Minutes of the DPTAC Main Committee Meeting:
06 December 2006

These Minutes have also been made available in Adobe Acrobat and MS Word formats for downloading.
The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html

Adobe Acrobat version: Minutes of the DPTAC Main Committee Meeting: 06 December 2006 (113kb)
MS Word version: Minutes of the DPTAC Main Committee Meeting: 06 December 2006 (131kb)

Chair:
Neil Betteridge

DPTAC Members:
Pravin Amin
Ann Bates
Sean Bolton
Jean Dunlop
David Finnegan
Roger Hewitt
Grahame Lawson
Tomi Jones
Marilyn Lister
Wendy Morrell
Alan Norton
Tom Pey
Katherine Phipps
Dai Powell
Keith Richards
Carol Thomas
Richard West

Observers:
Will Bee - Disability Rights Commission
Miranda Carte - Department for Transport Mobility & Inclusion Unit
Tim May - Department for Transport Mobility & Inclusion Unit
Sandra Falconer - Mobility Access Committee Scotland
Lynne Duff - Scottish Executive
Gregor Kerr - Department for Regional Development Northern Ireland
Mike Spearing - Welsh Assembly

In Attendance:
Andy Kirby - Secretary
Sandra Duncan - Secretariat
Gary Kemp - Secretariat
Michael Parsons - Secretariat
Harriet Samuels - Secretariat
Anthony Youngman - Michael's Support Worker
David Hewitt - BSL Interpreter
Jill Rutherford - BSL Interpreter
Claire Hill - Palantypist
Hugh Sumner - Olympic Delivery Authority
Clare Springett - Olympic Delivery Authority
Iain Killingbeck - Olympic Delivery Authority

Apologies:
Vidur Dindayal - DPTAC Member
Judith Jesky - DPTAC Member
Nicola McLeish - DPTAC Member
Barbara Vincent - Department for Work & Pensions

Agenda item 1: Welcome, introductions and apologies

1. DPTAC Chair Neil Betteridge welcomed everyone to the fourth DPTAC meeting of the year. Neil particularly welcomed the new member, Wendy Morrell, who was attending her first meeting.

Agenda item 2: Minutes of previous Main Committee meeting (13 September 2006)

2. Members approved the amendments subject to correcting the spelling of Wendy Morrell's surname and the forename of Finola Austin, Human Engineering. The Secretariat was asked to place the minutes on the DPTAC website.

Action point 1: Secretariat to place minutes of 13 September 2006 Main Committee meeting on the DPTAC website, correcting the names of Wendy Morrell and Finola Austin.

Agenda item 3: Matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda

3. DPTAC Chair Neil Betteridge reminded members of three important recent events.

4. Firstly, on Monday 4 December 2006 the exemption of land-based transport from Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 had come into effect, and been welcomed by DPTAC with a press notice.

5. Secondly, on Friday 1 December 2006 the Eddington report on transport investment had been published and sent to members through e-DPTAC. The 400 page report had many annexes, including DPTAC's own response. Members agreed that it would be an agenda item for the March Main Committee meeting, by which time members would have been able to develop their thinking on its recommendations.

6. DPTAC's position paper on one of the main issues, road pricing, was already in the public domain. Neil added he would be considering the report with his colleagues on the Commission for Integrated Transport, which had also been one of the conduits by which DPTAC had influenced the report.

7. Thirdly, the Queen's Speech on 15 November had included important legislation that showed the direction of government thinking.

8. The Concessionary Bus Travel Bill would create a new national bus concession for older and disabled people in England. It also gave the government the power to bring together the concessions in the different UK countries at some time in the future if that was what those countries wished to do.

9. The Crossrail Bill featured again as its passage had not been completed in the previous parliament.

10. The Local Government Bill would devolve by-law making power to local councils, and signalled a move to giving local authorities more power and discretion. This could have implications for disabled people, who might face different standards and opportunities in different parts of the country as a result.

11. The draft Road Transport Bill would increase powers to create toll roads and give councils more freedom to introduce their own schemes. It would also give them more power to improve local bus services which could have implications for bus accessibility.

