Draft Disabled People's Protection Policies (DPPPs)

prepared during autumn 2002

2. General Comments

Process

2.1 During the process both the SRA and operating companies faced wider problems in the industry. However, given clear SRA Guidance on what was required in the draft Policies, DPTAC feel strongly that, on the statement of policies at least, the industry could and should have responded on time and to a sufficient standard.

2.2 Delays and slippage from the original timescale have made the review process unnecessarily arduous and time consuming for all involved.

2.3 Only 4 operators achieved the 12 July deadline for submission of draft Policies, set out on page 6 of the Guidance, and some drafts were not received until November, too late for consideration in this report.

2.4 Some slippage is to be expected, as noted in the Guidance. However, the scale of the delays now make the original objective to have approved Policies in place during 2002 questionable if drafts are to be given due weight and consideration.

2.5 This is a cause of great frustration not only to DPTAC, the SRA and RPCs, but also to Operating Companies awaiting feedback.

2.6 Many operators chose not to submit their Policies directly to DPTAC. The reticence and delay on the part of several operators has lead to a great deal of wasted time attempting to get information.

Station Matrices

2.7 There has been some confusion regarding the purpose behind the Station Matrices. Page 20 of the Guidance states that they are 'primarily being used to identify the gaps at each station between the current facilities and what is required in the code'.

2.8 We are aware of several statements to the industry that indicate that the information within these matrices will be used as benchmarks from which funding will be allocated. DPTAC were also initially concerned about limited access overviews being used to determine funding.

2.9 We welcome SRA confirmation that the station matrices will not be used for anything other than a broad brush analysis of the current situation across the two thousand plus stations in the rail network.

2.10 We endorse the SRA's commitment that station works and refurbishment of rolling stock will only be approved if there is input from a competent person in access issues.

2.11 The RPC network are considering the station matrices in more detail. We are aware of the concerns about variable standards and inconsistent approaches to data gathering, including queries over the expertise of those completing them to identify relevant issues.

2.12 We recommend the SRA might consider additional guidance on the completion of station matrices in future requirements, perhaps developing training to ensure a reasonable degree of competence in identifying and recording access issues.

2.13 We believe there is value in, over time, ensuring reliable information on access at all stations is available to disabled passengers, including through travel information services. It is critical this information is accurate to enable Operators to provide assistance effectively as well as to enable those disabled people who may be dependent on access facilities or lack of barriers to travel with confidence.

SRA Guidance on Disabled Persons Protection Policies

2.14 The SRA Guidance was clear and concise. However, operators responses adopting different approaches have complicated the process.

2.15 We recommend the SRA insist operators adopt a consistent approach in the future as part of the approval process. We would also call on operators and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) to work together in developing a consistent response. This will ensure they focus on the issues relevant to access for disabled people and simplify the process for all involved.

2.16 The Guidance already states 'operators should indicate on the drafts the paragraph number of the guidance point they have followed so that the Authority and the relevant consultees are able to check that all of the points have been addressed'. (5.2). We believe the Guidance has to read 'operators must..' to ensure this is followed.

2.17 During this review, companies initially misinterpreted this fundamental drafting point and were subsequently reluctant to re-write drafts, which we accept.

2.18 However, in future reviews (such as following a new franchise) we expect the SRA to insist on drafts being prepared in accordance with their Guidance. It would have been helpful if all operators had followed the lead of Railtrack who structured their draft in a tabular form to allow for easy reference.

2.19 We suggest three further minor amendments to the Guidance:

• Paragraph 5.3, which deals with the consultation process when prioritising works at stations, should be expanded to specifically include the role of local roads and highway authorities. It is essential there is complementary action in the approaches to the station that lie within the remit of the local highway authority.
• Paragraph 7.4, which refers to physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a station, should include distance as a potential barrier, as covered in the SRA Code.
• Paragraph 7.19 refers to the waiting time at the final destination being no more than 10 minutes. This should be clarified to refer only to terminuses and if possible the time reduced.

Overall content and quality of the draft Policies

2.20 Overall, the content and quality of many of the draft Policies was disappointing. None of the operators included all the relevant information requested in the Guidance.

2.21 Several operators made only minor changes to their existing Policy, without reference to either the SRA Code or Guidance. Some still refer to the Office of the Rail Regulator where functions have transferred to the SRA. This was well below the expected - and acceptable - standard.

2.22 The SRA hoped that the publication of the Guidance would provide operators with an easy to follow 'standard' format for drafting their Policies to allow ease of access to the relevant information.

2.23 It would also have provided, for the first time, a clear overview of policies, plans and practices in providing for disabled passengers across the network, and indicated the scale of investment required to improve facilities and services.

2.24 In addition, this process should have been a good news story for the rail industry to enable them to demonstrate collectively the progress already achieved in working towards the standards in the Code and meeting the needs of disabled passengers.

2.25 In responding to the Guidance DPTAC does not believe the current drafts prepared by operators will provide these benefits.

Terminology

2.26 The Committee is very concerned by operators use of weak terms such as aim, endeavor and try in relation to service and facilities commitments to disabled passengers. Disabled people accept that improvements and enhancements will take time or that certain facilities will not be possible in every location. However, in the meantime, we do expect TOCs to be able to commit to providing assistance effectively through DPRS or its equivalent and to making the best use of existing infrastructure in line with the SRA Code, so that as many disabled people as possible are able to use the rail network.

2.27 We understand from our discussions with several operating companies that the original definite commitments from their Policies were removed on legal advice. This followed meetings with the SRA, when they were advised that any failure to meet these commitments would count as possible breaches of franchise.

2.28 Without the firm assurances and commitments, we believe the Policies will not be integrated into the day to day planning, management and operation of the railways. If they are not, they are worth very little and the exercise becomes onerous on operators with no tangible benefit for disabled people.

2.29 We believe statements of definite commitment, such as will, must and should are needed and would give disabled people confidence that access issues were being integrated fully into the business of the railways.

2.30 To safeguard operators from unreasonable complaints or franchise breaches, DPTAC suggest a suitably phrased reasonable and common sense caveats such as, 'In the event of serious service disruption..' or 'where additional funding is required..'.

2.31 In relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 there are already reasonableness tests that should protect operators from excessive demands, if they can demonstrate they are aware of the issues and addressing them in the most suitable way.

Health and Safety at Work Regulations

2.32 We are concerned by the use of Health and Safety at Work Regulations as a possible reason for not providing access for disabled people, without including sufficient justification in the text.

2.33 It is highly regrettable that some companies have decided to use the Health and Safety at Work Act as justification not to address the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

2.34 This seems to be founded on concerns surrounding overall funding. It does not contribute to a reasonable policy on meeting the requirements of the SRA Code and Guidance. Any concerns should be subject to a risk assessment of individual circumstances.

2.35 Access, and any associated costs, should be built into the business planning of the industry and Government policy. However, many access improvements are low cost and benefit all passengers.

2.36 The following sections address the overall industry response to sections in the Guidance, which for convenience is repeated. Where paragraphs relate to similar issues they are grouped together.

Published: 17 February 2003

Top of page