DPTAC response to:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Rail Vehicles - Consultation on the Government's proposals to amend the Rail provisions in Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act

Introduction

1. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Department for Transport's, 'Consultation on the Government's proposals to amend the Rail provisions in Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act'.

2. DPTAC was established under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Government on the transport needs of disabled people. Our role was extended in 2000, on a non-statutory basis, to advise the Government on the built environment needs of disabled people.

3. We based our advice on four underlying principles, which are that:

• accessibility for disabled people is a condition of any investment;
• accessibility for disabled people must be a mainstream activity;
• users should be involved in determining accessibility;
• achieving accessibility for disabled people is the responsibility of the provider.

4. These principles are the basis of our response.

General

5. DPTAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on this consultation and is pleased that the Department for Transport is taking this opportunity to clarify requirements and rectify omissions which have become apparent since the drafting of the original Disability Discrimination Act and Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations. However we are disappointed by the length of time that it has taken to reach this stage, as the recommendations upon which it is based were first made by the Disability Rights Task Force in 1999 and accepted by the Government in 2001.

6. In line with the rest of the population, disabled people's expectations are higher than ever before, in terms of being able to travel when, where and how they chose. It is DPTAC's stated aim 'to ensure that disabled people can go where everyone else goes and that they can do so easily and without extra cost'. To this end, DPTAC would wish to see full compliance across the rail network as soon as possible.

7. However we are aware that there are considerable cost and engineering implications to the industry, and accept that it is not reasonable or practical to expect TOCs to replace their whole fleet instantly. Accessibility must be achieved through a structured, mutually agreeable programme which is transparent to both the industry and users.

8. It is DPTAC's view that the most practical and pragmatic way forward is to achieve a balance between end dates and refurbishment regulations to achieve optimum accessibility within the shortest timescale.

9. We do feel, however, that during any consideration of timescales and end dates, it should be remembered that we are not starting from a blank sheet, the DDA has been in place since 1995, the RVAR since 1998 and in July 2000, the Government clearly set out its stance in its ten-year plan for transport, Transport 2010^[1].

10. The Rail Industry, in common with other service providers, has been aware of the Government's and intention to legislate for a long time and should already be well advanced in planning and implementing access for disabled people.

11. DPTAC recognise that some operators have taken this proactive approach and have used the time to develop and implement good practice in providing access for disabled people, thereby spreading costs. DPTAC commend these operators and welcome the social and financial benefits they have achieved.

12. However some operators have chosen to adopt a 'wait and see' stance. This 'minimum standard' approach to accessibility, which demonstrates a lack of commitment to meet the needs of disabled passengers, is not acceptable and should not be seen as valid grounds to delay the implementation of an end date.

Proposed changes

End Date

13. The Government is committed to integrated public transport and to enforceable civil rights for disabled people. These commitments must be translated into quantifiable legislation.

14. DPTAC understands that this is only the first stage of the consultation and that a definitive end date will be established following the more focussed subsequent consultation. We would take this opportunity to urge the Government to set the end dates as early as is practicable, to allow disabled people the ability to use the rail network or at least to consider rail as a viable transport alternative.

15. It is unlikely that any rail journey would be made in isolation, most potential rail passengers would have to use some other form of transport to get to the station, and/or to continue their journey. It is therefore vital that every step of the journey is accessible.

16. We believe that an end date of 2017 should be introduced, to bring rail in line with the bus industry. Continuity between RVAR and The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) 2000 would be a major step towards the 'seamless' journey that is required to give disabled people the confidence and ability to travel independently with ease, safety and in comfort.

17. However, DPTAC concede that some operators may have legitimate reasons to consider this date unfeasible. To address these cases, a robust exemption process should be put in place. This exemption process should place the duty firmly on the owner/operator to demonstrate that they are taking accessibility seriously and would consider owner/operators and vehicles on a case by case basis.

18. DPTAC recommend that an end date of 2025 should be set for all exemptions granted under this process.

19. DPTAC are sensitive to the need to strike a balance between end dates and refurbishment to achieve optimum accessibility within the shortest time scale. Any agreed end date must be backed up by a strong and proactive refurbishment programme which will improve access (if not achieve full compliance) in the interim.

20. DPTAC have no wish to delay or impede this process, we would rather see an active, ongoing programme of refurbishment than wait for the industry to comply with a distant end date.

21. If companies can demonstrate that an end date of 2017 would cause them to delay or even cancel refurbishment programmes which would impede accessibility then they should apply to be considered under the above exemption process.

22. DPTAC believe that any agreed end date should override any prior lifetime exemptions, except those granted on grounds of innovation and heritage (see paras 60-64). DPTAC also agree that the of the scope of RVAR should be extended to include mass transit systems, as we see no reason for their current exemption from RVAR.