12. Neil noted that DPTAC had agreed to explore the potential for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) to take on the DPTAC Access Directory. Katherine Phipps had explored this and CABE was not in a position to take this on. (Action Point 12 from the previous meeting refers.).

13. Kath reported that CABE was undergoing restructuring and the head of their Secretariat had changed. Katherine also noted that it was not likely that funds would be available for CABE to take on the Access Directory, but the position was as yet unclear. Members agreed to wait for the outcome.

Action point 2: Secretariat to invite Eddington Review Group to present the results of the report at the March 2007 Main Committee.

Action point 3: Katherine Phipps to establish position of Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment on future funding of the Access Directory.

Agenda item 4: Olympic Transport Strategy consultation and terms of reference of the Olympic Working Group

14. Hugh Sumner from the Olympic Delivery Authority gave a presentation on their work in preparation for the 2012 London Olympic Games. (A copy of the presentation is attached to the hard copy of these minutes at Annexe B and is available as a PDF file from the Secretariat.)

15. During the discussions the following issues were raised:

1. Use of volunteers, including disabled volunteers;
2. Publicity for the work of the Access Panel;
3. Accessible toilets on many railway stations being frequently locked;
4. Staff training should be built into the Olympic Delivery Authority plan;
5. Requirement for rest points along pedestrian routes and provision of accessible information for spectators, including people with learning difficulties;
6. Design and accessibility of the Olympic Delivery Authority website;
7. Access not just being physical access but needing to address the full range of impairments;
8. Wayfinding, signage and the use of pictograms;
9. First aid and medical attention for spectators;
10. Provision of a safe environment for spectators.

16. David Finnegan noted that a 12 car train could only carry four wheelchair users, while the Olympic Delivery Authority presentation referred to moving 750,000 spectators. Hugh Sumner agreed there was an issue of capacity had to be balanced against passenger load, and felt there was a wider issue of the ratio of doors to seats would address some of this need.

17. Hugh added that the Olympic Delivery Authority would look at how spectators entered and left the stations as well as work with the boroughs to improve the streetscape. When designing the venues the design team would look at other issues such as pedestrian routes, rest points, shade, seating, handrails, and tactile markings. The Olympic Delivery Authority would ensure that the design teams applied these to all venues around the country, not just to the Olympic Park.

18. Ann Bates referred to the rail map in the presentation and questioned which stations would be made accessible. Hugh Sumner stated the Olympic Delivery Authority was looking at which stations were scheduled to be made accessible and now had to work with the train operating companies, and agreed that it might prove necessary to adjust the map.

19. DPTAC Olympic lead member Katherine Phipps said she had seen a number of presentations and felt very positive about the inclusive attitude of the Olympic Delivery Authority. However the implementation would be critical. Katherine was keen for DPTAC and the Olympic Delivery Authority to find ways to work together.

20. Wendy Morrell stated that within the consultation document she could find no reference to low emissions or a range of low emission zones. Hugh Sumner responded that there were two forms of low emissions zones and the Olympic Delivery Authority was working towards progressive reductions in emissions prior to the Games. The Authority planned to improve on the targets in the bid documentation.

21. Will Bee from the Disability Rights Commission noted that, while all London buses would have been accessible to people with mobility impairments for over a year, elsewhere public transport was less good. It was important to get the message across early that public transport needed to be accessible so that prospective disabled spectators did not have to travel by their own car.

22. DPTAC Chair Neil Betteridge thanked Hugh Sumner and his team for their informative presentation and said that DPTAC looked forward to working with them in the future.

Draft Terms of Reference

23. Neil advised members that both he and Katherine Phipps had reviewed the terms of reference for the Olympic Working Group, which drew on what DPTAC had used for other working groups. The terms of reference included a review process for the group, and specific reference to confidentiality. Neil felt this was important as some of the matters that the group would need to consider were of commercial value. Neil asked members for their comments.

24. Members discussed whether ten members might be too many for the group, especially as members would also serve on up to three other working groups. However the terms were for 'up to ten members' and it was for members to decide what level of work they were able to undertake. Both Neil and Katherine felt that it was important to have a wide range of expertise from amongst the working groups, especially in view of the questions raised during the Olympic Delivery Authority presentation.

