DPTAC response to AAP consultation

Who we are at DPTAC.The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) is an independent expert committee established by the Transport Act 1985 to advise Government on the transport needs of disabled people. The Act requires that at least half of the members are disabled.

DPTAC’s advice is independent. While sponsored by the Department for Transport, DPTAC offers its views independently of the Department. We expect there will be occasions when that advice is for the Department and other Government Departments and agencies to do more or to act differently.

Similarly, while DPTAC gathers the views of disabled people and from organisations representing disabled people its advice is independent of those individuals or organisations. DPTAC encourages Government to do more to meet the needs of disabled people.

DPTAC’s vision disabled people must be given the same access to transport as everybody

else, to be able to go where everyone else goes and to do so easily, confidently and without extra cost.

DPTAC’s objectives to encourage disabled people to travel by public transport where it is

accessible, available and affordable; to provide timely, focused and independent advice to the Department on

matters relating to transport for disabled people during policy development, the specification of research, evaluation of policy and on relevant consultation exercises;

to take account of the broad views and experiences of all disabled people and develop our advice through effective engagement with Department policy leads, the transport industry, organisations representing disabled people, and other stakeholders;

to work with the Department and the industry to measure and monitor progress on delivery of the commitments in the Department’s Accessibility Action Plan and other relevant activities.

DPTAC’s principles every journey is door-to-door, so consistency of experience and expectation

across local, regional, national and international transport is key to ensure the outcome of accessibility is achieved.

no public investment, funding or approval for transport activities (including infrastructure, services, information etc.) should be allowed unless it is

1

conditional on those responsible for spending the money or delivering the services taking full account of accessibility for all disabled people.

service providers must make accessibility for disabled people part of the mainstream of their activities.

disabled users and non-users must be fully and meaningfully involved in determining the accessibility of transport services and the transport environment.

accessibility is the responsibility of the provider of the transport service.

General introductory commentsThe draft Accessibility Action Plan (AAP) pulls together a summary of DfT work on accessibility issues. There is something of a dichotomy between the aspirational and visionary tone and content of the Ministerial introduction which we very much welcome, and the rather less ambitious tone and content of the rest of the draft AAP.

Although the Ministerial introduction states: “This draft action plan sets out our proposed strategy to address the gaps in existing provision of transport services which serve as a barrier to people with disabilities”,  the plan does not clearly set out a robust strategy for the short, medium and long term, nor does it articulate an appropriately structured and detailed gap analysis. An obvious and simple measure would be to close the gap in the number of journeys made by disabled people compared to non-disabled people. This might be accompanied by some research to identify the true size of the gap by age band.

That isn’t to say that much of the content is not correct and worthwhile – indeed the draft provides a good overview of the current landscape and includes a lot of worthwhile initiatives – it’s more that the plan is just not as comprehensive, rigorous, granular, energised or clear as it could be. Fundamentally there is a lack of clarity in what it is trying to achieve.

Although individual identified actions are, for the most part, sensible and worthwhile, the list in its entirety comes across as rather disparate and low key. There is a lack of quantified targets, clear outcomes, and criteria to measure success, and no defined delivery timelines, or identified budgets, resourcing or funding arrangements.

Overall the lack of cross-departmental thinking is disappointing. As a result the AAP reflects the prevalence of silo-mentality. While we recognise that this is the DfT’s action plan, the key to effectively delivering improved and increased access to transport depends on actions taken by or shared with other Government departments and agencies.

The Plan emphasises the importance of consultation with local disabled people to help improve the accessibility of local services.  But the reductions in funding experienced by local authorities has meant that many have been forced to substantially reduce or even withdraw funding from groups which represent disabled people in their area. It would be helpful if DfT would remind their colleagues at the Dept. for Communities and Local Government of the importance of support for local representative bodies of disabled people. It would also be helpful if DfT encouraged the Department of Work and Pensions to give greater recognition to the value of the

2

voluntary contributions made by disabled people to such groups.  Increasingly as disabled people are required to search for work they drop their involvement in disability groups.  It would be helpful if voluntary engagement in disability organisations is recognised as an opportunity to develop employment related skills.

We are disappointed that the plan makes no mention of hate crime. The EHRC report ‘Hidden in Plain Sight’ highlighted public transport as a potential hot-spot for disability hate crime1. Disabled people who experience aggression of any sort when using public transport are likely to avoid travelling, yet the AAP makes no mention of this aspect of barriers to access.

