Minutes of the DPTAC Main Committee Meeting:
13 December 2007
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: 13 December 2007 (103kb)
MS Word version: Minutes of the DPTAC Main Committee Meeting: 13 December 2007 (102kb)
Chair:
Neil Betteridge
Members present:
Pravin Amin
Ann Bates
Sean Bolton
Vidur Dindayal
David Finnegan
Roger Hewitt
Tomi Jones
Judith Jesky
Nicola McLeish
Marilyn Lister
Grahame Lawson
Wendy Morrell
Alan Norton
Katherine Phipps
Dai Powell
Carol Thomas
Observers present:
Barbara Vincent - Office for Disability Issues, Department for Works and Pensions
Emma Sinclair - Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland
Lynne Duffield - Transport Division, Scottish Government
Gregor Kerr - Department of Regional Development, Northern Ireland
Officials in attendance:
Nigel Dotchin - Department for Transport, Accessibility and Equalities Unit
Sally Kendall - Department for Transport, Accessibility and Equalities Unit
Jimi Adeleye - DPTAC Secretariat
Sam Francis - DPTAC Secretariat
Michael Parsons - DPTAC Secretariat
Anthony Youngman - Personal Assistant to Michael Parsons, DPTAC Secretariat
Fatmer Caffer - DPTAC Secretariat
David Hewitt - BSL Interpreter
Gill Rutherford - BSL Interpreter
Norma White - Palantypist
Apologies:
Jean Dunlop - DPTAC Member
Keith Richards - DPTAC Member
Tom Pey - DPTAC Member
Richard West - DPTAC Member
Gary Kemp - DPTAC Secretariat
Mike Spearing - Welsh Assembly
Agenda item 1: Welcome, introductions and apologies
1. Neil Betteridge, Chair of DPTAC, welcomed everyone present and apologised for the late dispatch of papers for the meeting because of the considerable pressure that the Secretariat had been under of late with the changes to personnel.
2. Neil acknowledged that there was some uncertainty among members since the outcome of the appointment/ re-appointment process was still not known. He expressed his appreciation to current members, stating how he valued their contributions toward the achievement of the goals of DPTAC.
3. Apologies were received from Jean Dunlop and Richard West. Neil offered his best wishes to Jean for her recovery from illness. Neil reported that Tom Pey, who was unable to attend, had decided not to reapply for membership of DPTAC due to other commitments. Neil expressed his appreciation to Tom for all his hard work and commitment to DPTAC over the years.
4. Neil also expressed the Committee's appreciation to Michael Parsons who had been on secondment with the DPTAC Secretariat for two years and was due to return to the Joint Mobility Access Partnership at the end of January 2008.
5. Neil reminded members of the drinks reception planned after the meeting, and conveyed the apologies of Rosie Winterton, Minister of State for Transport, who would not be able to attend the reception as earlier planned.
Agenda item 2: Minutes of previous main committee meeting 13 September
6. The minutes were agreed subject to Carol Thomas being recorded as not present.
Action: Secretariat.
Agenda item 3: Matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda
7. All matters were covered by the agenda.
Agenda item 4: Report from DPTAC Chair and Working Group Chairs (Paper 04-M4-07)
8. Carol Thomas reported that the inclusive design school resource had been launched in November at the Design and Technology Association and had had excellent feedback. She said there would be further regional launches in London and in Liverpool early in the New Year.
9. Grahame Lawson would circulate a revised version of his report on the Personal Mobility and Local Authority working group updating the number of consultation responses. Grahame thanked those members who had come back with comments.
10. David Finnegan had three questions for working group chairs:
- Whether something like the i-Bus trials could be undertaken outside London;
- Whether the Buses, Coaches and CT working group could influence the small vehicle manufacturers to produce low floor chassis buses to cater for rural needs;
- How was the Education and Training working group working with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) to raise awareness about the built environment in schools.
11. In response to (i), Dai Powell replied that the group would wait and see how it worked in London first. He said that Transport for London was investing a huge amount of money in the i-bus project.