23. DPTAC supports the amendment of RVAR to include all new vehicles rather than just new classes of vehicles.

24. In the 6 years since RVAR came into effect, the problems and areas of non compliance with classes of trains already in service or in development, have been identified and in many cases solutions have been developed and implemented. It is up to the industry to find appropriate solutions and share good practice.

25. DPTAC firmly believe that there is no justification or reason for any non-compliant trains to still be in production.

Refurbishment

26. As stated earlier, DPTAC believe that any agreed end date must be backed up by a strong and proactive refurbishment programme.

27. DPTAC realise that through interim improvements, a large proportion of vehicles will become accessible, if not fully compliant, long before the end date.

28. However any such programme must be transparent, structured and enforceable. In terms of the options identified in the consultation, DPTAC agree that the most efficient and effective method of implementing a refurbishment programme would be by means of the 'Menu' option.

29. We appreciate the practical issues involved in undertaking refurbishment work whilst still providing a full, uninterrupted service for all passengers, and believe this approach would be the most cost effective and cause minimum disruption by giving greater control to the vehicle owners and operators, enabling them to factor access improvements into routine maintenance/refurbishment schedules, thereby reducing costs and downtime.

30. However we do not feel that this approach goes far enough since it only takes into account 'like for like' improvements and does not apply to facilities where they do not already exist. We recommend that this option should be extended to become a 'Menu Plus' approach which would then cover the installation of items as such as passenger information systems and wheelchair accessible toilets where they do not currently exist.

31. DPTAC feel that this is especially important as the provision or absence of Passenger Information Systems and wheelchair accessible toilets are two of the major barriers or deterrents preventing many disabled people from using the rail network.

32. Good, clear, reliable, up-to-date information is essential not only to people with visual and hearing impairments, but also to ambulant disabled people, who may need advance warning and preparation time to act eg prior to arriving at their destination station or when a change of platform is announced. It should also be noted that this applies to many other groups of rail passengers such as older people, parents with small children and/or buggies and people with heavy bags or luggage.

33. Accurate and reliable information is also key to relieving stress for people with mental health problems, learning disabilities as well as tourists and other passengers travelling on an unfamiliar route.

34. DPTAC does not consider it unreasonable to expect a wheelchair accessible toilet on all trains making journeys of more than one hour's duration.

35. DPTAC strongly feel that these are not items which can reasonably be allowed to remain unaltered or absent until the agreed end date and need to be addressed during refurbishment.

36. We are aware of the need for very thorough consideration on how to take this 'Menu Plus' option forward and would expect the next phase of the consultation to explore more closely the drafting and implementation.

37. Again, DPTAC would expect any refurbishment regime to be backed up by a robust enforcement procedure implemented by appropriately trained and resourced staff.

38. It is vital that this is not seen as a disincentive to refurbish existing rolling stock, or used as a loophole by owners/operators in order to avoid making what are perceived to be expensive accessibility improvements.

39. We would seek the inclusion of a process by which operators must demonstrate that they have ensured that improvements to access have been considered (even if they have not been implemented), every time money is spent on vehicles prior to the end date. We also would seek a system which encourages owners/operator of even vehicles with limited franchise or vehicle life to do as much as possible towards access if not full compliance.

Compliance Certification

40. DPTAC supports the introduction of Compliance Certificates such as those issued under Schedule 4 of the PSVAR.

41. This formal compliance process will clarify requirements and eliminate areas of ambiguity which currently exist. It would send a clear message to train designers, manufactures, owners and operators that access for disabled passengers should not be treated as an 'optional extra'.

42. However we are concerned that a Compliance Certificate should not be seen merely as a 'tick box' for accessibility. It is often the everyday operational policies and practices of operators and staff that make vehicles inaccessible. A commonly cited example of this operational non-compliance is a wheelchair space which users are unable to access if the table is left locked in place, as is often the case.

43. To ensure that compliance with RVAR is seen as essential at both the design, manufacture and operational stages of a vehicle's life, we would seek assurances that an ongoing regime to monitor operational compliance and maintenance will be included under this certification process. This regime should be proactive and carried out by fully trained and resourced inspectors.

44. DPTAC feel that this monitoring and enforcement of compliance is vital if disabled people are to have the confidence to travel and to ensure that money spent on implementing and improving accessible facilities is not wasted by misuse or bad practice.

45. DPTAC are aware that in future the RVAR will be superseded by European Interoperability Directives, such as those already in effect for Heavy Rail systems.

46. DPTAC welcome this opportunity to standardise requirements and provisions across Europe. However, we share the concerns of many disabled people that in order to do so across a number of regulatory regimes with varying or no accessibility standards, that these industry lead directives may take a more conservative approach that we would wish.

