and will use them where they are required. Amendment Nos. 44, 45 and 48 are aimed at ensuring that the Olympic transport plan takes account of the needs of disabled people. I have already referred to the real progress that we are making on transport matters. The transport plan submitted to the International Olympic Committee emphasised that it met IOC requirements for the disabled and went beyond them. As I mentioned before, for London to present a successful bid, it had to meet the very demanding transport requirements of the IOC. That was an important part of our successful bid, and we intend to fulfil it. Amendment No. 48 would require the ODA to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and other representatives of disabled groups. It is not possible for us to list all the ODA’s obligations with its significant responsibilities. We cannot list every body which it would need to consult by putting them in the Bill, but I expect the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to be consulted by the ODA; in fact, it is unthinkable that the ODA could deliver its functions in this area without being in consultation with such an important body. I want to assure the noble Lord that he is not pushing at an open door; he is joining a willing team in wanting to make significant advances with regard to the rights of the disabled. The Olympic games offers many opportunities. This is a great one and we intend to take it. I am grateful to him for highlighting the importance of these issues with his amendments.