DDB 11 Leonard Cheshire
Submission to the Joint Committee on the
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill by Leonard Cheshire
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
- The exclusion for transport services should
be immediately removed as recommended by the Disability Rights
Task Force. This removal should cover the transport sector as
a whole and should not be subject to individual transport sector
regulations.
- Leonard Cheshire would like to see the Committee
seek clarification that IF regulations are used to remove the
transport operators' exemption, that these regulations will be
introduced quickly and will include the obligations of the October
1999 duties. Further consultation is unnecessary, as this issue
has now been consulted on three times over a period of five years.
- The DRTF specifically named aviation as an
area where statutory intervention was needed and Leonard Cheshire
would like to see the committee propose amendments that would
bring both of these sectors immediately within the remit of legislation.
- To regulate for 2017 as an end date by which
all rail vehicles should be made accessible.
- All trains should be required to adopt half-life
refurbishment programs with clear outlines of what accessibility
changes are legally required during these refurbishments.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 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 a range of flexible
social care services to meet a wide range of needs. Leonard Cheshire
also campaigns for the rights of disabled people in the UK and
raises awareness of the discrimination still affecting them.
1.2 Leonard Cheshire has recently researched
and published a report on the impact an inaccessible transport
system has on the type and degree of social exclusion experienced
by disabled people. This provides a strong evidence base from
which to comment on the issues raised by the transport provisions
within the draft bill (see annex A for a full copy of 'Mind
the Gap'). Although Leonard Cheshire holds opinions on the
many other aspects of the draft bill, due to space restrictions
and the importance of the transport issue, we have focused only
on this issue in this response. Other issues are covered in detail
in the joint submission from the Disabilities Charities Consortium
(DCC), of which Leonard Cheshire is an active member.
2 TRANSPORT PROVISIONS WITHIN THE
DRAFT BILL
2.1 Leonard Cheshire welcomes the provision within
the draft bill that allows for the extension of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to transport services. This was
a major recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force.
2.2 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
peoples' lives. Findings from Leonard Cheshire's research[41]
show that 23% of disabled people actively seeking employment have
had to turn down a job offer because of inaccessible transport.
62% of wheelchair users and 86% of people with a visual impairment
said inaccessible transport had restricted their choice of jobs.
Our research shows that disabled people's access to employment
and access to healthcare are limited because of a continuing inaccessible
transport system. As a result, disabled people are denied access
to key civic services and their opportunities to socially participate
are severely limited.
2.3 The specific details of the transport provisions
within the draft bill are difficult to comment on because of their
reliance on regulation-making powers. Until we are able to see
the content of these regulations, we must reserve judgement on
the overall effectiveness of this part of the legislation. We
would urge the committee to call for the urgent publication of
these regulations along with a firm timetable for their implementation.
EXEMPTION OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORT
2.4 We are extremely disappointed with the decision
not to remove fully the blanket exclusion but to introduce regulation-making
powers that allow it to be done on a sector-by-sector basis.
Ambiguities surrounding the areas of responsibility within the
transport infrastructure remain, and it is unfortunate that the
opportunity to remove them has not been taken. Removing the exemption
from all modes of transport in a blanket coverage way would bring
greater clarity to this extremely confusing area of law, and Leonard
Cheshire would like to see this more positive approach taken.
2.5 As the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
with the draft bill suggests, removing the exemption for transport
vehicles is likely to mean transport operators will have to implement
disability equality training for their staff. Leonard Cheshire
feels that as many operators are already doing this, the cost
incurred by transport operators would not be prohibitive and therefore
cannot be seen as a significant factor in not removing the exemption
immediately. The benefits to disabled people however, would be
considerable, as they would receive protection from discrimination,
which they currently do not have.
2.6 To demonstrate the need for the immediate
removal of this exemption instead of the suggested staggered regulations,
Leonard Cheshire has listed below a number of examples of discrimination.
Without the immediate removal of this exemption, disabled people
have no legal recourse when such discrimination occurs:
- Bus drivers refusing to stop for wheelchair users,
refusing to operate functioning ramps or assisting passengers.
- The recent case of a group of deaf people being
removed from an EasyJet flight because they were not travelling
with a carer.
- Drivers/staff refusing to alert people with learning
disabilities or visual impairments to get off at the correct stop.
RECOMMENDATION
The exclusion for transport services should be immediately
removed as recommended by the Disability Rights Task Force. This
removal should cover the transport sector as a whole and should
not be subject to individual transport sector regulations.
REGULATIONS
2.7 In last year's consultation on the removal
of the exemption of transport services from Part III, the proposals
did not require a transport provider to consider providing a reasonable
alternative means of accessing the service (October 1999 duties
of Part III). We hope that by allowing for this in the draft
bill, this indicates the Government's intention to use these regulations.
However, the RIA explores the consequences of the 1996 obligations
of Part III and not the October 1999 duties.
2.8 The 'Enforcement and Sanctions' section of
the RIA suggests that regulations will not be introduced immediately
after Royal Assent and further consultation will be required.
This is an unnecessary further delay.
RECOMMENDATION
Leonard Cheshire would like to see the committee
seek clarification that IF regulations are used to remove the
transport operators' exemption, that these regulations will be
introduced quickly and will include the obligations of the October
1999 duties. Further consultation is unnecessary, as this issue
has now been consulted on three times over a period of five years.
AVIATION AND SHIPPING
2.12 It is suggested in the RIA that aviation
and shipping will only be brought under the legislation if they
are failing to comply with existing voluntary Codes of Practice.
Recent high profile cases with both EasyJet and RyanAir prove
that the aviation industry is already failing to comply with the
voluntary code and Leonard Cheshire does not think this failure
requires further examination and consultation. The RIA also states
on page 29 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 with this.
RECOMMENDATION:
The DRTF specifically named aviation as an area
where statutory intervention was needed and Leonard Cheshire would
like to see the committee propose amendments that would bring
both aviation and shipping immediately within the remit of legislation.