We are also disappointed to see no recognition of the Supreme Court decision in the Doug Paulley case and its implications for disabled people and bus operators. The AAP should mention the decision and stipulate a specific action to undertake work to empower the Government to help clarify options to resolve conflicting situations in terms of ‘shared space areas’ on buses. There should be something in the final version, hopefully showing that the Government has accepted the recommendation of the working group on this issue following the court judgment.

It is surprising that the opportunities provided by HS2 are not highlighted more strongly. As a completely new long distance railway, HS2 provides a golden opportunity to set new benchmarks in accessibility, and should be a natural home for innovative thinking and technology. This ought to be one of the centrepieces of the AAP, particularly given that the next five years will be critical to how HS2 is delivered.

There is a need to embed accessibility more firmly into DfT policy making and transport management. For instance, despite the statement in para 4.51 about industry requirements to ensure that new or refurbished stations meet accessibility standards, industry processes still do not fully incorporate this requirement as reflected in the issues with Crossrail stations. This is something very largely within the DfT’s gift, as Network Rail is now a public sector body effectively reporting to the DfT, HS2 is fully within the DfT, and DfT awards and monitors franchises.

1. Introduction

Specific DPTAC responses:Paras 1.1It is important to recognise that it is not solely mental health, cognitive impairments, anxiety and other neuro-disabilities that are ‘hidden’. Many physical disabilities are also ‘hidden’ and it is crucial that the approach and use of terminology reflects this.

Para 1.4The same comment on ‘hidden disability’ in para 1.1 applies here. In addition, while the aspiration on employment is good, we believe the goal should be broader. The 1 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/inquiries-and-investigations/inquiry-disability-related-harassment/download-disability-related

3

employment goal is only relevant for a proportion of disabled people – those of working age; greater levels of wellbeing and lower levels of poverty amongst disabled people should also figure here.

Para 1.10The social model of disability would argue that ‘the reaction of society to the impairment…’ is the ‘disabling factor’, rather than ‘can be’. Para 1.16It is important that the DfT also takes account of the Women and Equalities Committee report ‘Building for Equality: Disability and the Built Environment’ (April 2017)2.

3. The progress so far

Specific DPTAC responses:Para 3.4Whilst the number of bus passes is increasing, the more important metric would be a measure of their usage.  More generally, throughout this chapter it is the supply side metrics that are highlighted. It is recommended that the AAP must set out clearly the tangible outcomes it aims to achieve, and how the DfT or wider Government will monitor and measure those.

4. Consistency in accessing transport services

Specific DPTAC responses:Para 4.2This is a particular problem for people with mental health conditions who are eligible if deemed unfit to drive, or are taking medication which makes them unfit to drive. This rigid demarcation is problematic to those managing on-going conditions which mean that at times they can drive, and others they can’t.

Accessible streetsPara 4.6The assertion is made that the key documents, Manual for Streets, and Manual for Streets 2 have ‘an excellent standing amongst practitioners…’ There are a number of similar assertions amongst the paragraphs in this section. What evidence does the Department have to support these assertions? It is important that there is a regular review of key documents to ensure that they remain relevant, practical and fit for purpose and to get evidence of stakeholder support for them.

Tactile pavingAction 1This action is very welcome and urgently needed. It is one of the few actions in the consultation that has a specific date. However, the date is now past (‘end of summer 2 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmwomeq/631/631.pdf

4

2017’) and to our knowledge the research has not been completed. It is of crucial importance that each action in the AAP has a defined timeframe and that the timeframes are met, otherwise it reduces the credibility of the AAP.

The AAP must detail the scope and duration of this research project, as well as clearly explaining tangible outcomes and how the Department will monitor and measure those.

Tactile paving surfaces have been an excellent development for those with various conditions. It is also true to say that tactile paving surfaces can cause problems for other disabilities. We recommend that the update of the guidance takes account of other more recent accessibility guidance such as BS8300 and Approved Part ‘M’ of the Building Regulations to avoid duplication and provision of potentially conflicting information. The research and the update of the guidance must clearly link in with Manual for Streets and Local Transport Note 1/11: shared space. And the Women and Equalities Committee report ‘Building for Equality: Disability and the Built Environment’ (April 2017)3 should be considere fully as part of the review.

Other areas for attention – Consideration should be given to developing partnership approaches with organisations providing wayfinding and orientation tools (for example, with Visual Impairment Rehabilitation Officers employed by local authorities), as well as route and mobility training for visually impaired people, and hazard avoidance. Consideration of technologies that already exist to support navigational solutions in the built environment should be incorporated as part of these updates (for example, the Wayfindr trial at London Euston station).

