DPTAC's response to the Disability Rights Commission's consultation on the draft Supplement to the Part 3 Code of Practice on the Provision and Use of Transport Vehicles

• This document has also been made available in MS Word for downloading (119kb)

Introduction

1. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Disability Rights Commission's consultation on the draft Supplement to the Part 3 Code of Practice on the provision and use of transport vehicles.

2. The Government set up DPTAC under the Transport Act 1985 to advise it on the transport needs of disabled people. Our aim is to ensure that disabled people can go where everyone else goes and that they can do so easily and without extra cost. We would like to see this happen by 2020.

3. DPTAC has identified four overarching principles on which to base its advice to Government, other organisations and disabled people. Those principles are that:

• Public investment will only be made where accessibility has been taken into account;
• Accessibility must be a part of the main stream of business activity;
• Users should be involved in determining accessibility;
• Accessibility for disabled people is the responsibility of the provider.

4. These principles are the basis of DPTAC's response to consultations. In this response, we set out some general issues before making comments specific to this consultation.

General comments

Disabled people in the population

5. DPTAC's principal concern is to ensure accessibility for disabled people. By this we mean inclusive transport systems that are easy to reach, use and understand by all, in safety and comfort.

6. Disabled people account for some ten per cent of the population, about 11 million adults, one in five of working age, and 770,000 children. While higher numbers of children are being born and living with disabilities than ever before, levels of disability do increase with age: 8% of those aged 16-17 years have a current long-term disability, compared with 33% of those aged 50 to 65.   The Department for Work and Pensions estimated in 2004 that disabled people have a spending power of around £80 billion each year.

7. Of disabled people overall, in broad terms:

• 70% have difficulty walking and/or climbing steps;
• 41% have a hearing loss;
• 24% have a vision loss.

8. Currently 985,000 people live with learning disabilities. 796,000 of these are adults aged 20 or over. The adult figure will increase to 855,000 (plus 7%) in 2011 and 891,000 (plus 11%) in 2021. In addition, some 7 million adults have literacy problems.

9. Disabled people are not an homogenous group with identical needs. The needs of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities are distinct from those of wheelchair users for example. Even within disabilities needs vary; for example, a profoundly deaf person will not benefit from an induction loop.

10. Disabled people live throughout the community. One in four households has a disabled resident. The need for access for disabled people is not limited to specific areas or buildings, but present throughout the wider transport and the built environment systems.

Population trends in disability

11. We have seen that older people are more likely to be disabled. In broad terms, over the next 30 years:

• The proportion of the population over 65 will rise by 40%;
• The number of people aged over 65 will double;
• Both the proportion and the number over 80 will double.

12. Over the same period that will bring about these changes in the population profile, the overall population will increase by about 9%.

13. This country risks adverse economic as well as social impacts from this growth in numbers of disabled and older people, if we fail to recognise and address the need for more inclusive environments. Mobility and transport are vital to achieving and sustaining self-sufficiency and independence into old age.

A strategic approach

14. There is enormous scope and opportunity to improve accessibility for disabled people but it will require a strong and continuing commitment at all levels.

15. Accessibility for disabled people can often only be considered in terms in terms of detailed design. DPTAC believes this is no longer sufficient and that strategic decisions, investment and policies must be underpinned by consideration of accessibility for disabled people, with evidence of how diversity has been considered in making decisions. We are also looking for evidence of joined up action by all parties involved in transport service provision.

16. DPTAC welcomes the commitment that the Government has made to accessibility being a condition of public money being spent in support of its Ten Year Plan Transport 2010, and its similar commitment in respect of the Wales Transport Framework.

17. Private and public investors of any transport or built environment project need to know whether investment plans meet the need of disabled people. They will also need evidence that people at all levels of responsibility understand how to provide accessibility for disabled people effectively to prevent a waste of resources.

Key issues in the consultation

Removing discrimination

18. DPTAC warmly welcomes this Supplement to the Code, which will help give effect to the Government's removal of an anomaly in legislation. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 set out requirements for accessible vehicles and infrastructure, but did not do so for the transport services provided with them. Removing this anomaly should help to put an end to the gratuitous discrimination against disabled people which is currently not against the law and which we know regularly occurs. It is important that the Code makes quite clear what the duties and responsibilities of transport operators are, so that they can have no reasonable basis on which to claim that they did not understand the requirements of the law.

