Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
1 DECEMBER 2004
MR WILLIAM
BEE, MR
NEIL BETTERIDGE,
PROFESSOR PETER
BARKER OBE, MRS
ANN BATES
AND MR
DAVID CONGDON
Q60 Mrs Ellman: What are the general
views on the requirement to book ahead? You seem to be suggesting
that booking ahead is acceptable and that it does not always work
effectively?
Mrs Bates: No, I would prefer
not to book ahead at all. I do not see why we should book ahead
at all, but I am a pragmatist and in the real world out there
I would like to have some assurance that when I get on a train
I stand just some chance of getting off it. I need a ramp to get
off a train, so even an RVAR compliant train is still not accessible
to me without a ramp; so I need to book the man with the ramp
at the other end, because I have overshot stations on numerous
occasions.
Q61 Mrs Ellman: Are you saying that in
practical terms the requirement to book ahead is acceptable in
current circumstances but ideally it would be better if everything
worked?
Mrs Bates: Exactly. I think that
train companies would learn more if people booked ahead. They
would have a ready pool of people who they could call on for advice
about things like that. Ideally I would like it not to be so,
but in the current climate I believe it is best to book ahead.
Q62 Mrs Ellman: Are staff generally sufficiently
well trained to assist people with disabilities?
Mrs Bates: It is very patchy.
There are pockets of good practice within the rail industry and
there are very poor train operating companies.
Q63 Mrs Ellman: Do you have any views
on buses?
Professor Barker: May I start
with trains. Clearly making railway stations wheelchair accessible
is going to be expensive, but there are opportunities lost on
a day to day basis through ordinary maintenance spending and minor
improvements to make some improvements in access. For example,
when hand-rails on stairs are improved, they should be upgraded
to better designs; when seating is replaced it should be replaced
with seating that people can actually use; when stations are repainted
they should be repainted in colours that make it clearer for people
and the lighting can be upgraded. These are relatively minor expenses.
When we get to signage and public information systems, it is well-known,
if only people attempted to look at it, that the new plasma screen
systems are not effective—they are not visible—and
yet we see them continuing to be used. In the case of painted
signs, many of them do not conform with standard guidance that
is available. The conclusion I reach is that the maintenance of
stations and the management of stations is just not being done
terribly well, and money is being wasted and opportunities lost.
When we get to buses, the word "accessibility" is a
big problem. We hear that by 2017 buses will be accessible. That
is not true. Buses will be wheelchair accessible, and that is
a wonderful achievement, but that leaves outside two million people
with a serious sight problem, two million hearing impaired users,
and I do not know how many hundred thousands of people with learning
difficulties who do not like to use buses because they feel unsafe
and they cannot use them independently because, although they
may be able to get on a bus, they do not know where to get off;
there is no information system that tells them where to get off
the bus. There is an overwhelming case for an on-board audio-visual
system on buses. There is very little credible evidence that other
passengers, able-bodied passengers, put it that way, do not like
the system. The technology is available. It works. It would seem
that there is no ministerial objection, because Tony McNulty is
on record a couple of years ago saying that he was encouraging
the Department to move towards introducing an amendment to the
regulations. DPTAC encouraged the Department.
Q64 Chairman: Mr Barker, we will have
to ask for a little discipline. Forgive me; we have got lots of
people wanting get in now. On the same thing, Mr Betteridge, because
I would rather move on to something else.
Mr Betteridge: Can I say one sentence,
if I may. On training in the bus industry DPTAC has been working
with the Department for Transport over the last 12 months to produce
a DVD or video on best practice in terms of conduct with disabled
passengers. So that is good. That will form part of the NVQ, which
will be a necessary part of bus drivers' training the future,
but the problem is going to be about enforcement: how on earth
do we enforce this? For disabled people whose impairment is invisible
to bus drivers I suspect there will be problems for a long time
to come.
Q65 Chairman: Very quickly, Mr Congdon
on training?
Mr Congdon: Can I just deal with
the accessibility point, which is really what I wanted to come
in on? Usually accessibility is spoken of in terms of physical
access to stations and trains, and that is very understandable.
Mr Barker, quite rightly, extended that to the issue of people
with a learning disability who have a particular issue around
information and signage being very clear to them so they can find
their way round the system; but the issue about audio-visual equipment
goes to the heart of it. We understand that there are issues at
the moment about the technical side of audio visual equipment
on buses. Whether that is right or whether that is wrong, in a
sense, is almost irrelevant, because it is a problem. Why can
we not get to a situation where drivers on public transport give
out announcements to passengers.
Q66 Chairman: It might not always lead
to clarity!
Mr Congdon: It could be the wrong
place, I know, but in terms of giving information to people, it
is very important that they have that information. It is not just
for people with a learning disability, it is loads and loads of
passengers, and it would be beneficial to the operators because
more people would feel confident in using that transport. I wanted
to make that as an important point around the issue of accessibility.
Q67 Miss McIntosh: Mr Betteridge, you
said that there was a lack of political will. I wonder if you
could clarify that. Would you also accept there is a certain degree
of lack of clarity still and ambiguity as to which operator is
responsible for what?