12. On (ii), Dai said that the accessibility specification for small buses would be of no use at all if it was not taken up by manufacturers, who had to be convinced of its commercial viability.
13. Dai further suggested looking to local authority procurement as a means of ensuring that the accessibility specification for small buses became a reality.
14. In response to (iii) Carol Thomas said that she had written to CABE but that the reply had not been helpful, and needed to be followed up.
15. David referred to Katherine's report of the Olympic working group and asked about the research on signage and way-finding mechanisms and whether this would be reflected in Department for Transport's inclusive mobility guidelines when revised. Katherine responded that the findings would be conveyed to the Olympic Delivery Authority's Accessible Transport Panel.
16. David Finnegan asked Ann Bates whether the raised platform humps that she had been to view at London Underground would be suitable for other parts of the rail system. Ann said that the humps could be rolled out to other parts of the system, but that train configuration was a problem.
17. David asked in relation to accessible taxis whether the Accessibility and Equalities Unit (AEU) could shed some light on the outcome on the Department's survey.
18. Nigel Dotchin responded that the survey was something that the Department carried out on a regular basis and that AEU was looking to see if any additional questions that could be included. He said that a key question for the Department was how many local authorities had accessible taxi policies. It was important to establish a baseline to monitor progress.
19. Vidur Dindayal referred back to the comments about CABE and the Inclusive Environment Group (IEG). Grahame explained that there had been no equivalent to the Inclusive Environment Group when the Built Environment Working Group within DPTAC had been set up.
20. Grahame referred to the trials at Heathrow Terminal 5 and reported that he and others who took part in the trials had found it very interesting. He mentioned that there was still an opportunity for people to take part in these trials by visiting the Heathrow Terminal 5 website and register for the proving trials. He said the trials would continue until the actual opening of the Terminal in March 2008.
21. Grahame commented that Terminal 5 was much better than Terminals 1, 2, 3 and 4. The developers seemed quite willing to learn and the proving trials demonstrated this.
22. Judith Jesky had had some concerns about the lifting and handling of people who could not self transfer onto planes. She drew attention to hoist equipment called Eagle 2, used by Quantas Airlines. Ann Bates mentioned that she and Sean Bolton were both on the Code of Practice on Access to Air Travel group and that she would explore how information about the hoist could be shared across the industry.
23. Tomi Jones mentioned that at the last meeting of the Maritime Working Group, he had raised some concerns about the British Standards Institution's (BSI) requirement for payment before DPTAC could use any of its figures and numbers. He asked whether or not the committee had heard back from BSI. He wanted this matter to be resolved in case DPTAC might need to use BSI standards in future.
24. The Secretary responded that the Secretariat had written to BSI to express the committee's displeasure at the prospect of having to pay for using or referring to their standards in a publication. However there had been no reply despite reminders.
25. Neil highlighted the difficulty in discussing progress on the Maritime guidance in the absence of Jean Dunlop. He asked how the consultation exercise was progressing. The Secretary responded that the consultation closed on 5 December and that the Secretariat was collating and analysing all responses received for a meeting of the Maritime Working Group to be held in the New Year.
Agenda item 5: Progress Report on 2007-08 Work Programme (Paper 05-M4-07)
26. In addressing this paper, Neil mentioned the launch of the on board wheelchair, for use on aeroplanes, the small buses specification launched in Manchester at the Community Transport Association conference, and the consultation on maritime guidance.
27. Neil also highlighted that about 28 consultations had so far been responded to and that there were at least another 5 outstanding. This represented an increase of 7 since the last meeting in September. He remarked that DPTAC was averaging about 7 consultations per quarter.
28. Sean Bolton wanted to know whether or not there had been any feedback on the committee's response to the Transport Bill consultation earlier in the year. The Secretary responded that there had been no formal feedback but that the Secretariat had been following the progress of the Bill.