19. DPTAC appreciates that the Code alone is unlikely to achieve this. The Disability Rights Commission, DPTAC, central and local government, transport operators and the media will need to work together to supplement it with training, publications and campaigns. We look forward to working with others as part of this process.

Defining reasonable adjustments

20. DPTAC appreciates that the Code cannot anticipate court decisions as to what constitutes a reasonable adjustment. In particular, the Code cannot define what would be a reasonable period of notice for a disabled person to give if they sought, for example, assistance with a train journey or adjustments to a hired car. However we suggest that the Code could contain details of the sorts of factor that a transport service provider should take into account in arriving at a decision as to what would be a reasonable notice periods. This could be similar in format to the list at 5.25 of "the factors which might be taken into account when considering what is reasonable".

Timetable for lifting the transport exemptions

21. The Disability Rights Commission notes (3.19) that the Act enables the Government to lift the exemption for other transport sectors, such as aviation and maritime in the future without the need for further primary legislation. The Government has stated that it will do so for aviation or shipping only if the voluntary approach fails to produce results. DPTAC agrees that the voluntary approach needs to be given time to work. However, we will seek the prompt introduction of regulations as soon as it becomes clear that the voluntary approach has not worked in either of these sectors.

22. The Government plans to lift the exemption of land-based transport in December 2006, though this date does not appear on the face of the draft Code (2.6). DPTAC considers that this is a reasonable timetable and believes that it should not be allowed to slip.

Classes of vehicles for which the exemption will be removed

23. DPTAC generally agrees with the descriptions given of the classes of vehicle for which the exemption is to be removed. (3.8-3.18). However there is some further need for clarification.

24. The Code could clarify that hovercraft and guided ferries are to be considered alongside other aircraft and marine craft respectively, and not included in initial regulations. It could remind readers that the Government is prepared to bring these within the scope of the regulations, should the research being undertaken by DPTAC and the Department for Transport indicate that the current voluntary approach is ineffective.

25. The Code could also confirm that airport terminal transport vehicles will be included in the lifting of the exemption, where they are classified as public service or rail vehicles. DPTAC believes that most airport terminal vehicles will be caught under these definitions.

26. DPTAC understands that ambulances and police vehicles do not provide a "service" as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and will therefore not be caught by section 21ZA, which allows the Government to apply Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to other transport services. However, either this Code or the Disability Equality Code of Practice should confirm that these vehicles are used in exercising public functions. They are therefore likely to be covered by the new provisions prohibiting discrimination enshrined in sections 21B E of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended).

27. DPTAC notes that another class of vehicles whose position is unclear is vehicles that serve public transport as well as other services. For example, we understand that postal vehicles in some parts of the country also offer a public transport service. In some cases, these do not appear to be accessible to all disabled people. It would be helpful if the Code could clarify if these vehicles are likely to be covered by either Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act or the new provisions prohibiting discrimination enshrined in sections 21B E of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended.

28. DPTAC understands that there remains some uncertainty as to whether the extension will cover channel tunnel trains operating on mainline railways. We recommend that this be clarified as a matter of urgency, and that the definitions and examples used in the Code are amended accordingly.

29. DPTAC would like the Code to clarify further that the exemption will be lifted for the hire of a transport service where this is included is part of a package of other services. An example that several disabled people have brought to our attention is where funeral services are commissioned, and there is a need for an adapted vehicle for one or more of the mourners. We would like to see this included in the examples in the Code.

Training

30. In discussing the reasonable steps that an operator could be expected to take to comply with its duty, the Code makes little reference to training (4.17, 5.14, 5.19, 5.22). We believe that this is because training is only one of a number of steps that a service provider might make, and the drafters of the Code did not wish to emphasise one step at the possible expense of others, which might be more appropriate in particular circumstances. However, we do note and applaud the reference to mainstreaming of training in the example in 5.22.

31. We also believe that initial and continuing training for staff in disability equality and awareness and in the implications of the Code are essential if disabled passengers are to be treated fairly and without discrimination, inadvertent or otherwise. Disability awareness and equality training needs to be of a credible standard and delivered by credible trainers. Training should not be restricted to those providing front line services. We recommend that the Disability Rights Commission considers whether the references to training can be increased and amplified.

Involving disabled people in improving services

32. DPTAC welcomes the last five bullet points in Section 4.17 about the need to consult with disabled customers, disabled staff and disability organisations. We believe it is worth highlighting these bullet points as specific actions in involving disabled people in improving transport services - beginning with one about the need for consultation with/participation by disabled people.