Shared SpaceParagraphs 4.11 to 4.18These illustrate the lack of a clear picture about the barriers to movement for disabled people. Saying ‘We understand that navigation can be a problem for visually impaired people in shared space streets’ is very weak. It is not just people with visual impairments who have difficulties, it is also people with various mental impairments who need a clear and safe environment in which to navigate to prevent them from becoming confused. These issues arise from the implementation of the shared space concept in unsuitable environments in this country with a lack of understanding of the needs of all disabled people.

Para 4.14The LTN guidance cannot be truly said to be ‘fit for purpose’ if it is not being applied correctly.  We understand that the DfT endorsed a supplementary guidance note, produced by the National Federation of the Blind, but no reference is made to it here.

3 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmwomeq/631/631.pdf

5

Action 2DPTAC notes that this is an especially important address based on longstanding concerns raised by disabled people. Many issues were highlighted in the Women and Equalities Committee report on the built environment4.

DPTAC welcomes the CIHT report since it will enable debate about the issues that shared space raises for disabled people. These issues include:

A robust analysis of the risks to disabled people of shared space and the implications for equality that it poses:

Recognition that some Blue Badge holders need to park within the shared space in order to be able to access their destinations.

There should be a date specified by which the recommendations on shared space will be taken forward by DfT. If the CIHT report does not include sound evidence on the issues that shared spaces present to disabled people, the DfT should commission research (potentially in partnership with DCLG) to bring together this evidence in order to avoid or mitigate some of the current problems.

We also recognise that there are additional issues to be considered with the rapid development of electric vehicles and driverless vehicles. We recommend that the DfT includes in the Plan an action that acknowledges these and to undertake work to fully understand what adverse impacts may result.

Cycling infrastructurePara 4.19It is important to highlight that cyclists and pedestrians can come into conflict, sometimes with tragic consequences. This risk can be increased for instance where footways and cycleways are shared.  For example, visually impaired people may be unware of an approaching cyclist until it is too late.

Para 4.21It is not clear how these changes might benefit / affect disabled people. This needs to be clarified.

Action 3This action is welcomed but it should explicitly mention disabled people, not just ‘everyone’. To ensure the credibility of the AAP it is of crucial importance that the action has a defined timeframe and that the timeframe is met. It should contain a date by which the refresh will be completed. It should clearly explain the tangible outcomes to be achieved, how the Department will monitor and measure those, and how this fits with the DfT’s short, medium and long-term strategic goals.

DPTAC understand that Transport for Greater Manchester have undertaken work to define inclusive approaches in terms of accessible cycling infrastructure guidance. It is therefore suggested that DfT consider this point as part of the Local Transport Note 02/08: Cycle Infrastructure Design guidance refresh.

4 https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/disability-and-the-built-environment-16-17/

6

Other areas for attention – We would suggest an action that develops tools to increase awareness amongst cyclists of the needs of disabled road users around them. We also suggest a review of the law of cycle use, leading to new offences of dangerous cycling and careless cycling with the ability to ban from cycling, in much the same way that disqualification from driving is available on conviction for certain road traffic offences.

With improvements to cycle infrastructure there undoubtedly will be more people cycling and this means more needs to be done to provide suitable cycle parking. Without cycle parking provision people just chain cycles to lamp posts or outside shops, blocking the pavement for wheelchair users and parents with buggies as well as causing hazards for blind people. More needs to be done to educate cyclists and enforce the removal of cycles blocking pathways and causing obstructions.

Audible and Visual announcements on busesAction 4DPTAC welcomes this action and is keen to work with DfT to implement this important improvement on buses.

As with all actions, it is crucial to have clear agreed outcomes, to understand what the world is like now for disabled people, and to develop a mechanism for monitoring and tracking change over time once the new regulations are in place to assess whether the outcomes are being delivered.

Other areas for attention – One thing that is very helpful for disabled people who are very anxious about bus travel is ‘real time information’ at bus stops. This can be very effective to allay anxiety whilst waiting for bus and can make the difference between staying and getting on the bus or aborting the whole journey. It was mentioned as significant factor in a national survey5.

Real time information systems are primarily visual and are not accessible to people with visual impairments. Research is needed to make the information available to all. This cannot be solely through smart phones as many older people who have sight problems are struggling to adopt (or afford) smart phones.