3. TRANSPORT PROVISIONS TO BE PUT INTO THE
BILL AT A LATER STAGE
3.1 Leonard Cheshire welcomes the Government's
intention to include in the final bill measures on setting an
end date for rail vehicle accessibility and regulations to cover
refurbishment of vehicles, subject to the outcome of the ongoing
Department for Transport consultation. However, we are very concerned
about the length of time this important DRTF recommendation is
taking to be acted upon and we hope the committee will take
this opportunity to investigate both the content and timing of
this consultation.
END DATES
3.2 Leonard Cheshire is extremely concerned that
2025 is the Government's preferred date by which all rail vehicles
must be accessible. Such a date will mean that trains remain
inaccessible to disabled people long after other forms of transport
have become accessible. Consequently, a crucial link in the transport
chain will be absent, ruling out whole journeys for many disabled
people.
3.3 Leonard Cheshire urges the Government to
regulate for 2017 as an end date for all rail vehicles and has
started the All Aboard! campaign to encourage members of the public
to support this. 2017 would be in line with the PSVAR for buses
and would provide disabled people with freedom to move across
the country, having the full choice of transport modes. The widespread
support that our campaign is receiving demonstrates that, regardless
of age, social class or impairment, inaccessible transport is
still the single most important issue facing disabled people today.
Whilst recognising the additional costs that will be incurred
by the rail operators as a consequence of earlier compliance,
the additional revenue generated as a result of the increased
volume in passengers using the service will to some degree, offset
such costs. Although this was cited as a benefit that has been
experienced by bus companies complying with similar legislation,
it was not costed in the RIA. It is essential that RIAs give
full weight to both the costs and the benefits of the proposals
for ALL stakeholders.
RECOMMENDATION
To regulate for 2017 as an end date by which all
rail vehicles should be made accessible.
INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS (REFURBISHMENT REGULATIONS)
3.4 The Government has indicated a preference
for option 8, the 'menu approach'. Leonard Cheshire is opposed
to option 8 as a refurbishment proposal for rail vehicles. The
menu option lacks clarity and would be very difficult to enforce.
Whilst the refurbishment proposals give a small number of examples
of proposed changes, they do not provide clear indications of
all the changes that would be required by a refurbishment program.
For example, there is no mention of the need to install accessible
toilets or visual signage when making refurbishments.
3.5 Leonard Cheshire would like to see option
7 adopted. This option proposes half-life refurbishments. The
advantages are that they will bring much needed clarity and will
be easy to enforce. It is vital however, that the term 'half
life refurbishment' is clearly defined and that all trains are
subject to a 'half-life' refurbishment. Whilst there is an argument
put forward in the consultation that more recent vehicles have
a design life of 30 years and should last for 30 years without
any major work being needed, the need for all trains to be made
accessible should overrule that.
RECOMMENDATION
All trains should be required to adopt half-life
refurbishment programs with clear outlines of what accessibility
changes are legally required during these refurbishments.
ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM
3.6 Leonard Cheshire welcomes the proposal to
provide an effective enforcement system, but would urge the Government
to ensure that sanctions are tough and effective. If done alongside
recommendation 5, enforcement should be straightforward as there
will be an agreed program of works to be carried out by an agreed
date.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Our report "Mind the Gap" illustrates the
consequences of inaccessible transport for disabled people. Despite
recent government initiatives, social exclusion continues to be
acutely felt by many disabled people. The reality of this exclusion
is recognised by the majority of non-disabled people but this
recognition does not appear to extend to either the transport
planners or operators. This is a serious gap in joined up government,
as disabled people are unable to access many services and leisure
facilities that are themselves accessible, simply because public
transport fails them. It is now time to introduce comprehensive
legislation to make transport fully accessible to disabled people.
In view of the importance of transport for disabled people and
Leonard Cheshire's research in this area, Leonard Cheshire would
be happy to give oral evidence to the committee should they choose
to explore this area in more detail.
ANNEX A
Text Only version of 'Mind the Gap'
MIND THE GAP
LEONARD CHESHIRE¹S SOCIAL
EXCLUSION REPORT 2003
JO CAMPION
CAROLINE GREENHALGH
JOHN KNIGHT
Jo Campion
Jo Campion is the Parliamentary and Campaigns Officer
at Leonard Cheshire. Her experience in the political field has
included working in the House of Commons Library and conducting
research examining the relationship between MPs and their constituents.
She has co-authored a number of House of Commons Library Research
Papers. Since joining Leonard Cheshire Jo researched and authored
Fair Treatment? - A Survey of Disability Access Policies in Primary
Care Trusts and has worked with a number of organisations on health
and disability matters.
Caroline Greenhalgh
Caroline Greenhalgh is the Policy Research Officer
at Leonard Cheshire. She has a strong legal background, specialising
in the complexities of the Disability Discrimination Act. Before
joining Leonard Cheshire she completed a law degree, an MA in
law and a LLM (Master of Laws). Whilst studying for her Master
of Law in Law and Employment Relations, she researched and authored
a thesis on disability discrimination within employment.
John Knight
John Knight is Head of Policy at Leonard Cheshire
and has co-authored four earlier reports examining disabled people¹s
experience of social exclusion including Access Denied (Brent
& Knight, 1998), Excluding Attitudes (Brent & Knight,
1999), ŒCommitted to Inclusion? Christie
& Knight 2000) and ŒInclusive Citizenship¹ (Knight
et al, 2002). He is a Commissioner of the Commission for Social
Care Inspection (CSCI) and a non executive Director of a Primary
Care Trust. John has a physical impairment.
INTRODUCTION
Mind the Gap is Leonard Cheshire¹s fifth research
report which, this year, examines the impact an inaccessible transport
system has on the social exclusion experienced by disabled people.
This report is based on a survey of over four hundred and fifty
disabled people who were asked for their views on a range of issues
arising out of the inaccessibility of public transport and the
impact that this has on their independence, dignity and ability
to participate in society. This report considers issues of access
to work, access to health and access to leisure and social opportunities.