Mr Betteridge: Which mode?
Q68 Miss McIntosh: Railways, mostly.
Mr Betteridge: I will pass over
to one of my colleagues who is a rail expert in a moment. My point
initially on lack of political will was about some of the changes
we still need to see round the Blue Badge scheme.
Ms Bates: Yes, there is a lack
of co-ordination. I think ATOC will say that they are a consultative
group but, especially around things like staff training, there
should be a consistency, because passengers do not see the difference
between one train operating company and another.
Mr Bee: I think that—and
it is something I need to relate to previous points—the
whole issue of planning for access for disabled people within
the rail industry runs far behind the whole of the rest of British
industry. The Disability Rights Commission spent much time talking
to retailers, public bodies, and local councils about their duties
which came into effect on 1 October this year, and every one of
them had strategies in place. The Strategic Rail Authority publishing
its strategy next year for duties that came into effect on 1 October
2004 to me shows an unacceptable level of planning and co-ordination.
Q69 Miss McIntosh: I am in a very privileged
position because I am spending time with Network Rail and they
do a monthly update. One last question to DPTAC. You say in your
memorandum that private cars will remain vital for some disabled
people to travel, and you mention also that the congestion charge
is working fairly effectively. If the congestion charge does go
up to £8, will that have a serious impact on you, and if
it is introduced into areas other than London, or if it is extended
in London, do you have a view on how that will impact your members?
Mr Betteridge: The congestion
charge in London has, as you say, worked fairly effectively from
the point of view of disabled people, largely because the exemption
system has worked quite well for most people. People who have
a Blue Badge or other forms of disability identity can use the
system reasonably effectively, so that should not impact too adversely,
and we would want to see the same sort of robustness about exemptions
in other cities, if developed.
Q70 Mr Donaldson: Are you concerned that
the proposal by the Government in the Queen's Speech for a new
Equality and Human Rights Commission will reduce the Disability
Rights Commission's ability to promote disabled access to transport?
Mr Bee: It will, in that we will
be abolished. The legislation will abolish the Disability Rights
Commission. We have argued strongly, and I think to a large degree
so far successfully, that the timing for disabled people of this
change is critical. The Government have indicated they expect
to remove the exemption from the transport industry at the end
of 2006. The indications are that the Commission for Equality
and Human Rights will come into effect early in 2007. Our ability
to inform disabled people of those changes and to help industry
prepare for them is bound to be hampered by that timing. We have
been reassured to some extent by the commitment to establish a
Disability Committee which will have a majority of disabled members,
and there will be a disabled commissioner. We still seek reassurances
about the structure and powers of that committee, in particular
with regard to some of the transport provisions under part 3 and
under part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act, and we seek
reassurances that the committee will have resources available
to it to carry out its functions, and it will not be simply a
talking shop. Without staff support, it will not be an effective
advocate for disabled people to ensure that the new duties under
the Disability Discrimination Act are implemented effectively.
Q71 Mr Donaldson: Has the introduction
of the final duties under part 3 of the Disability Discrimination
Act in October improved disabled people's access to transport,
in your opinion?
Mr Bee: I think, as I stated earlier,
we have seen less sign of planning and preparation for those duties
particularly in the rail industry than in almost any other major
service provider. It was why we supported the Roads case against
Central Trains and why we are looking for other cases which will
highlight the lack of planning. The process of the Court of Appeal
hearing emphasized that Central Trains did not strengthen their
position by their failure to complete their DPPP, their disabled
persons protection policy, by the timetable set, and that this
meant they had no basis for raising issues of cost as a defence
to the action which we brought. This is a warning to all the train
operating companies that they must be taking effective steps to
plan how they intend to improve access to disabled people for
their facilities.
Q72 Mr Donaldson: Is there any specific
evidence of practical improvements to back up the assertion in
the Government's response to this Committee's report that, as
a result of part 3 coming into force, inclusive design is being
mainstreamed?
Mr Bee: We are not in a position
to survey every piece of work that goes on across the rail network.
What seems to be drawn to our attention are, as Peter Barker was
saying, opportunities that are missed for effective co-ordination,
when normal refurbishment is taking place, to enhance access for
disabled people. We have been reiterating the message endlessly
to other providers that if you integrate access improvements to
your normal cycle of refurbishment, you reduce the costs significantly.
If you run around like headless chickens, trying to do it in September
2004, you increase your costs substantially. I fear the railway
industry has not even got into headless chicken mode.
Chairman: Some of us might even dispute
that.
Q73 Mr Randall: Can I ask you about some
things that have been raised with us, in particular with regard
to buses. Have you done any work on hail-and-ride, on request
stops, and also on, as we have here in London, the ticket machines
by the bus stops, particularly the latter in relation to those
with learning disabilities, but with regard to disabled access
to those things, whether request stops might have to be taken
out, hail-and-ride, that sort of thing?
