Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill Written Evidence


Memorandum from Leonard Cheshire (DDB 11)

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")[1],[2]. 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. Sixty per cent 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 show that 23% of disabled people actively seeking employment have had to turn down a job offer because of inaccessible transport. Sixty-two per cent 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.

February 2004






1   Not printed. Back

2   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 27 May 2004