It tackles the often hidden, softer aspects of inaccessibility
including:
- Physical access to transport
- Lack of disability awareness amongst transport
staff
- Insufficient information about transport in an
accessible format
- Inflexibility of statutory transport services
e.g. Dial-a-Ride
- Poor transport frequency
Whilst these issues are not exclusive to disabled
people, they are far more likely to act as substantial barriers
to disabled people preventing them from participating fully in
society. The consequences of inaccessible transport include social
isolation, missed opportunities, unemployment and limited life
horizons in other words, social invisibility. Despite the Government¹s
commitment to "comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled
people" (Dale, 2000), and to implement the Disability Rights
Task Force recommendations, social exclusion still continues to
be acutely felt by disabled people. The reality of this exclusion
is recognised by the majority of non-disabled people but as this
report shows this recognition does not appear to extend to transport
planners or operators.
This is serious gap in joined-up government, as disabled
people are unable to access so many service and leisure facilities
that are in themselves accessible simply because public transport
fails them. Hopefully, this report will compel both Government
and transport planners to take action.
SUMMARY
We conducted a survey of 456 disabled people and
facilitated several focus groups in order to explore the impact
that inaccessible transport has on the social exclusion experienced
by many disabled people.
This report found that as a result of inaccessible
transport:
- 23% of those respondents that were actively seeking
employment have had to turn down a job offer and a further 23%,
a job interview, because of inaccessible transport. Almost half
(48%) said that inaccessible transport had restricted their choice
of jobs, rising to 62% of wheelchair users and 86% of those with
a visual impairment.
- 20% of respondents found it difficult or impossible
to get the healthcare they needed as a result of inaccessible
transport.
- 1 in 7 respondents are unable to collect prescriptions
due to inaccessible transport, rising to 1 in 5 of those respondents
without access to a car. Furthermore, 29% of respondents without
access to a car have missed a medical appointment and 20% have
deferred treatment because of inaccessible transport compared
to only 7% of the general population.
- 50% of those respondents that did not see their
family and friends as often as they would like stated that that
it was as a consequence of inaccessible transport, rising to 67%
of those respondents without access to a car.
- 18% of respondents had to miss a special birthday
party, rising to 24% of those without access to a car as a result
of inaccessible transport and 12% of respondents have had to miss
a wedding or a funeral, 16% of those without a car.
- 27% of respondents said that inaccessible transport
restricted their leisure pursuits, rising to 43% of those without
a car. 20% said that inaccessible transport had prevented them
from going on holiday, increasing to 27% of those without a car.
These findings illustrate the extensive negative
impact that inaccessible transport has on the lives of many disabled
people. As a direct consequence, disabled people¹s access
to employment and training opportunities is limited. Furthermore,
many disabled people are unable to access the healthcare services
that they need and they are also unable to utilise leisure facilities.
Perhaps one of the most significant findings of the report is
that disabled people are regularly missing out on socialising
with family and friends. Whilst the research that was carried
out was pan-disability, our findings highlighted that the difficulties
caused by inaccessible transport are exacerbated for those respondents
with visual impairments and disabled people without access to
a car.
The Government is working to provide access to key
public services with a wide range of initiatives specifically
targeted at disabled people. However, this is all being undermined
by continuing inaction on the disability civil rights agenda and,
in particular, a critical service like transport. If disabled
people cannot get out and travel what is the point? This is the
gap that the Government needs to mind.
We hope that the findings of this report will serve
not only to elicit essential improvements to the transport system
but that they will also highlight the cycle of inaccessibility
that many disabled people are caught up in. It is this cycle that
serves to perpetuate disabled people¹s social exclusion as
well as reinforcing damaging misconceptions about low expectations
and dependence.
- We urge the Government to publish a Disability
Bill, which will implement the Disability Rights Task Force¹s
outstanding proposals relating to transport without any further
delay.
- We urge the Government to ensure that all regulations
relating to transport and disability access are codified in the
proposed Disability Bill.
- We ask the Government to ensure that the proposed
exemption of transport operators from Part III of the DDA 1995
is reworded to ensure that all of the obligations arising under
Part III of the Act are incorporated.
- We ask all transport providers to take urgent
action to address the needs of disabled passengers.
RESEARCH METHODS
The quantitative research
456 disabled people were surveyed for this research.
A questionnaire with accompanying briefing notes was circulated
by The Grass Roots Group1 on Leonard Cheshire¹s behalf. The
sample was drawn from their own panel of disabled people, which
has circa 2,500 people from all parts of the UK including Northern
Ireland. Questionnaires were mailed and also posted onto the Internet
for direct web capture. Respondents were paid a small fee. Details
of the sample are given in the tables below.
The qualitative research
Leonard Cheshire held three focus group discussions
with disabled people in a number of locations throughout the South
of England. One of the groups was specifically for people with
learning disabilities. The groups consisted of between five and
twelve people with a range of disabilities drawn from the users
of Leonard Cheshire services. Participants were aged between 20
and 70 and included a mix of men and women, single and married
people, parents and non-parents. All focus groups were conducted
between 12 and 16 June 2003 and participants received a small
fee for their time.
Table 1 Income of Participants in quantitative research
| Annual Family Income
| Number of participants |
| Under £6000 | 32 |
| £10,001 - £14,000 | 68
|
| £14,001 - £18,000 | 62
|
| £18,001 - £24,000 | 57
|
| £24,001 - £30,000 | 36
|
| £30,001 and above | 63
|
| Prefer not to answer | 69 |
Table 2 - Nature of Impairment
| Nature of Impairment | Number of participants
|
| Cognitive issues | 1 |
| Communication disability | 139
|
| Physical disability | 139 |
| Visual disability | 64 |
| Wheelchair user | 113 |
Table 3 - Access to a car
| Access to a car | Number of Participants
|
| No | 105 |
| Yes | 351 |
Table 4 - Own Car Usage
| Own car usage | Number of Participants
|
| Never use | 165 |
| Use 1 to 3 days a month | 9
|
| Use 1 to 4 days a month | 76
|
| Use 1 to 5 days a month | 3
|
| Use 5 days a month or more | 193
|
| Use 6 to 11 times a year | 4
|
| Use less than once a year | 6
|
Table 5 - How often have you used a car driven by someone else?
| Other car usage | Number of Participants
|
| Never use | 30 |
| Use less than once a year | 11
|
| 1 to 5 times a year | 55 |
| 6 to 11 times a year | 37 |
| 1 to 3 days a month | 84 |
| 1 to 4 days a week | 162 |
| 5 days a week or more | 77 |
WORK
Key findings from our research support and illustrate the fact
that inaccessible transport is proving to be a major barrier to
those disabled people seeking employment.
