Memorandum by Leonard Cheshire (DAF 06)
DISABLED PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO TRANSPORT
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Leonard Cheshire once again thanks the
Transport Select Committee for examining the state of the public
transport systems accessibility to disabled people. We welcomed
the opportunity to contribute to the last session on this topic
and hope we can again be of value to the Committee.
1.2 Leonard Cheshire is the UK's largest
voluntary sector provider of support to disabled people. It supports
over 21,000 disabled people in the UK, offering flexible services
to meet a wide range of needs. The charity also campaigns for
the rights of disabled people in the UK and raises awareness of
the issues affecting them.
1.3 Last year, Leonard Cheshire produced
the Mind the Gap[1]
report examining the impact that an inaccessible transport system
has on the social exclusion experienced by disabled people and
so is well placed to comment on the issues raised by this current
consultation. A key finding of this report was that disabled people
are denied access to key civic services and their opportunities
to socially participate are severely limited.
1.4 Inaccessible transport has a major impact
on disabled people's independence, social participation and employability.
60% of households with a disabled member do not have access to
a car (compared to 27% of the general population) so access to
the public transport system is a crucial part of many disabled
people' lives.
1.5 Findings from the Mind the Gap report
show that disabled people's access to employment, healthcare and
social activities are limited as a direct consequence of inaccessible
transport. Government initiatives to reduce health inequalities
and encourage greater employment amongst disabled people are often
thwarted by inaccessible transport and suggest a lack of joined-up
government. 23% of disabled people actively seeking employment
have had to turn down a job due to inaccessible transport. 60%
of wheelchair users and nearly 90% of visually impaired people
also said they were restricted in the jobs they apply for because
of inaccessible transport. The impact of inaccessible transport
on disabled peoples employment chances cannot be underestimated
and any review of Incapacity Benefit and other employment related
benefits must take this into account.
2. WHAT PROGRESS
IS BEING
MADE IN
ENSURING THAT
DISABLED PEOPLE
HAVE PROPER
ACCESS TO
TRANSPORT?
2.1 Since the Transport Select Committee
last conducted an investigation in this area, there have been
a number of developments but unfortunately little real progress.
Developments in each of Leonard Cheshire's main areas of concern
are detailed below.
Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVARs)
and rail vehicle end dates
2.2 Leonard Cheshire welcomes the Government's
intention to include measures in the proposed Disability Discrimination
Bill to set an end date for rail vehicles to comply with accessibility
regulations. We are, however, very concerned about the length
of time that it is taking for this important Disability Rights
Taskforce recommendation to be acted upon. We hope the Committee
will take this opportunity to investigate both the content and
end dates for complying with RVARs.
2.3 In its response to the Joint Committee's
report on the Draft Disability Bill, the Government stated its
intention to conduct further, and in Leonard Cheshire's view,
unnecessary, consultation on an end date. Leonard Cheshire calls
for an end date to be included on the face of the Disability Discrimination
Bill when it is introduced into Parliament next session.
2.4 Leonard Cheshire campaigned on end dates
for rail vehicles through its "All Aboard!" campaign.
No date has yet been set, but the Government has indicated a preference
for 2020 whilst Leonard Cheshire would like to see the earlier
date 2017. This date would bring trains in line with buses and
is entirely practicable. This would also indicate a clear commitment
to enabling disabled people to make full use of the rail system
at the earliest possible opportunity.
2.5 Alongside the end date the Government
is also expected to consult further on changes to the content
of the RVARs. We expect that these will include a duty on rail
vehicle operators to install audio-visual passenger information
systems, in line with the Joint Committee's recommendations. In
addition the Government needs to review the Passenger Service
Vehicles Accessibility Regulations for buses, as their requirements
for passenger information systems are not meeting the needs of
disabled people.
2.6 As they stand the proposals to change
the RVARs provide little reassurance that important changes such
as installing properly accessible toilets on trains will be prioritised.
Through Leonard Cheshire's "Bog Standard?" campaign
we have heard many examples of disabled people not using the rail
network due to inaccessible toilets on trains and in some instances
being placed in humiliating and inhumane situations as a result.
Leonard Cheshire calls for the Government to give priority to
accessible toilets when making changes to RVARs.
Transport provisions in the draft disability bill
2.7 Leonard Cheshire is eagerly awaiting
the publication of the new Disability Discrimination Bill. Given
the many important aspects of this Bill for disabled people, we
are concerned that the Bill continues to suffer delays and, despite
cross-party support for the Bill, it has recently become a victim
of party political disputes over timetabling and procedure.
2.8 Leonard Cheshire welcomes the provision
within the draft bill that allows for the extension of the DDA
(1995) to transport services however we are disappointed that
yet another year has passed during which transport operators continue
to be exempt and can lawfully discriminate against disabled people.
2.9 Leonard Cheshire are disappointed with
the Government's decision not to remove fully the blanket exclusion
for transport providers but to introduce regulation making powers
that allow it to be removed on a sector-by-sector basis. Ambiguities
surrounding the areas of responsibility within the transport infrastructure
remain and it is unfortunate that the Government have not taken
the opportunity to remove them.
