Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill Written Evidence


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 £600032
£10,001 - £14,00068
£14,001 - £18,00062
£18,001 - £24,00057
£24,001 - £30,00036
£30,001 and above63
Prefer not to answer69

Table 2 - Nature of Impairment
Nature of ImpairmentNumber of participants
Cognitive issues 1
Communication disability139
Physical disability139
Visual disability64
Wheelchair user113

Table 3 - Access to a car
Access to a carNumber of Participants
No105
Yes351

Table 4 - Own Car Usage
Own car usageNumber of Participants
Never use165
Use 1 to 3 days a month9
Use 1 to 4 days a month76
Use 1 to 5 days a month3
Use 5 days a month or more193
Use 6 to 11 times a year4
Use less than once a year6

Table 5 - How often have you used a car driven by someone else?
Other car usageNumber of Participants
Never use30
Use less than once a year11
1 to 5 times a year55
6 to 11 times a year37
1 to 3 days a month84
1 to 4 days a week162
5 days a week or more77

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

  • Pathways to Work

  • 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 23 April 2004