One of the core findings of our report is that, 23% of those respondents
that have sought work in the last 12 months have had to turn down
a job offer due to inaccessible transport.
I turned down a part time job as I needed to catch
two buses. A return taxi fare would have cost a day¹s wages.
One focus group participant had to turn down a voluntary
position because when she contacted the mobility bus to ask if
she could be collected at the same time each week in order to
go to her job, she was told that such an arrangement could not
be accommodated and instead she would have to take her chances
each week and try and book the service one or two days ahead.
Furthermore, 48% of those respondents seeking work
during the last 12 months stated that inaccessible transport had
restricted their choice of jobs; this rises to 62% of wheelchair
users and 86% of those with a visual impairment. It is a common
finding throughout this research that those respondents with a
visual impairment had considerably more difficulty accessing transport
to work.
From where I live there are not enough buses at
the right times to enable me to take a job if offered, on the
industrial estate that has the most varied workplaces.
Twenty-three percent of those respondents offered
an interview for employment during the last 12 months have had
to turn it down due to inaccessible transport, again rising to
42% of respondents with a visual disability.
Furthermore, with regard to further education and
training, 21% of respondents stated that inaccessible transport
had restricted the range of adult education and training courses
available to them.
There is no suitable transport to the college
which offers the course I need.
Because of transport difficulties I am unable to
attend tutorials with the lecturer and am not able to learn with
peers. The Internet is fine but I really need to interact with
other students in real time.
There are over 6.6 million disabled people of working
age in Great Britain today, which amounts to nearly 20% of the
working age population and yet disabled people only account for
one in eight of those in employment (Labour Force Survey, 2001).
According to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Burchardt
2000), employment rates among disabled people remain low at approximately
40%. Such figures give real cause for concern, firstly because
exclusion from work can lead to poverty and secondly because the
world of work represents one of the most common routes to social
inclusion and therefore unemployment can seriously exacerbate
the social exclusion of disabled people (Brent & Knight, 1998).
Even if a disabled person does secure a job, an otherwise accessible
workplace could be out of reach without accessible public transport
to get them there.
A theoretical right to get a job on the same terms
as other people is not worth much if you cannot get to that job
and this needs to be addressed.(Andrew Smith MP, APDG, 17/06/03)
At a meeting of the All Parliamentary Disability
Group (APDG) on 17 June 2003, the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions, Andrew Smith MP, acknowledged that access to public
transport remains a key barrier to disabled people entering employment:
There have been a number of recent initiatives by
the Government aimed at getting more people including disabled
people into work these include:
- The New Deal for Disabled People
- The Access to Work Scheme
These proposals were designed in order to enable
disabled people to take up job opportunities and/or to access
education and training so improving their employment prospects.
By November 2002, the Government had spent £125 million on
the New Deal for Disabled People and since 1996 Access to Work
has cost £191 million (source: Department for Work &
Pensions). The Government¹s investment in employment schemes
for disabled people is, however, being consistently undermined
by the inaccessible state of the transport network the jobs are
there but the means of getting to them is not. The Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions has acknowledged this gap between
the Government¹s policy expectations and delivery, but still
the situation continues. A recent report by the Social Exclusion
Unit (2003), which explores the problems experienced by people
facing social exclusion in reaching work and key services, illustrates
this point:
Recent efforts by the Government to get disabled
people into work will continue to be undermined so long as public
transport remains largely inaccessible. This in turn will continue
to be a principal driver in maintaining disabled people¹s
social exclusion. Social inclusion is frequently defined by policy
makers, in terms of entering into and remaining in paid employment¹
(Knight et al, 2002), and without doubt, it is through work that
most people are able to both socially interact and be economically
independent. Unemployed disabled people are both financially and
socially disadvantaged. Our findings have illustrated the key
role the lack of accessible transport plays in keeping disabled
people out of work and society. The Government has a perfect
opportunity to address this key flaw in its employment and civil
rights policy agenda by bringing in a Disability Bill that honours
the outstanding transport recommendations of the Disability Rights
Task Force.
"poor transport can be an important factor in
restricting access to opportunity. It can therefore undermine
key government objectives on welfare to work and has costs for
individuals, businesses, communities and the state."
(Social Exclusion Unit, 2003)
HEALTH
Mind the Gap shows that the costs to the patient,
in terms of poorer health caused by deferred treatment, are substantial
when you examine the experiences of the disabled people surveyed.
20% of respondents said difficulty in accessing public transport
made it difficult or impossible to get the healthcare they needed.
Because of a missed connection (no assistance
staff at the station) I couldn¹t make a hospital appointment
with a specialist. I was given another appointment three months
later. During this time my condition worsened and I was admitted
to hospital. Ironically, as a result I saw the specialist before
the three months was up.
The research also shows that 1 in 5 (20%) disabled
people are deferring medical treatment because they cannot access
the transport to get them there. Furthermore 1 in 7 (15%) are
unable to take the treatment they have been prescribed because
they cannot collect the prescription. This rises to 1 in 5 (20%)
of those respondents without access to a car.
Access to adequate healthcare is a basic requirement
of the society in which we live and research has already shown
that a significantly higher proportion of disabled people compared
to the general population experience exclusion from basic healthcare
services (Knight et al, 2002). However very little research has
explored the unique transport problems disabled people face when
trying to travel to and from healthcare services.
Although not looking at the particular experiences
of disabled people, the Social Exclusion Unit¹s report Making
the Connections in 2003, observed that the problems of transport
and access to healthcare could be divided into two:
a) Costs to the patient in terms of poorer health
after missed appointments, late diagnosis or avoiding treatment;
b) Costs to the provider in terms of wasted resources
on missed appointments, delayed treatment of illness and no opportunity
for early intervention.
A series of recent government initiatives have sought
to increase the individual choices of the patient when seeking
health care within the NHS. Unfortunately for the disabled people
surveyed within this report, this focus on choice has meant nothing
because they cannot freely arrange transport to the health services
they require. Throughout the focus groups participants commented
on their reliance on family and friends to attend medical appointments.