25. Members agreed the terms of reference as drafted and agreed that Katherine Phipps should chair the group. Neil suggested that if members had any further comments on the draft transport strategy then they should be forwarded to the Secretariat.

26. Neil asked for volunteers to be on the group. The following members offered to be on the Olympic Working Group (including nominations received from absent members after the meeting): Pravin Amin, Ann Bates, Sean Bolton, Vidur Dindyal, Jean Dunlop, Roger Hewitt, Judith Jesky, Marilyn Lister, Wendy Morrell, Alan Norton, Dai Powell, Keith Richards, Carol Thomas and Richard West.

Action Point 4: Members wishing to serve on the Olympic Working Group to advise the Secretariat, and then Chair of DPTAC and of Olympic Working Group, to determine membership in good time for first meeting on 16 January.

Action Point 5: Members to make any further comments on the draft Olympic Transport Strategy to Secretariat (Andy Kirby).

Agenda Item 5: Press Notice on Access to Air Travel for Disabled People: 2005 Monitoring Study

27. Neil Betteridge, DPTAC Chair, reminded members that at the last DPTAC Main Committee meeting, Lorna Pearce of Transport for London had presented the Department for Transport's research assessing how well the UK aviation industry had been complying with the Department's voluntary Code of Practice, Access to Air Travel for Disabled People. Neil noted that members had asked the Aviation Working Group to develop DPTAC's response, and this was set out in the paper and draft press notice. Neil called upon Keith Richards, Chair of the Aviation Working Group, to introduce the discussion.

28. Keith Richards said that the draft release reflected a thorough discussion at the last working group meeting. Keith confirmed that a new European Union regulation on rights for disabled people travelling by air had been ratified: the first part would come into force in 2007, and the remainder in 2008.

29. Keith noted that much non-compliance had been identified in areas already covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, and lifting the exemption on its own would not resolve these. Moreover, the fact that some areas were and others were not covered had led to some misunderstanding within the industry. There was, however, a need to provide consistency across all modes of transport and so the Aviation Working Group concluded that the recommendation should be the same as for shipping - to lift the exemption.

30. Will Bee of the Disability Rights Commission stated the Commission was delighted with DPTAC's response, which was very similar to the Disability Rights Commission's own position. He noted many airlines were increasingly moving towards pre-booking flights. Passengers were being encouraged to go onto the internet 24 hours prior to flying to book their seating. This had the potential of limiting the availability of the most suitable seating for some disabled people who booked later, or who did not have access to the internet for a return booking. Lifting the extension would require airlines to make more seating available specifically for disabled people.

31. Keith Richards stated the Aviation Working Group would pick up these issues in future meetings. He added that the Air Access Code needed to be brought up to date, and the Working Group would be happy to be involved in the rewriting of the code.

32. Neil noted that the degree of non-compliance by the industry was very clear. Neil thanked members for the discussion and their agreement, and Keith Richards and the Aviation Working Group for their work. He added that Keith Richards and he would seek an opportunity to meet with the Minister as part of the process she had announced of discussing the findings with stakeholders and considering whether further action was required. Neil stated that he might take the opportunity to remind her that DPTAC was still awaiting a decision on lifting the transport exception on respect of maritime transport.

Action Point 6: Secretariat to publish press notice on DPTAC response to research on Access to Air Travel for Disabled People.

Action Point 7: Chair to write to Ministers on lifting of Part 3 exemption from aviation.

Agenda Item 6: Mobility and Inclusion Unit Report

33. Tim May gave Nigel Dotchin's apologies. He would answer questions on his own area of expertise and to take back any other questions to the department for later answer.