Taxi and other fares

33. The regulations will make it illegal for transport service providers to discriminate against a disabled person in providing a service of a lower standard or on less good terms than those available to other members of the public. DPTAC considers that this extends to fare and pricing policies.

34. DPTAC has learnt that it is common practice for taxi drivers to start the meter as soon as they arrive at the pick-up point, and keep it on until the passenger leaves the vehicle. On occasions, it may take longer for some disabled people to board than for a non-disabled person. We would like to see the Code state that it would not be reasonable for the driver to charge for any additional time taken to board and secure a disabled passenger. The principle that excess fares charged for disabled passengers because of their disability are discriminatory and therefore unlawful should be clearly set out for all transport modes.

Other taxi and private hire vehicle issues

35. DPTAC is aware that some taxi drivers have refused to carry powered wheelchairs on the grounds that the wheels of the chair could damage the carpet in the vehicle. We believe that the Code should clarify that this is not reasonable.

36. DPTAC considers that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers should be prepared to give such assistance as is necessary and appropriate to enable passengers to board or alight safely and comfortably. This could include helping a passenger using a wheelchair to board or alight via the ramp and ensuring that they are correctly secured when in the vehicle, deploying a swivel seat, if fitted and required. It could also include describing the vehicle and the direction in which it is facing to a blind or partially-sighted passenger, and being prepared to put the passenger's hand on the vehicle roof, if needed. In addition, when a wheelchair user wishes to transfer from a wheelchair, the driver should be prepared to fold and stow the wheelchair.

37. DPTAC considers that either the Code or the later less formal guidance should also state that it would be good practice for drivers to assist passengers to and from their destination if required and reasonable. The guidance should also recommend that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers should carry public liability insurance, which would enable drivers to provide this kind of assistance without risk to themselves. Some local licensing authorities already require this as a licensing condition.

Booking ahead

38. A substantial proportion of railway stations are either unstaffed or only staffed for part of the time that they are open. Additionally, some trains are driver-only, with no other staff on board.

39. On grounds of equality of treatment and independent living, disabled passengers generally should be able to make a rail journey without having to book in advance and we believe that the Code should specify this. However, there are occasions when journeys involve using stations (as origin, destination or interchange) at times when they are unstaffed. DPTAC considers that either the Code or later, less formal guidance, should state what notice period might be considered reasonable. Failing this, the Disability Rights Commission should support early legal action to clarify the matter through the courts. In our discussions with both disabled people and the rail industry at the Disability Rights Commission's consultation events and on other occasions, the lack of clarity with regard to notice periods has been the single most consistently raised issue.

Other issues in the consultation

Breakdown services

40. DPTAC is aware of cases where disabled people have been taken from their vehicle to a garage or other place separately from their assistance dogs. We are concerned at the impact that this separation has on the disabled person, and we believe that the guidance should state that this would not be reasonable.

Substitute services

41. DPTAC noted in our response to the Government's consultation on the lifting of the transport exemption, that the Government did not propose to apply the 1999 duty requiring operators to provide a reasonable alternative method of making the service available to the passenger transport services for which the exemption will be lifted, where that service consists of the use of a vehicle, except for breakdown services.

42. We noted that this could have unintended and undesirable consequences for substitute services. For example, if a bus replaces a train withdrawn from service or during periods of track works, the journey could become inaccessible to some disabled people who would have been able to use the original means of transport for which it was being substituted.

43. We have considered this matter further, and believe that the sections of the Code on defining reasonable practices, policies and procedures and on auxiliary aids and services (from 6.8) could address this matter. The examples used could show how a transport provider delivering a substitute service could take steps to ensure that disabled users of that service were not disadvantaged. The measures might include audible and visual announcements, additional staffing, paying attention to signage and providing the service in a different way, such as by providing an accessible taxi. These measures are important because the departure and arrival points and the number of stops made by a substitute service often do not precisely mirror those of the service for which it is substituting.

Other use of facilities provided for disabled people

44. DPTAC notes that many of the facilities provided for disabled people can be of benefit to others, and believes that this is part of the business case for making these changes. For example, research by TRL for the Department for Transport suggests that awareness and use of the audio-visual door warning systems required by the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations are greater for non-disabled people than for disabled people.