Those without cars had great difficulty attending appointments
without assistance.
The complete lack of accessible public transport
makes it difficult to get to any appointments without the help
of family or friends.
Findings in this report also clearly illustrate the
financial costs to the providers of health services. The questionnaire
sought to investigate whether there was a link between missed
medical appointments and inaccessible transport systems for disabled
people. 1 in 5, of all respondents had missed a medical appointment
in the last two years because of transport difficulties.
I have, in the past 12 months, had to cancel four
or five appointments because I could not get parked at the hospital.
Hospital transport is often unreliable, I am often
late or miss appointments even when I have booked in advance.
Government research reported that 7% of people without
cars say they have missed, turned down or chosen not to seek medical
help because of transport problems (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003).
Our research shows that 29% of disabled people without access
to a car have missed a medical appointment and 20% have deferred
treatment because of inaccessible transport. Clearly the problems
of inaccessible transport to those without access to cars are
far greater for disabled people than the general population.
Previous research shows that health professionals
and the Department of Health consider patient apathy to be the
largest cause of 'did not attend's (Hamilton et al, 2002). They
also consider it to be a massive problem costing large amounts
of money and wasting valuable time across all sections of the
health service. The statistics from this report suggest that inaccessible
transport problems for disabled people are contributing quite
heavily to the number of disabled people missing or cancelling
appointments. Although figures vary, it is estimated that the
cost of each missed session is £65, leading to an annual
figure of £300 million across England.3 This is across all
types of health care with almost 17 million GP consultations and
500,000 practice nurse appointments wasted each year. This adds
up to the equivalent cost of 1,692 full-time GPs.4
The Department of Health has spent money on a variety
of projects aimed at reducing this problem and has included missed
outpatient appointments in its annual NHS Performance Indicators.
The failure to acknowledge that accessible transport is a large
contributory factor may well mean that a successful performance
in these indicators will not be achieved and false conclusions
are being drawn. If the transport problems that are causing these
worrying findings are not adequately resolved then this will clearly
increase the health inequalities between disabled people and the
general population.
The health inequalities which scar our nation
are real life not a sound bite or a slogan. They are concentrated
in the poorest parts of our country; they are deepest amongst
the poorest people in our country. They represent the most fundamental
challenge to the opportunity society we seek to build.
(Rt Hon Alan Milburn MP, 2002, Secretary of State
for Health 1999 2003)
We can expect a healthier nation as a result of
what we are doing. We have a specific wish to reduce the grotesque
inequalities in health that really mar our society.
(Rt Hon Frank Dobson MP, 1999, Secretary of State
for Health 1997 1999)
In the Tackling Health Inequalities - 2002 Cross-Cutting
Review the Government acknowledged that disabled people were at
particular risk from both social exclusion and inadequate healthcare
access. It stated that tackling health inequalities was a top
priority for the Government and "there is evidence that
those in greatest need of public services often have the lowest
levels of use and the poorest access. This is greatly compounded
by poor access to public transport and few alternative transport
options." (HM Treasury, 2002)
If this Government is truly serious about challenging
health inequalities and tackling the social exclusion of disabled
people then the issue of accessible transport urgently needs addressing.
The previous chapters have explored the financial costs to society
and the Government in terms of lost
employment opportunities and wasted health resources
but now we will explore the social and emotional costs to disabled
people when they find themselves excluded from everyday social
activities and networks.
SOCIAL LIFE
Mind the Gap has looked at the part an inaccessible
transport system plays in preventing disabled people from accessing
the workplace and essential civic services such as health, but
what about everyday social activities, engagements and interactions?
A number of focus groups were conducted as part of this research
and this chapter relies heavily on these to establish the emotional
impact that transport difficulties have on disabled people.
One of the core findings of our report was that 30%
of respondents stated that difficulty in accessing public transport
had made it difficult or impossible to get to the social functions
that they wished to attend. This rises to 45% of respondents without
access to a car.
I hardly ever used public transport because it
is so difficult to use. If I can¹t drive myself or my dad
cannot take me in his car, then I don¹t even bother trying
as in the past accessibility has been a nightmare, and causes
too much stress, pain and anxiety.
I was unable to go to a London show with
friends on the tube.
All the participants of our focus groups felt that
as a result of inaccessible transport they were missing out on
things that most non-disabled people can take for granted. Several
mentioned that they would like to go to the theatre, cinema or
opera more; particularly as many theatres and cinemas are now
accessible to disabled people. Poor transport provision ironically
means that they are unable to take advantage of these accessible
services.
Access to friends and family is an important means
of maintaining meaningful links with local communities and social
networks. 50% of respondents who did not see their family and
friends as often as they would wish said they were prevented from
doing so by inaccessible transport. This again, rose to 67% of
those respondents without access to a car.
I have missed several celebrations within the
family due to lack of public transport at the weekends and I am
unable to drive myself.
I¹ve been unable to share in important
times in the lives of friends of many years standing and have
been unable to visit them when they are ill or have been in hospital.
I had to miss my nephew¹s housewarming recently
as medication ruled out driving and I could not rely on the trains
as the local railway station closes at 2pm and no wheelchair assistance
is available after this time.
One of the focus group participants described how
she had lost all of her friends over the years because she was
never able to accept their invitations to join them at their homes
or on special occasions, as there was no accessible transport
available to her.
Our research showed that some disabled people were
missing out on family activities, celebrations, rituals and rites
of passage. 18% of respondents had had to miss a special birthday
party because of a lack of accessible transport, rising to 24%
of those without access to a car.
Sometimes my wife has other demands on her time
and it is then difficult for me and my young son to get to see
our football team. Were public transport accessible we could go
by ourselves
Of particular concern was the discovery that some
disabled people were actually unable to attend very important
events like weddings and funerals. 12% of respondents have had
to miss a wedding or a funeral due to inaccessible transport and
this rises to 16% of those without a car.
I had to leave my brother¹s wedding reception
early to catch the last train home that didn¹t involve a
change all the later ones required a change which I find difficult
to manage.
I had to miss my mother¹s funeral.
One of our focus group participants booked an accessible
taxi to take her and her husband to her mother-in-law¹s funeral.
