logo
Scottish Government should help fund disabled facilities

Scottish Government should help fund disabled facilities

A councillor and accessibility campaigner has called upon the Scottish Government to set minimum standards for disabled facilities in football stadiums, and urged them to help clubs fund vital improvements.
Scottish Greens councillor for Forth, Kayleigh Kinross O'Neill, who holds the Transport & Environment portfolio for the Edinburgh Green Councillor Group and sits on the party's Disabled Greens representative group committee, believes that much more has to be done to improve accessibility at grounds throughout the country.
As a wheelchair user and having faced the hurdles that disabled fans encounter when attending football matches first hand, Kinross O'Neill also feels that the introduction of a 'national sport access card' could help ease some of the problems she herself has encountered when trying to buy tickets to attend sporting events, such as having to prove their disabled status.
Many clubs currently work to the guidelines laid down by CAFE (Centre for Access to Football in Europe) or the Scottish FA's Disability Equality Guide.
While acknowledging that these clubs are often doing the best they can under the financial limitations they are operating within, she would like to see the government helping them out by not only introducing legislation to guarantee minimum standardised facilities, but to also help the clubs to pay for them.
"Definitely,' Kinross O'Neill said.
'What I would like to see are minimum standards for infrastructure, so where folk can sit and go to the toilet, a minimum standard for staff and engagement, so that staff are all able and willing to communicate and help disabled folk, and equally, that the clubs are also able to support disabled staff as well.
'And then finally, ticketing, having something like a national access card that reduces the barriers, but also protects disabled people in getting a fair price and support that they need.
'If you had a national sport access card, I would be supportive of that as that reduces the barriers of actually getting the ticket.
'A big thing for me, and a thing that I'm trying really hard to get the message across about, is that as a person with a disability, going to a sporting event is tied into most disabled people's experience of 'normal life,' and everything that everybody else takes for granted.
'So, when we're going to an event, we've got to ask and worry about, 'How am I going to get from the entrance to my seat?', 'What if I need to go to the toilet during the game?', 'What if I need to go to the toilet during the break when everyone's running about trying to get a drink?' and all these sorts of things.
'Disabled people make up 20% to 24% of the population. If the government is not treating this as a priority, they're neglecting a large chunk of society.
'The fan experience should be for everyone, and it should also not be an afterthought or something that is a 'nice to have.' Accessibility should be planned from the get-go. I personally would say that in a lot of stadiums, including culture and transport spaces, disability is usually an afterthought. You've got the basics, but then anything else is an extra.
'Right now, it's the clubs themselves that have the responsibility for access and inclusion; I think that it should be higher up where that is mandated and executed, which comes to the point about government funding.
'I appreciate it's difficult when different clubs are doing different things, so I would say that we should standardise the requirements for access and have some sort of national guidance.
(Image: Kayleigh Kinross O'Neill) 'In transport, for example, you have a system of guidance; a bare minimum that every company or business, or if it's council-owned, what councils have to do to meet the minimum standards for accessible travel. So, it's not up to a council to say, 'Well, we don't really have the money.'
'If this came from the government saying every club of a certain size or club in an area would get X amount of money, and they had to spend it on updating the disabled toilet to be of a certain standard, for example, then that would really help.'
As well as competing for funding, Kinross O'Neill appreciates that the subject of accessibility is competing for space in the national consciousness, but she hopes that by shining a spotlight on the issue it can inspire a serious conversation about how to improve things for disabled fans.
After all, with so many people either directly or indirectly being impacted by disability at some point in their lives, improving such facilities is to the benefit of everyone.
"I think the subject is something of a taboo,' she said.
'It's a thing that people aren't really as socially comfortable to discuss as maybe other things. And that's unfortunate, because everyone will have an experience with a disability at one point in their life, whether it's through a family member or themselves or old age or illness.
'I think it's just so important that everyone talks about it and stops being scared because it can be part of life, and why should that stop people from engaging in a sport that they love or engaging in a community that they've always been a part of? There's nothing more heartbreaking than being isolated and left behind for whatever reason.
'Disabled access is actually about access for everyone. It can happen to anybody.'
Through her work in Transport & the Environment, Kinross O'Neill is also keenly aware of how simple things like adequate parking can greatly impact a disabled person's experience.
'If you make things more accessible, including parking, that's also going to help older folk that maybe can't walk as far but wouldn't say they're disabled,' she said.
'Or it would help folks that want to bring their young children, like in buggies, or just people that don't want to walk for three miles to a football game or a rugby game. So, access does so much more for people's independence, health, well-being, for their autonomy, for just general community cohesion than I think people realise.
'That community aspect of it is so important. It's a thing that's supposed to connect people and you make friends there, you make connections there, and you get out of the house.
'I know that when I go to see Motherwell, where I'm originally from, I'll see groups of people that have been coming since they were 8 or 10 years old, and that is maybe the only time that they're going to go out that week.
'So, the opportunity that has can be quite powerful, but if it's not done right, that's when it starts being quite sad and detrimental for folk's well-being and confidence.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

North Wales Chronicle

time7 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.

Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

Leader Live

time8 minutes ago

  • Leader Live

Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.

Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

Glasgow Times

time8 minutes ago

  • Glasgow Times

Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store