London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 31, line 15, at end insert ““, and" (   )   equality matters, including disability access and inclusive design”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 28, 44, 45, 48 and 84. The theme running through the amendments is an attempt to discover how the Government have gone about acquiring expertise to deal with disability and the functions of and limitations on those confronted with disability. We must ensure that initially we have the knowledge and ability to be able to address the problems. We have agreed on this in Parliament during debates taking many tortuous hours—some spent in this room. If you manage to get the initial structures right and the right expertise in place, you will probably avoid problems in the future. Many of the most difficult problems that we have to deal with in regard to disability comprise dealing with situations that have arisen through not taking problems into account initially. I say that by way of preamble. Amendment No. 3 seeks to include among the membership of the Olympic Delivery Authority people with experience of,"““equality matters, including disability access and inclusive design””." The amendment seeks to ensure that we have someone who knows what is going on in that regard. I hope the Minister will assure us not only that people with such expertise will be members of the authority initially, but also will guarantee that there will be a continuum of such expertise—thus, if you lose one or two members with that expertise over the lifetime of the authority, it will be possible to replace them with people who have the relevant expertise. The problems associated with disability are diverse. I have had conversations on that subject with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on many occasions. I am talking about a huge spectrum of diversity. It will probably not be a case of having one expert who knows all about the subject. That expert may need support in the form of additional personnel. That has been reflected in other legislation. I refer to the representation of the British Paralympic Association on the Olympic board. Can we be given more indication of where we are going in that regard? It is good that the Paralympic Games comprise part of the Bill’s title, but making sure that they are taken into consideration from the beginning is also an important factor. Amendment No. 19 would impose an explicit duty on the ODA to ensure that,"““adequate arrangements are made to ensure premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people””." I am sure that the Government have a process in mind in that regard. However, it would be beneficial to be given a description of it, to be told how it is progressing and what they are going to achieve. For example, as regards the housing legacy of the Olympic village, will all housing adhere to the lifetime homes standards as a minimum standard—that is, a standard which allows for greater ease of conversion and different types of conversion? If that is the case, it will be easier to get rid of the on-costs. If all the facilities can be converted, you will be able to convert them to suit different kinds of disability. That would be a very sensible provision to include with regard to all housing, but in this case I suggest that it would be an absolute ““no-brainer”” not to include it. What status does accessibility have as regards planning consents? Is it at the forefront of consideration in that area? There are always trade-offs in that regard but accessibility should come towards the forefront of consideration of the Paralympic Games. I believe that 1 per cent of those watching the games will require seats in the main stadium which are suitable for disabled people and I suggest that for the Paralympic Games that figure will be higher, as will the number of support staff who may want to watch. The usual way to become a member of the support staff is to have participated in the relevant sport oneself. I suggest that many of those participating in the Paralympic Games will use wheelchairs. Clause 10 is concerned with transport—a matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I are familiar. Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 seek to ensure that the ODA makes the provision of accessible transport a major priority of its Olympic transport plan and provides equal access for disabled athletes, volunteers, spectators and overseas visitors. Amendment No. 48 concerns the required consultation process and organisations such as the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DIPTAC). How much contact will they have? What other bodies will be brought in to ensure that transport is fully recognised? If people are unable to get around the games, they will not be accessible. It is that simple. What is the Government’s thinking on this? What work has been done? Amendment No. 84 would provide for the making of grants for,"““improvements to highways, services, accommodation, tourist facilities and cultural and entertainment venues which would assist disabled people in attending the London Olympics””." The amendment is largely self-explanatory. If there was an intervention process outwith the initial structure, one would be able to deal with the problems of connecting the Greater London area. People who come to these games will need these improvements, especially if we want to encourage the disabled and people with them to come to the games. Once again, we go over old ground. Good ramps that are not too steep or long and assistance where it is required while travelling helps everyone who is pushing a pram or has a heavy suitcase on wheels, and so on. Those arrangements will assist the wider population. I hope that the Government will tell us what action plans they have and how they will meet such concerns. In these probing amendments, we are trying to draw out what has been done to see whether we need to go further. I beg to move.