2.10 The recent court case supported by
the DRC against airline Ryanair gives a clear example of how it
is difficult for both the courts and the individual disabled person
to ascertain who is responsible for ensuring access when certain
parts of the transport infrastructure are covered by the DDA and
others are not.
2.11 Once the Disability Discrimination
Bill has been passed Leonard Cheshire would like to see the regulations
that lift the transport exemption introduced quickly and hope
they will include clear instructions to transport providers on
their requirements to provide reasonable alternative means of
accessing a service. We look forward to the speedy publication
of the DRC Codes of Practice on Transport that will accompany
these regulations and should provide further clarity to both disabled
passengers and transport providers of their obligations.
Aviation and Shipping
2.12 As it stands aviation and shipping
will remain exempt from the DDA even after the Disability Discrimination
Bill is passed. It is suggested that they will only be brought
under the legislation if they are found to be failing to comply
with existing voluntary Codes of Practice. Aviation and shipping
continue to be a large problem for disabled people and Leonard
Cheshire hears many examples of non-compliance from disabled people.
2.13 Leonard Cheshire have been working
with researchers investigating compliance in both industries and
have unfortunately been able to provide many examples of disabled
people who have been refused access or received a poor service
from both the aviation and shipping industry.
2.14 The impact of the exemption for shipping
on the social exclusion of disabled people in the Highlands and
Islands will be considerable because of the reliance on this form
of transport for day to day rather than occasional; tourism activities.
Leonard Cheshire Scotland have been providing examples of non-compliance
to researchers into ferry accessibility.
2.15 The Regulatory Impact Assessment which
accompanied the earlier consultation on end dates stated that
relying on voluntary compliance from the transport sector "would
not provide disabled people with confidence in the transport network
as a whole. And it would not deliver against the Government's
manifesto and policy commitments". Leonard Cheshire agrees
strongly with this and would like to see both aviation and shipping
brought immediately within the remit of legislation.
3. ARE THE
PROVISIONS OF
THE DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION ACT
BEING INTERPRETED
IN UNEXPECTED
WAYS?
3.1 The remaining parts of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) came into force in October this
year requiring transport operators to make their services accessible,
although vehicles still remained exempt. In theory this means
that all stations and ports should now be accessible to disabled
people and where they are not, appropriate alternatives should
be provided.
3.2 Leonard Cheshire welcomes the fact that
as a result of this nearly all rail operators have now revised
their Disabled People's Protection Policies. Many of the policies,
however, list restricted or no access to a large number of stations
and requirements for disabled people to book in advance for rail
travel. Book ahead systems ruin the spontaneity of travel for
many disabled people and harm the employability of a disabled
person wishing to attend meetings at short notice. The fact that
these policies vary so widely suggest that the DDA is being interpreted
inconsistently by the rail industry despite SRA guidance on what
is expected under the law.
3.3 On rail stations interim research by
Tripscope found that around 60% of stations in Britain are not
accessible to disabled people. Unfortunately this has been largely
a result of poor planning rather than a lack of resources. This
is clearly demonstrated by the example of Bromley South station
owned by South Eastern Trains. The entrance to the station underwent
a £200,000 refurbishment last year but all platforms remain
inaccessible to wheelchair users who are told they must travel
from the nearest accessible stations over 10 minutes drive away.
3.4 The recent court case taken by Keith
Roads against Central Trains under the Disability Discrimination
Act (DDA) 1999 duties gives rise to another area of concern. The
judge ruled that Central Trains acted unlawfully by not paying
the cost of Mr Roads cab fare to drive him to the other side of
the station when direct access to the required platform was not
possible due to physical barriers. This was a clear case of discrimination
under the DDA and we welcome the decision made, however the judge
made it clear that the ruling was limited to Mr Roads' case and
would not set a legal precedent. If judges are reluctant to set
precedents in transport cases then progress in improving access
is likely to be slow and disabled people will have to fight every
instance of discrimination through the courts.
3.5 Leonard Cheshire would like to see increased
support for individual disabled people facing illegal discrimination
by transport operators. The law is now in place and despite guidance
on the issue a number of operators continue to fail in their legal
obligations.
4. IS ACCESSIBILITY
COMING SECOND-BEST
TO OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS, SUCH
AS HEALTH
AND SAFETY?
WHERE SHOULD
THE BALANCE
LIE?
4.1 Following informal discussions with
some ROSCOs about the issue of improving accessibility, Leonard
Cheshire is concerned about the lack of will to improve the availability
of new accessible stock and remove old inaccessible stock. It
would appear that accessibility is quite often last in a list
of considerations, which include aversion to risk, profitability,
health and safety and over-crowding.
4.2 The basis for some ROSCOs objections
to the regulatory path to accessibility may be because of the
risks this poses to the banks that own the companies on their
investment. We would argue that the exemptions procedure for non-compliant
stock provides adequate insurance that largely accessible trains
with very minor deviations from the regulations would not be forced
to undertake disproportionately costly refurbishments. As they
are owned by banks ROCSOs are by their nature risk averse and
if an exemption is not absolutely guaranteed they may well pass
on any potential risk to Train Operating Companies by increasing
their leasing costs, even if exemptions would almost certainly
be granted. Leonard Cheshire believes that the exemptions procedure
makes the risk that ROSCOs face extremely low and they should
be prepared to accept the small element of risk they do face as
a consequence of conducting business.
