From Ms Morag Cross
Sir: Neil Burton feels that the Government's Disability
Discrimination Bill is potentially disastrous for historic buildings
and monuments (`Defusing the disability
time bomb', June). I sympathise with his fears, but he is being
unnecessarily pessimistic.
What Part III, 15(2) of the Bill actually says is that where access
to a service (eg, historic buildings) is impossible for a disabled
person due to a physical feature, it is the duty of the service
provider
to ensure access by taking `such steps as it is reasonable, in all
the circumstances of the case, for him to take.' The definition of
what constitutes `reasonable' adjustments to sites to comply with
the Bill will be developed by further government regulation, codes
of practice, or case law. However, section 15(7) says that nothing
requires a service provider to fundamentally alter the nature of his
service, and section 15(8) does not require expenditure exceeding
a prescribed maximum. These will form part of defences most likely
to be acceptable in court.
It is therefore unlikely that the installation of a ramped
entrance to a chambered tomb, or a lift in the Scott Monument in
Edinburgh will be seen as reasonable, below cost maximums, or to be
not fundamentally altering the nature of the service. Proposed
alterations to listed buildings and scheduled sites will also still
require consent.
Moreover, section 15(2)(d) states that `a reasonable alternative
method
of making the service in question available' may be provided. In
Scotland,
the largest disability awareness training body, SEATID, is keen to
promote reasonable alternative means of accessing a monument. Where
physical access is impossible, this might mean video tours, models
or computer-generated imagery. An example is at Glasgow University,
which accesses its 100ft tower by ground-controlled cameras relayed
to a ground-based monitor.
The new National Disability Council is not an enforcement agency.
Any individual who claims discrimination will have to take legal
action
on an individual basis. The Council has no power of investigation
and will not be able to provide legal aid.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Ritchard Read
Sir: I write concerning the review by George Hart of John and
Elizabeth
Romer's book, The Seven Wonders of the World (`Putting the
cor-blimey into wonder', September).
Here we go again: an academic belittling the efforts of another for
daring to enlighten the general public. For my part, I am more than
grateful to the Romers for dispelling all the tosh surrounding the
Seven Wonders in their excellent TV programme and book.
The way in which they explain these Wonders made them far more
intelligible
than any official academic report. Long may they continue with their
`inept parallels and colloquialisms, and their over-familiar
discordant
style'.
Yours faithfully,
Return to the British Archaeology
homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1995
Disability bill
MORAG CROSS
Kirkintilloch
Strathclyde
14 August
Arrogant review
RITCHARD READ
Whitehaven
13 September