29. Dai Powell added that community transport groups had responded along similar lines to DPTAC. The only additional issue was the charging of individual fares for vehicles of 8 or 9 passengers and below, because the taxi trade was uncomfortable with this.
30. Nigel Dotchin said that, with regard to the clause on DPTAC members' payment, it had not come up in the debate as yet.
31. Ann Bates commented on Task 24 of the work programme and the growing number of dispensation requests that the Rail Working Group had had to deal with. She said this would get better as more members of the Rail Working Group became involved and that a template for dealing with the requests was being developed.
32. Ann also commented on Task 25 and suggested that, with the forthcoming publication of the new rail consultations, this should be reviewed with the Secretariat.
Action: Ann Bates / Secretariat.
Agenda item 6: Accessibility and Equalities Unit Update Report (Paper 06-M4-07)
33. Nigel Dotchin highlighted the progress on the Blue Badge and the possibility of going out to consultation in January. He made reference to secure stations and the very successful award scheme which recently took place in London, which Ann Bates had attended.
34. He mentioned travel training and gave updates on accessibility work being done across all modes of transport. He mentioned the Office for Disability Issues' strategy on Independent Living which would be published for consultation in the New Year.
35. David Finnegan commented that any travel training manual produced ought to address the full range of disabilities.
36. On personal security and taxis, David thought that the taxi working group should be advising the Department and Ministers on private hire vehicles.
37. Alan Norton said that, with regard to the Blue Badge scheme, he had read a report that the Department of Health was planning to move the eligibility assessment away from doctors. He also asked about taxis that did not stop for disabled people. He cited an example of being refused by four different taxis at Euston station. He asked about the plans to bring in some stronger legislation that would make taxis more accessible.
38. Grahame said that changes to the assessment of the Blue Badge scheme was another indication of lack of joined up government. He said that the report was commissioned by the Department for Health under its Care Services Efficiency Delivery Programme which showed that it was not cost-effective for the eligibility assessment for Blue Badge to be carried out by GPs. It was unfortunate that DPTAC had not been involved in, nor advised of, this research.
39. With regard to taxi accessibility, Neil reminded members that there was legislation in place to protect disabled people, but that the onus was on disabled people to take action. Sean Bolton suggested that the DPTAC Taxi Working Group and the Accessibility and Equality Unit could jointly put out some information or guidance on how disabled people could actually go about enforcing their rights and taking action against errant taxi drivers.
40. Wendy Morrell highlighted her own personal experiences of seeing several taxis drive past her. She agreed with Neil that disabled people currently had to take matters into their own hands. Neil mentioned that taxi drivers could often be hostile towards those with non-visible disability, as he himself had experienced.
41. Tomi Jones mentioned that in New South Wales, Australia, the government was trialling the payment of taxi operators $8 per head for every disabled individual carried.
42. Carol Thomas mentioned that Guide Dogs were still being inundated with complaints from people whose guide dogs were refused in taxis.
43. Nigel mentioned the new guidance to authorities on taking assistance dogs in taxis and that AEU would be monitoring how well this was taken up. He referred to the former Disability Rights Commission guidance on Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act as it impacted on taxi drivers and operators. This was now on the website of the new Equality and Human Rights Commission. He thought there might be a case for the DPTAC Taxi Working Group looking at how this could be promulgated further.
44. Ann Bates highlighted the importance of having good evidence and possibly a witness when taking action against errant taxi drivers. She mentioned a practice known in the trade as 'sweeping' where, if the first taxi refused to take a particular customer, then other subsequent taxis would also refuse to take the fare.
45. David Finnegan said that there was sufficient expertise and experience in DPTAC and its partner organisations to ensure that successful cases were brought, and that those who needed assistance could receive the help in making a good case. He said disabled people should take advantage of the free half an hour consultation available from solicitor in the country. He suggested writing to RADAR to explore whether they could take this forward.
46. Neil Betteridge mentioned that he was due to meet with Liz Sayce soon and that he would mention the issue of taxi enforcement in their discussion.
Action: Neil Betteridge.
