|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Theatre and the Disability Discrimination ActDateline: 3rd October, 2004As our news story tells, the last of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) came into effect on 1st October. By now all theatres should have made all reasonable alterations to the buildings so that all parts are accessible by disabled people. Buildings erected in the nine years since the Act was passed should have had all the necessary facilities built in: those built before that date should, by now, have been adapted. What does it all actually mean?
These - and I have no doubt that there are other things which I, as an able-bodied person, have not thought of - must be provided, for they are, I would think, reasonable adaptations. And there's the rub: what could be considered reasonable in a theatre context? For the Act requires the owners and operators of buildings to make reasonable adaptations. Is it, for example, reasonable to provide one disabled toilet? It might well be in a theatre which seats 200 people. But what about a theatre which seats 1,000? or 1,500? or more? How many wheelchair places are reasonable? Is it reasonable for wheelchair users to sit only in the stalls? For in how many theatres (any at all?) are circle and gallery seats accessible to wheelchair users? Is it reasonable for wheelchair uses to have to book in advance to make sure that they get a wheelchair space? The able-bodied can just walk up and, if seats are available, get a seat. Why shouldn't the disabled? And what about the aisles in auditoria? There are already regulations governing how wide they should be, but are they wide enough at accomodate a wheelchair comfortably and still allow others who might be going in the opposite direction to pass? The law does not define reasonable. In typically British fashion it leaves it up to the courts to decide what it means. According to disability rights campaigners, the coming months (and possibly years) will see a flood of court cases as they try to establish what is reasonable. As actor and disabilty rights campaigner Mat Fraser told the BBC, "Let the carnage begin and hopefully in two years' time we might be able to go to the theatre." Theatres could be facing the huge expense of court action over the problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most subsidised theatres have made every effort to comply with the legislation, but if they have to face up to a legal challenge, the costs could be hugely damaging, for such theatres are generally just about living within their means. And what about theatres in the West End? Many of them are pretty dilapidated already because the cost of upkeep outstrips income. It is, of course, right that theatres, whether subsidised or commercial, should meet the costs of complying with the law from their budgets, but should they be expected to bear the costs of establishing just what the law means by having to pay to defend themselves in court in a test case? Is there not an argument that the government, which has failed to define the most important word in the legislation, leaving that definition to the courts, should pay the costs of those theatres which are being sued to test that legislation? Articles Indices:
|
|
|
|