34. During the discussion on the Mobility and Inclusion Unit report the following issues were raised:

1. The relationship between the second Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulation consultation package and the European Union's Technical Specification for Interoperability in relation to rail. Members welcomed the Mobility and Inclusion Unit's confirmation the consultation would go ahead and would include the incorporation of the European Union's Technical Specification for Interoperability into the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations;
2. Publication date for research on community transport and social inclusion;
3. The usefulness of DPTAC's dialogue with the Transport Security section of the Department for Transport on aviation security, and the need to ensure consistency between airlines;
4. The Department for Transport's Disability Equality Scheme;
5. The needs of those with learning difficulties;
6. Audio / visual announcements, including the option of drivers announcing stops when the vehicle lacked technical solutions, along with the roll out programme outside London;
7. Research into DPTAC's recommendations following the review of Blue Badge parking;
8. Kite marking of wheelchairs for their compatibility with other forms of transport;
9. Rail companies taking scooters and the problems encountered loading, unloading and changing between operators.

35. Tim May undertook to provide a written report on several of these items in Annexe A to these minutes.

Action Point 8: Mobility and Inclusion Unit to report back to DPTAC in writing on the range of issues raised. (These are attached to the minutes at Annexe B.)

Agenda Item 7: Reports from DPTAC Chair and Working Group Chairs

36. DPTAC Chair Neil Betteridge noted that Dai Powell's report on the Bus, Coach and Community Transport Working Group and Ann Bates' on Rail had been circulated on the day. Neil invited Working Group Chairs to expand on or update their reports.

37. Aviation Working Group Chair Keith Richards added that he would, along with Donald MacDonald of the Mobility and Inclusion Unit, attend a European Union Commission conference in January 2007 on access. Whilst there Keith hoped to raise aviation issues of accessible toilets and wheelchairs.

38. Local Authority and Personal Mobility Working Group Chair Grahame Lawson reported that he had spoken at a conference on the Blue Badge Parking Scheme. He added that the police had renewed interest in Blue Badge parking. If a holder offended in their own neighbourhood, they would be likely to offend elsewhere reflecting what was known as "offender self-selection".

39. DPTAC member Sean Bolton asked for an update on road pricing. Grahame reported that the Department for Transport had given awards to nine areas actively looking into the feasibility of local schemes. Grahame added that the recently published Eddington report was in favour of road user charging.

40. Bus, Coach and Community Transport Working Group Chair Dai Powell stated that he would welcome the extensive Eddington report as an agenda item at the next DPTAC Main Committee meeting. He added there was a great deal in the report about the regional role in transport planning, and about local control of buses. Dai felt that this was a major issue that DPTAC needed to monitor.

41. DPTAC member Roger Hewitt referred to the Rail Working Group Chair's report and the item on the Disabled Persons Railcard launch. Ann Bates stated that she had been invited to the launch event along with members of the Mobility and Inclusion Unit. She commented that she had mixed feelings especially in regards to the increased cost of the card, as well as about the accessibility of the hotels offered at discount prices.

42. Ann added that there had been a lot of advertising at main line stations. Roger felt that the deaf community had been left out as much of the advertising had been on the radio.

43. Neil commended the reports to members and observers. He added that he felt that much of the real work of DPTAC took place in its working groups. Neil recommended that members used the reports as a resource to find out what DPTAC was doing in the areas that members were not directly involved in.

Agenda Item 8: Progress Report on 2006-07 Work Programme

44. Neil Betteridge, DPTAC Chair, drew members' attention to the report on progress with the DPTAC 2006-07 Work Programme. Neil reported the good news of DPTAC letting contracts on the on-board aircraft accessible wheelchair and on front line training, as well as steady progress on secondary school materials and revised advice to the maritime sector.

45. Neil reported the November website hits figure was 8845, an increase in average successful requests per day for every month since July. Neil added that DPTAC had responded to 20 consultations so far this year, including two important ones in Wales, with 12 of these having been responded to in the past three months. All this represented a huge volume of work by the members and secretariat. The suggested priorities for the next quarter were:

1. Finalise Work Programme for 2007-08
2. Begin consultation on maritime guidance and conclude consultation on draft 2007-10 DPTAC Strategy
3. Publish revised small bus and aircraft wheelchair specifications

46. Neil asked members for any further comments. Sean Bolton asked for any feedback on the DPTAC Strategy consultation and was advised that it would be premature to discuss the responses before the end of the consultation period. A full report would be made to the next Main Committee.