47. Dai Powell asked whether it would be possible to get an update on a report produced by AEU on Community Transport and Social Inclusion, and whether there could be a regular update on development on the i-bus and audio visual announcements. Neil agreed that this should be a standing item.
Action: AEU.
48. Nigel said that there was a lot going on in terms of improving the technology and rolling out information. He said that there was scope for encouraging and sharing best practice between different bus groups and bus operators. DfT and RNIB were represented on the Real Time Information Group.
49. Carol Thomas said that the search for good practice was all well and good and should be encouraged, but that should not take the place of regulations.
50. Dai Powell said that the cost was dependent on what sort of system or technology was adopted. He agreed with Carol that the committee ought to push much harder on this and suggested that it could be something for the meeting between the Chair of DPTAC and the Minister.
51. Neil agreed and said that he was quite happy to raise this with the Minister.
Action: DPTAC Chair to raise the issue of audio-visual aids on buses at his meeting with the Minister.
52. Ann Bates welcomed the grant funding for Ricability's 'Wheels within wheels', as she found the publication useful in her work with the rail industry. Her concern had been that it was not being up-dated with new types of wheelchairs.
53. Ann also mentioned the 'Access for all' schemes, and the fact that this programme was now in its second and third rounds. She was disappointed with the number of schemes that had actually been completed. She recognised that improvements could take longer where it was necessary to shut down lines. As far as bids were concerned, she did not favour more lowered ticket window bids, and would welcome members' views on this.
54. David Finnegan said with regard to the Ricability guidance that he had asked several times for the Department for Transport to come back to DPTAC with a kite mark for transport user-friendly wheelchairs.
55. David said that he had actually designed a variable height counter and that this was being installed at rail stations in Merseyside. Ann favoured such a development.
56. Nigel said that revision of 'Wheels within wheels' was part of the Ricability programme, and that there had been some discussions with manufacturers about kite marking, so these issues were firmly on the agenda.
Agenda item 7: Transport Issues in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland (Papers 07-M4-07, 08-M4-07)
57. Lynne Duffield and Emma Sinclair presented the update on Scotland. They highlighted the future of Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS). They pointed out that one of the manifesto commitments of the new Scottish Government was to reduce the number of Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) by 25%. The First Minister announced a review of all the NDPBs in Scotland on 13 September, and the outcome of the review would be announced in the New Year.
58. They also reported on demand responsive transport, following the Scottish spending review in November. Scottish Ministers had decided that funding for community transport was to be handed over to local government.
59. MACS was concerned that the money was not going to be ring-fenced. Because of that, the Committee would be writing to the Minister on how local authorities could be given the best possible support to help implement the schemes.
60. Another priority for the Scottish Government was the concessionary fares review. This was something that Transport Scotland was undertaking and MACS was working closely with the consultants conducting the review.
61. It had also been decided that the MACS Secretariat would be co-located with Scottish Government.
62. Finally, Glasgow had succeeded in its bid to host the Commonwealth Games in 2014. MACS had been interested in how the DPTAC Olympic Working Group had been working with the Olympic Delivery Authority on accessibility issues. MACS was keen to shadow DPTAC in this role as there would be similar issues for Glasgow.
63. Dai Powell was concerned that there was a danger of funds for demand responsive transport being diverted thereby hampering a very good system which Scotland had had over the years.
64. Lyne replied that the Committee had been building up a relationship with the new regional transport partnerships in the expectation that they would take forward demand responsive transport. However, members were pleased that the role was going back to local authorities since they believed that local authorities had a lot more expertise.
65. Ann Bates commended MACS' commitment and dedication to accessibility, and she hoped that there would be some robust obligations to accessibility built into their remit, before the changes took place.
66. David Finnegan mentioned that it would be useful for MACS to also work with Marcia Bromley at Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. He said that Manchester had held a very successful Commonwealth Games and that it could be useful to learn how the accessibility issues had been dealt with.