47. We understand that the UK Government is committed to not lowering the current standards of RVAR and we urge them to ensure that the RVAR is used as a base standard for any European Interoperability Directive including accessibility requirements.

48. We would also request assurances that the Government would seek an exemption from any such Directive if its requirements were less than those currently laid out in RVAR.

Decriminalisation

49. DPTAC support the decriminalisation of the offences in Section 46 and the implementation of civil sanctions.

50. Regulations are only as strong as the relevant monitoring and enforcement regime, and DPTAC is well aware that the current system is ineffective and does not command respect.

51. We would therefore welcome the establishment of a strong and proactive enforcement regime.

52. DPTAC would also seek assurances that any enforcement scheme would be adequately resourced to ensure that it is proactive rather just rely on customer complaints.

53. However we are concerned that the term 'light touch' enforcement regime, as used in the consultation document, does not sit well with many disabled people.

54. DPTAC would urge the Department to reconsider this terminology so as to reassure disabled people that the proposed changes are for the benefit of passengers rather than the industry.

Exemptions

55. DPTAC welcomes the simplification of the RVAR exemption procedures under section 47 of the DDA 1995.

56. As a statutory consultee and active participant in the RVAR exemption process, we are well aware of the shortcomings of current exemption process.

57. We agree that the current requirement for all exemptions orders to be made by Statutory Instrument following Parliamentary approval is unnecessary and time consuming.

58. During this consultation process we have sought and received reassurance from the Department for Transport that DPTAC will still be included in the exemption process and are content with these assurances. We are also content with assurances that the simplification of the process will not mean a relaxation of the current strict criteria. Following these assurances, DPTAC sees no problem with the concept of Administration Orders which would be drafted and authorised by the Department for Transport.

59. DPTAC are pleased by the decreasing number of applications for exemption from RVAR over the last few years. We see this as a positive indication that the Rail Industry is 'designing in' accessibility and finding solutions to existing problems. We would encourage TOC's to innovate and share existing good practice.

60. In 2003 the majority of applications considered were from heritage organisations who, in most cases, are providing an experience rather than a transport service.

61. Although we agree that, given the nature of the vehicles and service, it seems inappropriate that small, voluntary organisations should have to go through the same process as TOC's, we are concerned that they should not be completely exempt from the process. We feel that it is important that such organisations should still be encouraged to comply with the spirit if not the letter of the regulations.

62. DPTAC have been encouraged that it is often these smaller organisations who try the hardest and devise the most innovative solutions to give access to disabled people. We would encourage the introduction of a simplified process by which heritage organisations could seek advice and guidance on accessibility and staff training issues.

63. We have also been pleased to recommend the granting of exemptions on the grounds of innovation. Several operators have developed facilities which, whilst not complying with the exact technical specification of RVAR, are well within the spirit and attempt to improve the quality of the travelling experience for disabled passengers. DPTAC welcome these applications and strongly believe that there will always be a place for innovation within the framework of the RVAR.

64. We believe that only current exemptions granted on the basis of innovation or heritage should be exempt from the agreed end date.

Implementation

65. Whilst we share the concern of many disabled people that rail provisions are not included in the current draft Disability Bill, it is our understanding that the conclusions of this and the subsequent consultation will feed into the final Disability Bill.

66. DPTAC welcome assurances from the Department for Transport that draft regulations will be ready for inclusion and rail provisions fully covered when the Disability Bill is presented to Parliament.

Conclusion

67. DPTAC welcome the proposals to amend the rail provisions in Part V of the DDA1995. We believe that a review of the current provisions is necessary and long overdue.

68. We believe that the rail industry need clear, unequivocal direction that access for disabled passengers is not a luxury or an optional extra. DPTAC believe it is unacceptable that in 2004 many disabled rail passengers travelling on routes served by Mark I 'slam door' stock are still forced to travel in guards vans without heat, light or any proper security measures.

69. In the process of creating a fully compliant rail network, the introduction of an agreed end date and refurbishment regulations will give guidance and clarity to both the industry and disabled people in terms of what needs to be done, how it will be done and when it will be done.

70. To ensure ongoing compliance and accessibility, it is vital that these regulations are backed up by robust, proactive and fully resourced monitoring and enforcement regimes.

71. Whilst we understand that the rail industry, - in common with all other industries - does not enjoy unlimited funding, we do not accept that cost should be the deciding factor in providing access for disabled passengers, limited budgets should not be used as an excuse to avoid responsibility.

72. We firmly believe that the operators and regulators should ensure that all available money is used wisely to ensure maximum benefit to all passengers.

73. We feel that the rail industry should realise that access is not just about expenditure, but also about creating revenue by carrying more fare paying passengers.

• Responses to consultations

Top of page