Agenda Item 9: Scoping the Work Programme and research for 2007-08

47. DPTAC Chair Neil Betteridge referred members to the paper on research and the new Work Programme. Neil proposed to repeat last year's process of considering some areas of work in December and others in March, as it had worked well. He noted suggested items for:

1. Five general tasks not allocated to specific working groups
2. Two Aviation Working Group tasks plus significant work on general tasks
3. Four Education and Training Working Group tasks including research
4. Four Personal Mobility and Local Authority Working Group tasks including research

48. Neil asked if members and Chairs of those three Working Groups wished to comment.

49. Aviation Working Group Chair Keith Richards noted that an aviation publication on wheelchair safety and handling had been removed. He noted that discussions had taken place with the MIU on how to take this forward.

50. DPTAC member Roger Hewitt was concerned about the workload on the working groups and Secretariat. There were already 25 tasks which he felt were too many when added to the Olympic Working Group. DPTAC secretary Andy Kirby noted that much Olympic work would be short term and reactive and would come under generic tasks. There would be some work for the Secretariat but the Olympic Delivery Authority Transport Plan consultation would close shortly. Neil confirmed that DPTAC needed to constantly review the burden upon members and the secretariat and all needed to prioritise appropriately and manage time effectively.

51. DPTAC member Richard West asked about aviation safety. Keith Richards stated that this would be feature regularly on future Aviation Working Group agendas. Keith added that when the Aviation Working Group reviewed existing publications they would review safety for all disabled people.

52. Neil thanked members for their contributions. In March, members would consider suggestions on the tasks for other working groups and would then look at the whole programme.

Research

53. Neil stated that DPTAC had the opportunity to bid for resources from the Department for Transport research programme.

54. He noted DPTAC had four exciting bids for next year, in addition to our work on front line training, which would continue for the next two years. These were:

1. The inclusive transport performance index
2. Travel training for disabled people
3. Charging and provision of Blue Badge parking bays
4. Pavement parking policies and practices

55. Neil noted that the first two were quite ambitious; the second two were relatively modest information gathering exercises. Neil invited comments from the Chairs of the Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle and the Local Authority and Personal Mobility Working Groups Tom Pey and Grahame Lawson.

56. Grahame Lawson reported that there was a need for assessing local authority performance in relation to the Disability Equality Duty. Each local authority had to report and monitor performance and this offered scope for developing a consistent way of monitoring, with emphasis on the quality of service experienced by the user rather than the work of the provider. He gave the example of low floor buses, where the service did not just depend on the number of low floor buses, but also on accessible bus stops and real time information and no pavement parking by drivers.

57. Tom Pey felt there was a real need for training for disabled people who use public transport. Guide Dogs for the Blind had examined public transport usage and had found that confidence was a key factor in the usage that people with sight impairments made of transport. He suspected that this was the case for other modes of transport. This was the case despite local authorities investing modestly in the area of work. Therefore, there was a need to start to educate and build confidence to use public transport.

58. Members discussed and agreed the priorities for the bids.

Action Point 9: Secretariat to work up four research proposals for Department for Transport funding, in descending order of priority:
  a) The inclusive transport performance index
  b) Travel Training for Disabled People
  c) Charging and provision of disabled parking bays
  d) Pavement parking policies and practices.

Action Point 10: Work up proposed work plan tasks for Bus, Coach and Community Transport; Maritime, Olympic, Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle and Rail areas.

Agenda Item 10: Draft Taxi Accessibility Position Paper

59. DPTAC Chair Neil Betteridge referred members to the short paper on concerns relating to the issue of taxi accessibility. The Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Working group had asked for comments by Main Committee on the draft paper.

60. Neil reminded members that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 gave the Secretary of State the power to set accessibility regulations for taxis. This had proved a challenge because a taxi that was accessible to people who used wheelchairs might not be accessible to some disabled people who do not, including many members of his own organisation, Arthritis Care. He noted DPTAC's concern at the length of time it had taken the government to decide on a way forward.

61. Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Working Group Chair Tom Pey reported that he had written to Miranda Carter, Head of Mobility and Inclusion Unit, seeking assurances from her that the Department for Transport would introduce taxi accessibility regulations.

62. Tom advised members that at the last Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Working Group meeting, the Mobility and Inclusion Unit had explained that although they were determined to improve the accessibility of the taxi fleet they were unsure if it would be best achieved through regulation or a Code of Practice.

63. Members discussed whether regulations should determine the standard for a single accessible vehicle, in an industry where many operators were self employed and where, if vehicles became too expensive, operators could change to a Private Hire Vehicle, which Ministers had no powers to regulate.

64. However, members considered that disabled people had a right to accessible vehicles. Members suggested that response times for particular categories of disabled people might be a performance indicator for a taxi fleet, something that DPTAC's proposed Inclusive Transport Performance Index could include.

65. Members recognised that currently not all disabled people were able to consistently use taxis throughout the country. For instance, taxis in London were all wheelchair accessible but were inaccessible to many ambulant disabled people. On the other hand in many parts of the country most, if not all, an authority's taxi fleet was made up of saloon vehicles which were accessible to ambulant disabled people but not so for wheelchair users. Whilst it was acknowledged that a mixed fleet would be fairer than the current licensing policy for all disabled people it would nevertheless provide a worse service for some groups - such as wheelchair users in London.

66. Tom Pey felt it important to ensure equity of outcome, and that this was not only a social issue but also an economic issue. He felt that there was a need to urge the Department for Transport to regulate sensibly even if this required amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act.

67. Member considered that self regulation by local authorities could lead to a reduced and inconsistent service to end users as in some areas drivers would withdraw from the sector. Others felt that progress had been made towards a technical standard, but further work was needed to enable more ambulant disabled people to access wheelchair accessible taxis, and that it might still be possible to design a vehicle to suit all needs. Motor manufacturers could be approached as this would increase competition in the industry.

68. Members thought that it should be possible to separate out the physical requirements of a vehicle set out in accessibility regulations, from economic considerations which could be managed by the process of procurement and the management of licensing.

69. Will Bee set out the Disability Rights Commission's position. He noted the need for further work to design an accessible taxi to allow greater independence for disabled people with as little intervention as possible from the driver. Given the size of the market, and the complexity of design issues, there was no technical solution available or on the horizon for a taxi that could accommodate the needs of all. Though possible from an engineering perspective, it had to be affordable, and used in sufficient numbers to incentivise manufacturers. A blanket regulation under Part 3, even within the parameters of the policy statement of 2002, was probably not a viable option.

70. Many people who could not transfer from their wheelchair, lived in areas with no or with few wheelchair accessible cabs, or alternatives. Licensing authorities needed to require a proportion of their Hackney cab trade to provide for wheelchair users, particularly those unable to transfer from their chair into a conventional saloon car, and the criterion should be that a wheelchair user would not normally wait longer than a non-disabled person for a taxi.

71. The solution could be that, depending on local demand, between a third and half of cabs should meet that criterion. In recognition of the economic costs of a cab, work was needed on developing ways to avoid penalising taxi drivers buying such vehicles. The licensing authority could review the cost of licences and reduce them for those people who were buying accessible cabs, and the plates that went with them.

72. Will Bee considered that the single equality bill bringing together all the equalities legislation, which the Government was committed have on the statute book by the end of the current Parliament, provided a suitable legislative opportunity.

Action Point 11: Redraft taxi position paper in the light of comments made at Main Committee for agreement by DPTAC Chair.

Action Point 12: Request a meeting, alongside Chair of Disability Rights Commission, with the Minister to discuss DPTAC's taxi position paper.

Agenda Item 11: Lifting of Part 3 of Disability Discrimination Act/Introduction of Disability Equality Duty

73. DPTAC Chair Neil Betteridge invited members to review the lifting of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act and the introduction of Disability Equality Duty. He noted that 4 December had seen the lifting of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act and the introduction of the Disability Equality Duty. DPTAC had issued a press notice on both of these and made itself available for media interviews.

