Baroness Celia Thomas writes…Disability rights and Labour wrongs

Who would have thought that a valuable addition to the Licensing Act which would have made life better for disabled people had been scuppered by Labour Peers?  And yet that is what happened on Wednesday evening.

The amendment, which sought to improve the accessibility of licensed entertainment premises (pubs, clubs, restaurants etc.) for disabled people, was tabled by the Chair of the Lords Equality and Disability Committee, Baroness Deech, a crossbencher, and signed by me, as Liberal Democrat Disability Spokesperson, a Labour Peer and another crossbencher.

The Committee, which was set up last year at my suggestion, to look at how the Equality Act was working for disabled people, took evidence from, amongst many others, local authorities and from the National Association of Licence and Enforcement Officers. They were keen to help make premises more accessible but said they needed a small addition to the licensing objectives in the Licensing Act to be able to take action. Without the amendment, a licensing authority can only ‘suggest’ the provision of a ramp, for example, or that a restaurant should not store toilet rolls in the disabled toilet thus making it unusable.  With the amendment, the licensee would be told that if no reasonable adjustments were made, the licence would be in danger of being lost.  

The key words in legislation are “reasonable adjustments”, so that, if a licensed premises is entirely upstairs with no lift, and no room even to put a lift, then the premises would not be penalised.  Or if there were three or four steps, the most the licensee would be expected to provide might be handrails.

Peers from all round the House spoke in favour, with the Labour front bench just waffling.  When the vote was called, 135 Peers voted in favour, including 75 Lib Dems, 38 Crossbenchers, 14 Labour backbenchers and one brave Tory.  The Conservative faithful turned out in droves, but the amendment was only lost by 42, with the majority of Labour Peers sitting on their hands.

So, if anyone wants to know who is standing up for disabled people, it certainly isn’t the Labour Party.

* Celia Thomas is a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

2 Comments

  • Lorenzo Cherin 10th Dec '16 - 1:46pm

    Baroness Thomas
    What a sorry state the country is in when what is written is so ! Thank you to you and colleagues.

    I withdrew , with my partner , from the artistic directorship of a very exciting theatrical venture we were beginning many years ago , in the years when the Blair government was constructive and dynamic , because the venue would not put in disabled access, and we would not continue unless they would , as it was not costly , and they were not bothered!

    Where it is easily possible it must be made possible !

  • Tony Greaves 10th Dec '16 - 5:57pm

    We are usually being as kind as we can to the Labour peers, because we know that to win votes in the Lords we usually need their support. But from time to time we should tell it as it is. They are a demotivated, disorganised and too often unprincipled shambles. They hate their own party leadership, they think they are doomed, and too many of them still bear their grudges from the last Parliament. Meanwhile people suffer.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Martin 18th Feb - 11:23am
    @ JoeB, "....fiscal stimulus normally implies increasing deficits for the purposes of expanding demand in the economy." No. It doesn't work like this. Say the...
  • User AvatarIan 18th Feb - 11:07am
    Fairly obviously - from what Chuka said and the stuff on the website - they will be launching a new party. Sensibly (and probably practically)...
  • User AvatarGeoffrey Payne 18th Feb - 11:03am
    "Not launching a new political party" should read "Not yet launching a new political party". Why do I think that? They are requesting contact details...
  • User AvatarLawrence Fullick 18th Feb - 10:56am
    Looking at the list of Lib Dem Presidents all at some time parliamentarians have we lost the Liberal tradition that the President as well as...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 18th Feb - 9:50am
    Michael BG, fiscal stimulus normally implies increasing deficits for the purposes of expanding demand in the economy. The costed spending comittments in the Libdem Manifesto...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 18th Feb - 9:30am
    @ Daniel Walker, Well yes they would, wouldn't they? When any business fails the directors will always look for some external reason to divert the...