45. However, there are occasions when the use of a facility by a non-disabled person makes it unavailable for a disabled person. Examples include wheelchair spaces on buses and trains. We believe that the Code should state that it would be essential for transport service operators to set in hand systems to ensure that this does not happen.

Use by disabled people of other facilities

46. DPTAC notes that, increasingly, a range of facilities is being provided on transport vehicles, such as laptop points and reading lights. We believe that the Code should state that it would be reasonable for staff to be prepared, if asked, to help a disabled passenger use these facilities, for example by plugging in the lead from a laptop.

Hail and ride bus services

47. DPTAC's view is that most hail and ride bus services are either historic in origin, and maintained because people are familiar with them, or relate to areas where it is not practical for a permanent stop to be positioned. This may be because a narrow pavement cannot accommodate a bus stop pole without restricting accessibility unduly. However, we consider that the Code should state that hail and ride services should include a proportion of fixed stops, to enable passengers with visual impairments to use the services.

Links to other policies and consultations

Guidance and Code of Practice

48. DPTAC noted in our response to the Government's consultation on this power that there is a division in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 between duties relating to transport infrastructure, those relating to transport services, including information about services, and those relating to the vehicles. The Act does not encourage joined up action by service providers. This creates a challenge in explaining rights to disabled people, and duties to transport operators. We appreciate that the Code may not be the right place to explain this to disabled people. However the further guidance to be produced by the Disability Rights Commission and others must clearly define these rights and responsibilities across the whole spectrum of transport, for the benefit of both disabled people and the operators themselves. The provision and process for complaint and redress must also be made clear.

How the consultation worked

The process of consultation

49. We are impressed with the inclusiveness and the comprehensives of the consultation process as we have experienced it. We received appropriate and timely opportunities to comment on the development of the draft proposals as they were developed both in writing and at meetings with the transport industries. The Disability Rights Commission advised us early of the four consultation events that it held across the United Kingdom, and our Members attended three of them. The Disability Rights Commission made consultation documents available in a full range of accessible formats from the day of publication, and delivered copies quickly when requested. This is in contrast to many consultations from central government in which documents in alternative formats are either not available at all, or are made available so late as to reduce the period available for developing and submitting responses.

Accessible documentation

50. In its Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill (July 2004), the Government stated that its publications which particularly affect disabled people should be made available in appropriate alternative formats at the time that the document is published in the standard format. Where the timing of publication of documents is driven by other factors, it may not be possible to publish all formats at the same time. In these cases, and where there is a time limit relating to documents being published, such as in consultations, the Government has said that it will generally extend deadlines for those people who rely on accessible formats. We do not find this commitment to be either well known or widely observed.

Specific textual issues

Buses

51. DPTAC considers that the Code should state at 6.8 that it would be regarded as reasonable for drivers of vehicles fitted with kneeling suspension to, as a matter of course, kneel the vehicle at all stops, where bus stop kerbs have not been raised. The example of the coach unable to pull into the kerb (5.25) could be extended as an example of lack of joined up action by the coach operator, the local highways authority (need for accessible stops, possibly built out and with raised kerb protected by a bus stop clearway order) and the police/wardens (responsible for enforcement of clearways and waiting/parking restrictions).

Steps that a transport provider should consider

52. DPTAC considers that the text should state that the policies and the monitoring of them mentioned at 4.17 should be published, in a range of accessible formats. The text could advise service providers to develop success criteria to use when measuring the impact of the action they have taken.

Standard or manner of service

53. DPTAC considers that the example at 4.21 should be revised, as some rail vehicles do not have the configuration that would enable a person with a severe facial disfigurement to sit at a table facing away from other customers.

Gender and examples used

54. The Code as drafted contains 53 examples. We are pleased that all the examples used are equally applicable to both genders, even though some use gender specific words, presumably to add variety.

Conclusion

55. DPTAC warmly welcomes the Code, and is broadly content with both the draft, which the Disability Rights Commission involved us in at an early stage, and the consultation process. However there remain some significant issues on which we believe the Code should include further guidance, if at all possible. These include defining reasonable adjustments, clarifying what vehicles are covered by the removal of the exemption, and advising on notice periods for disabled people booking assistance. DPTAC realises that further, more specific guidance, may address both these and some of the other issues that we raise. However we believe that the Code itself should be as complete and comprehensive as possible on these matters.

Neil Betteridge
Chair, Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
4/24 Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

Tel: 020 7944 8012
E-mail: dptac@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Date: 19 August 2005

• Responses to consultations

Top of page