Consistency is essential and the DfT must ensure that a consistent approach is adopted across the country.

Many buses are designed with a mix of rearward and forward facing seats, and for most wheelchair users they will automatically be required to travel backwards when using the designated wheelchair space. Some wheelchair users also have hearing and/or visual impairments. There is usually no AV screen on buses which is visible to passengers travelling backwards. It is very difficult to know when travelling backwards where you are and so an appropriately positioned AV screen would be very useful. We suggest that the DfT acknowledge this issue and undertake work to explore what a fit for purpose solution would look like to address this point.

5 http://www.derbyshiremind.org.uk/pdf/MHPublicTransportReport.pdf

7

On-board Audio/Visual equipment needs to be tested regularly to check it is working as intended. It would be welcome to see action regarding monitoring implementation of PSVAR and proper enforcement - penalising or engaging with bus operators regarding the small percentage of non-compliant vehicles. DVSA should report annually on what they have done. The Traffic Commissioners must be given the resources both to promote awareness of their role and to investigate complaints and take enforcement action.

Bus concessionary faresConsultation Question 1The national bus concession in England seems to be a clear success for elderly people with a take-up rate of about 80%, but only about 0.9 million were issued in England on the grounds of disability. Many local authorities issue disabled people above the state pension age with a pass for elderly people, so it is difficult to calculate the take-up rate for disabled people.

There are about 4.8 million in England under the state pension age. This implies a take-up rate of concessionary travel passes of under 20% by disabled people who are eligible for them. On the whole the national bus concession is potentially a real boon to disabled people, especially as it is not exclusively linked to disability benefits. Research is needed to understand the reasons why take-up is much lower among disabled people and what can be done to address this.

What underpins the AAP is the Government’s stated outcome to enable more disabled people to access employment, education, health care, and a social life. To deliver this outcome the Government should take into account the findings of the Extra Costs Commission and remove barriers to disabled people.

There is inconsistency across the country as to when a concessionary pass can be used and also if a carer is able to travel with the disabled person. For example, in some areas it can be used only in off peak times which makes its use limited for people travelling to work or having early hospital appointments or whose conditions mean early morning travel is preferable.

The bus concession could (and should) be better applied in terms of serious mental health conditions and autism. It is not fair or acceptable to lump such a significant sector of disabled people into a catch-all category. A long term mental disorder should be recognised in its own right alongside other lifelong disabilities. Note that Scotland has long recognised this need and includes the following eligibility criteria:-

‘You have a mental health condition  that is recognised under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and has lasted for more than a year. You must need to travel to health or social care appointments as part of treatment activities, care or a rehabilitation programme. Your ability to travel must also be impaired. Please contact your Local Authority for advice on how and where to apply.’

The current situation presents a double standard whereby eligibility for people with a long term mental health condition is exclusively linked to giving up your driving licence. In fact those who live with a long term mental health condition deserve and

8

need a bus concession just like other disabled people on the basis of their diagnosed condition. Many people in this category find travelling by bus very difficult, if not impossible. The bus concession makes a crucial difference not just financially but actually making it easier to board the bus (and to practise travelling by bus without incurring unaffordable costs). It enables people to get to vital health and social care appointments (DfT, Mental Health & Transport Report 2011)6. Autism/Aspergers is a lifelong condition and should also be included automatically, not just on refusal of driving license. There needs to be better clarity to avoid some being granted a concession and others, with the same condition, being denied.

“It’s not just the financial aspect, it’s the getting on the bus and having to find the money, ask for a ticket, have the bus driver tell me it’s a different price to what I paid yesterday - I find it all too difficult to cope with. If I had a bus pass I could just get on the bus a lot easier.”

DPTAC will be interested to see the consultation feedback and is keen to work with the DfT to discuss this and to refresh the current policy as appropriate.

Increasing availability and accessibility of taxis and private hire vehiclesPara 4.32It is not right to say that Licensing Authorities already have sufficient powers to achieve the right proportion of WAVs in their fleet. The number of authorities with only a small proportion of WAVs indicates that there is a problem. The power is effectively an all-or-nothing option, an authority can go for 100% accessibility or leave it to the market. In areas where there is a large amount of on-street pickups a 100% option can work, but in areas where this is much less important licensing authorities risk drivers deciding to work solely as PHVs. This is why all the authorities which have a 100% WAV policy are major cities. Licensing authorities in more rural areas need additional powers to drive up the number of WAVs (see our response to Action 6).