The accessible taxi failed to turn up and her husband managed
to book a mini cab to take them at short notice but it was therefore
extremely expensive. Furthermore the mini cab was not accessible
and so could not accommodate the participant¹s electric wheelchair.
The participant had to return into the house and swap the electric
wheelchair for her collapsible manual wheelchair. Her husband
was then obliged to push her at the funeral and at the reception
following the funeral. The whole episode caused them an enormous
amount of anxiety and distress.
Not being able to participate in family activities
often meant that perceptions of difference were either confirmed
or even exacerbated. It is not just being unable to get to social
functions or events that maintains cycles of social exclusion,
it is a lack of access to social networks friends, family and
colleagues. These are the lifeblood of information, reassurance,
feeling and being valued, self-confidence, plugging into current
trends and affairs and sharing experiences. Without these it is
all too easy to become detached from society.
I live in a village and the public buses are not
wheelchair accessible. So I have to rely on my father to drive
me where I wish to go, which is cramping my independence.
Many disabled people are physically detached from
society because of an inaccessible transport network but as these
quotes show, they also feel emotionally and intellectually detached,
finding it difficult to socially interact when opportunities arise.
Years of social exclusion can erode self-confidence and any feelings
of having anything of value to contribute socially. This would
seem to be being made worse by an inaccessible transport network.
Our report also examined the leisure activities of
respondents. Nearly half (49%) of respondents had not been to
the cinema in the last year, and the same number had not been
to a leisure centre. Over a quarter (27%) of respondents with
access to a car and 43% of those without said that inaccessible
transport restricted their leisure pursuits.
Respondents seem to be experiencing problems in accessing
leisure activities if they have to rely on someone else to get
them from A to B. This may well be because leisure activities
are seen as a luxury that can be sacrificed if respondents feel
that they are becoming a strain on somebody else.
One in five (20%) of those that had not been on holiday
said they had been prevented from doing so because of transport
problems, this again rises to 27% of those without a car. Furthermore
for those that had been on holiday 23% of respondents stated that
inaccessible transport had restricted their choice of holiday
destination.
Every journey I go on has to be planned in detail.
I am made to feel different, like a second class
citizen, whenever I fly being shoved around like a sack of potatoes
and made to keep planes waiting while they load¹ me on. Other
passengers get fed up.
The findings of our report demonstrate that disabled
people continue to find that the lack of an accessible transport
system presents a major obstacle to their participation in common
social activities that non-disabled people take for granted. Inaccessible
transport plays a large part in creating and maintaining these
obstacles and the need for government action has never before
been so urgent.
CONCLUSION
This report has highlighted the impact inaccessible
transport has on disabled people¹s independence, social participation
and employability. It supports other research showing that inaccessible
transport continues to be a key concern for many disabled people
and that it has a demonstrable negative impact on the quality
of life of disabled people, limiting their ability to socially
participate and to take the fullest advantage of the rapidly developing
disability civil rights agenda.
The findings show that many disabled people are unable
to access employment and training opportunities, healthcare services,
leisure facilities and are also missing out on socialising with
family and friends. The research was pan-disability but also highlighted
particular issues for those with visual impairments and disabled
people without access to a car. Our concern is that car ownership
and the forced dependency of disabled people upon cars is almost
certainly masking a greater problem.
My answers to the majority of questions in this
questionnaire would be very different if it were not for the fact
that I am fortunate enough to have sufficient income and an able-bodied
partner who is there to help me with driving, shopping and a reliable
Motability car. This has proved to be my lifeline when it comes
to maintaining employment and planning regular breaks away, which
are essential to my well being. I could not depend on local transport
in my area because it is irregular, stops too far away from my
home base and the erratic driving causes discomfort and a high
risk of injury.
The links that we demonstrate between transport and
the social exclusion experienced by many disabled people are alarming.
We hope that our findings will not only trigger essential changes
but will also draw attention to the cycle of inaccessibility that
many disabled people are caught up in. This continues to perpetuate
disabled people¹s social exclusion as well as embedding damaging
misconceptions about low expectations and dependence.
This report is published at a time when legislative
opportunities exist to effect incremental changes in the delivery
of accessible transport services. The long awaited Disability
Bill represents a real opportunity to ensure that all the outstanding
transport recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force
report are implemented. This is the principal recommendation of
our report and we urge the Government to publish a Bill without
any further delay. Disabled people are anxious for change and
the continuing impasse over the introduction of measures to make
transport fully accessible only serves to erode trust in government
but crucially, undermines the disability civil rights agenda.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In their final report, From Exclusion to Inclusion¹,
the Disability Rights Task Force (DRTF) made a number of recommendations
specifically relating to transport. Despite the fact that the
Government accepted all of these proposals, the following recommendations
have yet to be implemented:
- The exemption for transport operators from the
first phase and October 1999 phase of the DDA access to services
duties should be removed in legislation.
- An end date by which all passenger rail vehicles
should comply with rail accessibility regulations should be introduced
following consultation. Accessibility regulations should be developed
to apply to the refurbishment of existing rolling stock.
- Local Transport Plans should be placed on a statutory
basis and their effectiveness in meeting disabled people¹s
transport needs and improving the pedestrian environment for disabled
people should be reviewed over time.
Further progress should be made in ensuring compliance
with guidance on access for disabled people in shipping and a
new Code of Practice on access for disabled people to air travel
should be developed.
WE URGE THE GOVERNMENT TO PUBLISH A DISABILITY BILL,
WHICH WILL IMPLEMENT THE DRTF¹S OUTSTANDING PROPOSALS RELATING
TO TRANSPORT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY.
We are extremely concerned at the current dispersal
of transport legislation, as it relates to disability, across
wide range legislative measures. This causes an unnecessary degree
of confusion and makes it exceedingly difficult for both disabled
people and transport providers to access essential information.
We believe that there should only be one access point for all
legislation concerning disability and access to transport, and
that this access point should be the proposed disability bill.
Such a measure would ensure that it will be much easier for disabled
people and transport operators to access all the information that
they need, increasing the likelihood of adherence to and enforcement
of the law as it prevails.