74. Richard West noted the need to consider the needs of people with learning difficulties, especially those from black and other ethnic minorities.

75. Neil noted that DPTAC would continue to monitor progress on both of these topics, particularly following up on disability equality schemes in the transport area.

Agenda Item 12: Provision of Assessment Services to Older and Disabled Drivers

76. Neil Betteridge Chair of DPTAC, noted that Miranda Carter, Head of the Mobility and Inclusion Unit, had invited him to take part in a meeting to discuss the provision of assessment services to older and disabled drivers at the same time as the DPTAC Main Committee meeting. The Department for Transport had been proposing to introduce changes which it claimed would improve the quantity, quality and consistency of driving assessments and advice, and to reduce costs, by restructuring its role. Miranda Carter had been exploring this with a range of stakeholders. Neil noted that as he had needed to decline the invitation to take part in the meeting, as DPTAC Main Committee had priority, Miranda had agreed to come straight from that meeting to this to ensure that DPTAC was at least briefed.

77. Miranda reported on the meeting. To many disabled people public transport was not an option. There was a clear link between age and disability and many older and disabled drivers wanted to continue to drive, and needed to be assessed to establish their ability to do so and any adjustments that night be needed. Younger drivers needed assessments too.

78. Miranda stated that the Department was concerned about the consistency and the provision across the country. If a disabled person had to drive over 100 miles for their assessment, they would not be able to give their best.

79. The restructuring was about increasing personal mobility and developing a shared understanding of what had to happen for this to take place. The meeting had looked at how to include different people in provision of driver assessments and had drawn up a short action plan was to improve personal mobility by increasing assessments and locations.. Miranda felt that it had been productive and it was important to maintain this group for at least three more meetings. DPTAC would be asked to field a representative.

80. DPTAC Member Alan Norton asked if the assessment were just on motor vehicles or spread to wheelchair users. Miranda responded that they would look at drivers and passengers, but also looked at drivers and employment issues. She added that the assessments would look at motor cycles also.

81. Neil asked about the provision of information on assessments and adaptations that MAVIS had provided in the past. Miranda replied that the review would be looking at the work of the assessment services as a whole, driver assessment was just the front end of the service. They would be looking at relocating the work around Blue Badge information and assessment centres.

82. Miranda noted that the Department was looking at having better regional coverage. To do this the Department planned to involve new players in the field and would itself provide a high quality centre of expertise. Sometimes it might be possible to use technology like the web to test for driver reaction times.

83. Alan Norton suggested the independent living centres could serve as regional assessment centres. One common problem could be travelling to and from an assessment centre, especially when the assessed person was no longer not able to drive back home if they had failed the assessment.

Action Point 13: Mobility and Inclusion Unit to involve DPTAC in further consultation on driver assessments.

Agenda Item 13: Any Other Business

84. Neil noted that there were two items of other business. Firstly, Transport for London has asked DPTAC to nominate two members to the focus group it is setting up to help support and monitor its Disability Equality Scheme. Neil noted that DPTAC had been involved in the production of a draft scheme, commented at some length on it, including congratulating them for being so far ahead of the game.

85. Members agreed that DPTAC should not be too London centred, it would be inappropriate for DPTAC to be represented on this group. Members were asked to suggest London-based groups, or themselves, but not in their DPTAC role.

86. Secondly, AGE - the European Older People's Platform, had nominated DPTAC to the VOICE campaign. VOICE was a coalition of organisations concerned with the safety of vulnerable road users, led by the European Transport Safety Council. VOICE had presented DPTAC with the first VOICE Mobility Award in recognition of its contribution towards the protection of vulnerable road users. The award took the form of an original cartoon that had been published in Voice Newspaper. Neil said he was pleased to accept the award on DPTAC's behalf and it would have pride of place in the DPTAC office. Neil stated he would write on DPTAC's behalf thanking them for the honour.

87. Neil offered members the compliments of the season and thanked all for their contributions.

Action Point 14: Suggest possible nominees (not to represent DPTAC) for Transport for London Disability Equality Scheme monitoring group.

• About DPTAC

Top of page