67. Gregor Kerr gave an update on Northern Ireland. He reported that the Northern Ireland concessionary fare scheme offered a half fare concession to disabled people and that concessions were available all day with no time limit. He added that in the recently published draft budget there had been an expectation from the disability sector that it would be changed to provide a full fare concession.
68. He said that, at the last British/Irish council meeting on accessible transport it was agreed Northern Ireland would have the lead on transport, and should carry out a scoping exercise to look at the possibility of mutual recognition of concessionary fare passes.
69. Northern Ireland had also just reviewed its accessible transport strategy and was consulting on this with the disability sector and representatives of older people. It was due to finish in January 2008. He added that the British/Irish Council had agreed to explore the value of greater communication between representative groups and advisory bodies such as DPTAC, MACS, Northern Ireland Inclusive Mobility Transport, and other similar groups in southern Ireland.
70. Gregor said that he was interested to hear about taxis and buses not stopping to pick up people in wheelchairs. He said that these same issues were being faced by disabled people in Northern Ireland and that it would be useful to explore common solutions.
71. David Finnegan said that he understood that someone living in England who was born and had spent most of their life in Northern Ireland, would not benefit from the concessionary fares when they visited relatives in Northern Ireland. Gregor could not comment on this but would get back to David.
Agenda item 8: List of Consultations 2007-08 (Paper 08-M4-07)
72. This list was noted by members.
Agenda item 9. Agreement of DPTAC meeting calendar 2008-09 (Paper 09-M4-07)
73. Members agreed the calendar.
Agenda item 10: Any other business
74. Sean Bolton and Vidur Dindayal reported back on the 'Getting Out and About' event which had been organised by the Avon and Bristol Law Centre to raise awareness about independent living and accessibility. The key points that came out of the conference were:
- Where and how should disabled people go to express their concerns and/or complaints about transport?
- The need to actively consult disabled people/ groups on local issues before DPTAC published documents such as its work programme;
- Concerns about concessionary fare passes. People found the eligibility criteria for these unclear;
- Concerns about accessibility at train stations and the lack of audio and visual information;
- The different interpretations of legislation around transport for disabled people and the role of DPTAC in this;
- Who had the role of lobbying and campaigning for disabled people at national/ governmental level?
- Concern that transport operators at stations tended to work independently and disjointedly.
75. On the whole, Sean and Vidur felt that the event had been a very useful forum to hear first hand the voice of disabled people. There was a strong feeling that there was no national organisation to champion the views of disabled people and take their concerns forward. Also, there was a need to ensure that people understood the role of DPTAC, especially outside of London.
76. In discussion, David Finnegan highlighted that the Committee had in the past discussed whether it should go to other parts of the country to promote its work. The cost and resources involved in this ought to be considered alongside its potential benefit.
77. Ann Bates agreed that it was difficult for people to know how to make complaints against organisations like the train companies. She suggested putting out an information sheet about how to make complaints.
78. Roger Hewitt wondered whether DPTAC members could offer some advocacy for people who needed to make a complaint about poor services. Grahame reminded members of their roles as the eyes and ears of the Committee.
79. Neil suggested that the Secretariat should draft a formal response to some of the questions from the event.
Action: Secretariat.
80. Neil hoped that members would continue to find opportunities to inform people about matters where DPTAC had a clearly defined position. Neil thought that what was important was for each member to be clear about DPTAC's key priorities for next year and its key achievements, so that when members were acting as ambassadors for DPTAC there would a common message. He said that the Secretariat should also be looking at ways of supporting members in their ambassadorial roles for DPTAC.
81. Pravin Amin said that he had in the past organised an event for disabled and elderly people from the Asian community, and that such community events might provide opportunities for raising awareness about the role of DPTAC.
82. Carol Thomas stressed that it was important to be clear about what DPTAC did and what it had achieved, but at the same time to recognise that there were still many challenges and that expectations had to be realistic.
83. Neil agreed that DPTAC had lots to be proud of but there were still many challenges.
Date of next meeting
84. The next main committee meeting would be on 13 March 2008.
Top of page
|