TWE URGE THE GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE THAT ALL REGULATIONS
RELATING TO TRANSPORT AND DISABILITY ACCESS SHOULD BE CODIFIED
IN THE PROPOSED DISABILITY BILL.
The Government has recently conducted a consultation
on the lifting of the exemption for transport operators from the
first phase and October 1999 phase of Part III of the DDA 1995,
referred to in the first bullet point above. However, the proposals
do not embrace all of the obligations to be found in Part III
of the DDA and neither do they encompass transport as a whole.
In particular, transport providers will not be subject
to the following obligations:
- To take such steps as it is reasonable to take,
to remove, alter or provide a reasonable means of avoiding a physical
feature, which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for
disabled people to make use of the services offered; or
- To provide a reasonable alternative method of
making their service available to disabled people where a physical
feature makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled
people to make use of the services offered.
WE ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED
EXEMPTION OF TRANSPORT OPERATORS FROM PART III OF THE DDA 1995
IS REWORDED TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER
PART III OF THE ACT ARE INCORPORATED.
Sixty percent of disabled people believe that ³the
people responsible for planning and development of public transport
pay little attention to their needs. Consequently, the last word
must go to disabled people who have suggested the following ways
in which transport could be made more accessible. This is their
plea to transport providers:
All transport providers are asked to:
- Guarantee that all front line transport staff
receive disability awareness training;
- Provide regular audible and visual announcements
on trains and buses;
- Ensure that disability priority seating arrangements
are enforced so guaranteeing their availability to disabled people;
- Provide a dedicated disability access co-ordinator
for all transport networks, that is accessible 24 hours, seven
days per week.
Bus operators are asked to:
- Reintroduce bus conductors where there are none;
- Provide more kneeling buses on all routes.
Railway station operators are asked to:
- Ensure the provision of tactile edges to platforms
at all railway stations.
ANNEX A
Legislative and Political Background
Never before have public services in Britain been
under such scrutiny and debate. In March 2002, the Prime Minister
stated that, "Modernising our public services is crucial
to everything the Government wants to achieve for the country.
Strong and high quality public services are essential if we are
achieve our central aim of spreading prosperity and opportunity",
(Office of Public Services Reform, 2002). For disabled people,
effective and efficient public services are often the means to
developing and maintaining independence and becoming socially
included.
There is no greater illustration of the trials and
tribulations of public services in Britain today than public transport
"British transport policy is stuck in reverse gear",
(The Daily Express, 6 August 2002). The news is awash with tails
of woe and the failings of a system that many people would have
you believe is crumbling around their feet. For many disabled
people however, these reported concerns are irrelevant because
they are unable to access public transport in the first place.
Even the Prime Minister in July 2003 acknowledged at a Downing
Street press briefing that, "…on transport, given the
history, progress has proved more intractable". However,
in this landmark speech on the state of public services he never
once focussed on the travelling needs of disabled people and the
largely inaccessible nature of the transport network.
Public transport is an essential gateway to civic
society that many non-disabled people take for granted. In 1999,
the Department of Transport published a report entitled, Social
Exclusion and the Provision of Public Transport, which acknowledged
the critical role transport plays when it stated that: "Transport
provision must be considered … as a component part of all
services e.g. work, health and social services, shops, education
and leisure etc."
In 2002, the Government¹s Social Exclusion Unit
published another report examining the links between transport
and social exclusion, entitled, Making the Connections Transport
and Social Exclusion. The report recognised the social costs of
inadequate transport and stated that increased funding for transport
disproportionately favours those on higher incomes and critically,
has "not been tied sufficiently to … accessible vehicles".
The report that was published by the London Transport
Users Committee in 2003 Transport for all Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard
Users speaking, reflected the principal concerns of disabled people
regarding public transport:
- Access to mainstream services - in the main rail
services.
- Access to information about transport services
- which is of particular concern to people with a sensory impairment.
- The delivery of transport services - the softer
aspects such as staff knowledge and attitude.
An inaccessible public transport network:
- Limits disabled people¹s ability to get
to places easily and spontaneously, thereby constraining lifestyle
choices and independence - a cornerstone of government social
care policies.
- Compromises and undermines government initiatives
such as the civil rights agenda, New Deal for Disabled People
and its social inclusion programmes.
- Effectively highlights government inaction on
its manifesto promises of both 1997 to "end unjustifiable
discrimination wherever it exists. For example, we support comprehensive,
enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination
in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested
parties," (Dale, 2000) and 2001 to a commitment to extend
"basic rights and opportunities, as indicated in our response
to the Disability Rights Task Force."
Despite the enactment of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 (DDA) and the Labour Government¹s stated commitment
to "comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people",
disabled people continue to suffer social exclusion. One of the
principal barriers to social inclusion is the lack of an inclusive
and accessible transport service. The DDA holds few powers to
oblige transport providers to deliver an accessible transport
network. Indeed, as the law currently stands, a transport operator
can lawfully deny a disabled person access to a vehicle for no
other reason than that he or she is a disabled person.
In response to calls from the disability movement,
in 1997 the incoming Labour Government set up the Disability Rights
Task Force (DRTF), with a mandate to address the shortcomings
of the DDA. Amongst other proposals, the DRTF made a number of
recommendations, relating to transport, that together would in
time deliver a fully accessible transport network. However, despite
a 2001 manifesto commitment by the Government to implement all
of the DRTF¹s recommendations, most of the proposals have
yet to be implemented. In particular, the following recommendations
remain outstanding:
The exemption for transport operators from the first
phase and October 1999
phase of the DDA access to services duties should
be removed in civil rights
legislation.
An 'end date' by which all passenger rail vehicles
should comply with rail accessibility regulations should be introduced
following consultation. Accessibility regulations should be developed
to apply to refurbishment of existing rolling stock.
Local Transport Plans should be placed on a statutory
basis and their effectiveness in meeting disabled people¹s
transport needs and improving the pedestrian environment for disabled
people should be reviewed over time.
Further progress should be made in ensuring compliance
with guidance on access for disabled people in shipping and a
new Code of Practice on access for disabled people to air travel
should be developed.