4.3 In a submission to the Government,[2]
HSBC rail said "With the exception of a small group of
wheelchair users where a lack of accessible toilets may prevent
longer journeys, non-fully compliant vehicles do not prevent use
of the railways system. We believe that the consultation over-states
the case for regulation and exaggerates its benefits." Leonard
Cheshire strongly disagrees with this statement and feels it further
demonstrates the industry's lack of understanding about the issues
affecting disabled people using the rail network and a general
unwillingness to address accessibility issues. The ROSCOs' main
concern is about the risk to profitability caused by removing
several seats to fit accessible toilets and wheelchair spaces.
So once again accessibility has come second to profitability.
It should not be acceptable for any group of disabled people however
"small" to be unable to travel or be limited in the
distances they can go because of inadequate toilet facilities.
Our "Bog Standard" campaign highlights that this is
sadly too common for many disabled people.
4.4 Leonard Cheshire is also concerned that
some ROSCOs would view any end date as costly and that under the
current system little can be done to enforce compliance. Health
and Safety regulations have already been ignored through the continuing
use of slam door trains well beyond the pre-arranged date for
their removal. The failure of ROSCOs to increase the availability
of regulation compliant stock is well documented in a recent report
by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts[3]
4.5 Because of the concerns given above,
when regulations are published, Leonard Cheshire will be looking
to see what changes have been made to the enforcement procedure.
We have asked the Government that the changes to the enforcement
of the Rail Vehicle Accessible Regulations place a responsibility
on ROSCOs to meet the access standards, given their role in the
production and the refurbishment of rail vehicles. The Government
could do this by making them share with the Train Operating Companies
the financial risks of not meeting the standards. Leonard Cheshire
would urge the Government to ensure that ROSCOs who lease inaccessible
stock and TOCs that operate inaccessible stock beyond any deadlines,
would receive tough and effective sanctions.
4.6 There is also a need for a clear programme
of improvements to be before these deadlines and all groups involved
should be required to report to the Department for Transport on
their progress.
5. IS THERE
ANY TRUTH
IN THE
SUGGESTIONS THAT
SERVICES ARE
BEING "LEVELLED
DOWN" RATHER
THAN "LEVELLED
UP "?
5.1 Leonard Cheshire is concerned that "levelling
down" may be occurring at a European level. It is possible
that current planning on rail accessibility for disabled people
at a European level may be in conflict with legislative progress
being made in the UK.
5.2 When responding to the Government's
consultation on rail end dates and changes to RVARs, one ROSCO
cited European interoperability regulations as a reason for it
being impossible to make changes to the RVARs. This demonstrates
a potential desire from the rail industry in the UK to use less
restrictive European regulations to prevent them making improvements
to accessibility in the UK.
5.3 The European Association for Rail Interoperability
(AEIF) Working Group is currently drafting technical specifications
for interoperability (TSIs) relating to accessibility for passengers
with reduced mobility. Given the rail industry's lack of experience
in this matter, the European Disability Forum (EDF) has argued
for the need for the direct participation of qualified accessibility
experts from representative disability organisations. They have
so far been refused and as a result remain concerned that the
content may result in a "levelling down" of standards.
5.4 Leonard Cheshire supports calls for
the EDF to be involved in the consultation process for any European
regulations that would affect accessibility. We would vehemently
oppose any regulation that would result in the rail industry being
able to avoid undertaking accessibility improvements to their
rolling stock.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Legislative progress is being made in
many areas of the transport industry albeit slowly. Leonard Cheshire
remains very concerned that the industry as a whole is not prioritising
the need to improve accessibility for disabled people. Leonard
Cheshire remains concerned about the lengthy timetable for change
to accessibility across the transport industry. We are particularly
concerned about the slow progress on trains, aviation and shipping.
Many of the improvements so far appear to amount to paper policies
and not practical outcomes and improved rights of access for disabled
people. This view is reinforced by the personal testimonies of
many disabled people.
6.2 Even when the legal framework is finally
in place, it is vital that the Government ensures that the transport
industry fully acknowledge both its moral and legal obligations
to provide an equal service to all passengers by whatever means.
There is a growing feeling amongst some disabled people and representative
organisations that many transport providers may ignore statutory
regulations to improve accessibility, seeing any possible financial
penalties as an acceptable "cost" against the already
huge profits they are making. Disabled people have been excluded
from the transport system for long enough and the industry should
not be allowed to avoid their responsibilities in providing a
truly public transport system that is accessible to all. Disabled
people should be seen as an asset, not a cost.
November 2004
1 Campion et al, Mind the Gap, Leonard
Cheshire, 2003. Back
2
Response to the "Consultation on the Government's proposals
to amend the Rail provisions in Part V of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995", January 2004. Back
3
34th Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Strategic
Rail Authority: Improving passenger rail services through new
trains (HC 408, Session 2003-04). Back
| 