Mr Betteridge: There is a particular
set of issues around hail-and-ride. For a disabled person to have
access to a bus, it is not a question of simply getting the design
of the bus right. The built environment has to be right too. There
is an argument that says if the bus cannot pull up alongside the
kerb and provide level entry, even with a kneeling bus, then perhaps
potentially that operator is falling foul of the Disability Discrimination
Act. One would imagine that therefore hail-and-ride is a concept
which could and indeed should be maintained because it suits many
people in areas where it is difficult to actually put an accessible
bus stop in place, but one also has to take account of the needs
of visually impaired people, who will also need regular fixed
bus stops in order to know where to begin and alight. That is
something where we need a mixed economy of solutions. On the whole,
it is not something that operators should be too fearful of because
in that context, it would be entirely reasonable to have both
hail-and-ride facility and fixed bus stops on the same route.
Q74 Mr Randall: Is there a danger that
over-zealous operators might withdraw services like hail-and-ride,
using the Disability Discrimination Act as a shield perhaps?
Mr Betteridge: There is that danger.
It depends if they are trying to get it right but are misguided
or actually want to withdraw the service. The key concept, as
we know, in the legislation is reasonableness. As I said in my
previous answer, it would be entirely reasonable to continue to
include a hail-and-ride facility.
Q75 Mr Randall: We have been talking
about all forms of transport. Of course, walking is a very important
mode of transport. Do you think enough is being done there to
make sure that we do not forget the pedestrian environment with
regard to people with disabilities?
Mr Barker: I think there is some
evidence that we have forgotten the interests of pedestrians.
There are some improvements. Some of the crossing systems we have
now, the bleepers and the rotating cones are a significant improvement,
but there are not enough of them. We are worried that in the future
the local authorities will not get strong enough direction from
the Disability Discrimination Bill to ensure that they are working
very seriously to improve the street environment. The guidance,
for example, on local transport plans I do not think is strong
enough. The other issue which is of concern is the encouragement
of cycling, which is very commendable but there has a been a significant
increase in illegal cycling on the footway, and there is evidence
both from the Cyclists Touring Club and other organisations that
that is deterring pedestrians from walking in certain areas, and
certainly the more responsible cyclists are concerned about the
situation. We need proper facilities for cyclists to prevent them
getting entangled with pedestrians.
Q76 Ian Lucas: You mentioned the Roads
case earlier on. How much does a case like that cost the Disability
Rights Commission?
Mr Bee: That was the very first
case under part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act to reach
the Court of Appeal, and that and the Ryanair case, which is in
the Court of Appeal at the moment, are the only two. They have
both required our support. The Roads case at county court cost
us approximately £12,000, the appeal rising to £25,000,
although having been successful, we are obviously hoping to recover
those costs. Had we been unsuccessful, paying the costs of Central
Trains would have been significant.
Q77 Ian Lucas: You are looking at doubling
those figures essentially. Without going into the particular cases,
Mr Betteridge mentioned the issue of reasonableness, which is
at the heart of all of these cases. Does that really boil down
to cost as far as your opponents, if I can call them that, are
concerned?
Mr Bee: In the Roads case, cost
was not at issue, and I will turn to that if I may briefly afterwards.
The debate was what constituted a reasonable alternative means
of access. Central Trains offered to stay on the train from Thetford
to Ely, where you would be demounted from the train, you could
then use a lift to cross the line and return to Thetford, a journey
lasting approximately an hour, for which Central Trains would
not charge you. We argued that the provision of a taxi was closer
to the sort of service a non-disabled person would have received
in being able to use the footbridge and cross the track, and the
Court of Appeal, whilst acknowledging that there were some particular
circumstances around this case, supported our argument that the
reasonable adjustment should as closely as possible follow or
allow the disabled person to receive the same sort of service.
We are certainly reassured. The prospect of lots of disabled people
having to stay on trains and travel many miles further than they
intend to in order to return to the right side of the station
is not an attractive option, and we are pleased the Court of Appeal
did not support that. The feature with regard to this case which
meant the cost was not an issue was that Central Trains had not
at the time we originated the case, or Roads did, completed their
disabled persons protection policy, and did not have a strategy
in place which could have said "We want to spend our money
in particular ways to improve services for disabled people"
and therefore they could not raise costs as a factor, or we would
have challenged them in so doing, and they therefore decided not
to make that an issue in this case, which means that some of our
ability to extrapolate from it into other circumstances is limited
by those unique features.
Q78 Ian Lucas: How long did these cases
take to come to court? I suppose they are continuing.
Mr Bee: The Roads case was in
process for approximately two years. Ryanair has been in the judicial
system even longer.
Q79 Ian Lucas: Have you ever considered
whether there may be some other way, some less cumbersome, quicker
way of resolving this type of issue, some sort of arbitration
system between the Disability Rights Commission and the operators?
Mr Bee: The Disability Rights
Act gives us the power to set up an independent conciliation service.
We have done so. It is operated for us by Mediation UK. It has
provision to deal with about 250 cases a year. It is not quite
reaching that number as yet because both parties have to agree
to that process, but equally, it is important sometimes to get
into the courts, particularly the higher courts, to get clear
interpretations of the law, and that is why we have supported
both the Roads and Ryanair cases.
| 