Nevertheless, some progress has been made, in 2002
the Government published a consultation on proposals to lift the
exemption for transport services from some of the civil rights
duties in Part III of the DDA.10 These proposals will make it
unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person by refusing
to provide him or her with a transport service solely because
they are disabled.
The proposals do not extend to all of the obligations
to be found in Part III of the DDA and they do not encompass transport
as a whole, they only extend the scope of Part III of the DDA
to certain specified modes of transport. In particular should
the proposals be adopted, transport operators will still not be
subject to the following duties:
To take such steps as it is reasonable to take, to
remove, alter or provide a reasonable means of avoiding a physical
feature, which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for
a disabled person to make use of the service offered.
To provide a reasonable alternative method of making
their services available to disabled people where a physical feature
makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people
to make use of the services offered.
It is a shortcoming of these proposals that the first
and October 1999 duties arising under Part III of the DDA will
not be applied to all transport providers in the same way as to
other service providers. If the Part III duties referred to were
extended to all transport providers then this would bring clarity
to a complicated area of law. In addition to the above consultation,
the Government has announced that later this year, they will launch
a consultation on proposals to set end dates for rail vehicles.
Earlier this year the Government announced it would
be publishing a draft Disability Bill. The Secretary of State
for Work and Pensions, Andrew Smith MP said in the House of Commons,
on 22 January 2003, that:
Later this year I plan to publish a draft Disability
Bill with the intention that it should undergo pre-legislative
scrutiny, before being taken forward as part of the Government¹s
legislative programme later this Parliament. This will be a further
and very major step to ensure we meet our Manifesto commitment
on extending rights and opportunities for disabled people. The
draft Bill will include new measures proposed by the Disability
Rights Task Force
At the time of writing this report however, the draft
Bill had not been published.
So why is it that the travelling needs of disabled
people continue to be ignored by government and transport operators?
Part of the reason is the real social invisibility caused and
maintained by a largely inaccessible transport network, which
limits easy, spontaneous access by disabled people to society
and social networks. This cycle of inaccessibility perpetuates
the social exclusion experienced by many disabled people and needs
to be broken. It also underpins the pernicious 'fatalism' the
all too ready acceptance by non-disabled people that disability
is equated with failure, inability and low expectations (Christie
et al, 2000). This dogs disabled people¹s aspirations and
self-confidence and limits their opportunities to visibly contribute
to society through work, culture and public life and thereby demolishing
myths about inability and dependence.
ANNEX B
The questionnaire included a number of questions
to try and establish in more detail what respondents felt the
causes of inaccessible transport were. For each section (work/health/social
life) they were asked whether a specific problem made it difficult
or impossible to access a specific service. These questions were
all asked independently of one another and as such the resulting
percentages cannot be added together.
| Difficult or impossible to get healthcare
| Difficult or impossible to get to work |
Difficult or impossible to get to education/
training venues
| Difficult or impossible to get to social occasions
|
Lack of disability accessible transport
| 20% | 28% | 32%
| 20% |
Poor disability awareness/negative attitudes of transport staff
| 18% | 22% | 29%
| 18% |
Lack of suitable transport information
| 16% | 34% | 28%
| 16% |
Shortage of car parking | 40%
| 25% | 36% | 40%
|
REFERENCES
Brent, M. & Knight, J. (1998) Access Denied: Disabled people¹s
experience of
social exclusion, Leonard Cheshire: London
Burchardt, T. (2000) Enduring economic exclusion: disabled people,
income
and work, Joseph Rowntree Foundation: London
Christie, I. & Knight, J. (2000) Committed to Inclusion: Disabled
People¹s
experience of social exclusion and hopes for the future, Leonard
Cheshire:
London
Dale, I. (2000) Labour Party General Election Manifestos 1900-1997,
Routledge: London
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50), The Stationery Office
Limited:
London
Disability Rights Task Force (1999) From Exclusion to Inclusion,
Department
of Education and Employment: London
Hamilton, K. & Gourlay, M. (2002) Missed hospital appointments
and
transport, University of East London: London
Knight, J., Heaven, C. & Christie, I. (2002) Inclusive Citizenship,
Leonard
Cheshire: London
(2002) Reforming our public services, The Office of Public Service
Reform:
London
Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the connections: Transport
and Social
Exclusion, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London
(2002) Tackling Health Inequalities 2002 Cross Cutting Review,
Department
of Health & HM Treasury: London
(2003) Transport for all Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard Users Speaking,
London
Transport Users Committee: London
Websites:
www.dft.gov.uk - The Department of Transport
www.doh.gov.uk - The Department of Health
www.dptac.gov.uk - Disabled Persons Transport Committee
www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/IntPress.nsf/ - Department of Health,
Media Resources - Press Releases
htp://www.labour.org.uk - The Labour Party
news.bbc.co.uk - The British Broadcasting Corporation News
www.nhs.uk - The National Health Service
www.number10.gov.uk - 10 Downing Street
CONTACTS
For further information regarding the Leonard Cheshire research
or policy
discussed in this report, please contact:
Policy and Campaigns Team
Leonard Cheshire
30 Millbank
London
SW1P 4QD
Tel: 020 7802 8229
Fax: 020 7802 8250
Email: campaigning@lc-uk.org
Website: www.leonard-cheshire.org
This report is available in alternative formats upon request.
Leonard Cheshire is the leading voluntary sector provider of care
and
support services to disabled people - both in the UK and throughout
the
world.
In the UK we support over 20,000 disabled people offering flexible
services,
either by providing a few hours of care at home or more intensive
support at
one of our residential or nursing homes. We also provide independent
and
supported living, respite care, day services and rehabilitation
services for
people with an acquired brain injury.
Our Workability scheme is giving disabled people the computer
equipment,
skills, qualifications and support they need to find work. In
conjunction
with this we launched a recruitment website jobability.com for
disabled
people in partnership with Microsoft and Totaljobs.com.
Leonard Cheshire International works with thousands more, supporting
over
255 locally run projects for disabled people and their families
in 57
countries worldwide. Our International Self-Reliance Programme
is enabling
disabled people to become financially independent by supporting
low-cost, income generating schemes and small businesses.
41 Campion et al, Mind
the Gap, London, 2003 Back
| 