Para 4.37Just promoting good practice is not sufficient. Licensing authorities have had the powers to make training mandatory for decades and a large proportion still don’t have any policy on this matter. We recommend that the DfT steps in now and follows the recommendation of the Law Commission to make such training mandatory (see our response to Action 25).

Action 5DPTAC welcomes the review and consultation on best practice guidance, particularly if it is published before the end of 2017. However, we believe that to ‘review and consult’ doesn’t go far enough. This action doesn’t help with the confidence of disabled taxi passengers. It needs more tangible outcomes and potentially more drastic consequences for those drivers and firms who contravene the Equality Act

6 https://www.anxietyuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Mental-Health-Transport-Summit-Report.pdf

9

2010. Nor does the action recognise that in some cases the problems exist because of the Local Authorities not doing enough.

This action should also take on board the outcomes of the Law Commission’s review of taxi and PHV legislation, and of the current cross party parliamentary working group looking at taxi issues. 7

Other areas for attention – It is unclear currently what is or is not an ‘assistance dog’. This gives rise to problems regarding assistance dog refusal. There are a number of charities under the assistance dog UK umbrella (ADUK) who provide dogs to disabled, blind, and deaf people and those with medical conditions, including the emerging category of Therapy Dogs. There are also people who have trained their own dog to be an assistance dog but do not come under the ADUK umbrella. Some of these dogs are exceptionally well trained and help their owners but some dogs are literally a pet with a jacket on. It is impossible for anyone working in the transport sector to know who they should and should not allow in the vehicle and current legislation does not make it clear. For any advice to taxi drivers that they must accept dogs to be successful it is essential that there is a clear definition and guidance as to what is an assistance dog. And when there is clear guidance it will be easier for disabled people to assert their rights following a refusal.

In addition, we take the opportunity here to repeat our recommendation that disability equality and awareness training of taxi drivers is key. It should be a top priority, mandatory, monitored and refreshed regularly.

Action 6The desire to ‘increase the number of accessible vehicles’ is welcome. However, we do not believe ‘recommendations’ go far enough. It is not a meaningful action simply to ‘seek to increase the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles.’ This is weak and does not set a firm target or outcome. We would prefer to see a firm commitment to increase the number based on clear evidence of the current position, a clear target and a timescale.

We believe that a requirement for local authorities to conduct a review of the accessible provision in their area every three years would help, alongside the power to issue quotas, as recommended in the outcomes of the Law Commission’s review of taxi and PHV legislation, and of the current cross party parliamentary working group looking at taxi issues.

The relevant Law Commission recommendations include: Recommendation 65: requiring licensing authorities to conduct an

accessibility review at three year intervals, ensuring adequate provision through an evidence-based method.

Recommendation 69: giving the Secretary of State the power to impose accessibility requirements on large operators and allowing the setting of a

7 http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/lc347_taxi-and-private-hire-services.pdf

10

quota of accessible vehicles. If that were the case, then at least a proportion of any operator’s vehicles could be designated under s167.

Other areas for attention – The DfT should consider a review and update of sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act 2010.

Ensuring a consistent taxi serviceParagraphs 4.38 to 4.45There should be an action to ensure that all taxi and PHV drivers receive mandatory disability equality and awareness training, including an understanding of mental impairments (see our response to Action 25).

Para 4.40We welcomed the bringing into force of sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act 2010 on 6th April 2017 - advice that DPTAC had consistently provided to DfT over many years. However, as research carried out since then shows, Licensing Authorities are not using their new powers, and barely 40% expect to have lists in place by the end of 2017.8

Para 4.41There are very few examples of Licensing Authorities using their powers to enforce the rights of disabled people and effectively protect them from discrimination by taxi drivers. It may be only a small proportion of drivers who discriminate, but the effect of their actions is to make all disabled people cautious about using taxi services.

Reviewing the Blue Badge SchemeAction 7We very much welcome this review and look forward to working with the DfT to ensure that the Blue Badge scheme is fit for purpose and in particular to consider the needs of people with non-physical disabilities.

The revised criteria should permit all those with a genuine need to be issued with a Blue Badge, including for those with a non-physical condition.

We do not accept that Blue Badges should be inextricably linked to disability benefits as this causes extreme difficulties for disabled people. And with recent changes in Personal Independence Payments (PIP) it will be an even bigger problem for non-physical disabilities because it is difficult for them to gain the required mobility points for PIP.

We believe that very few people with non-physical or non-sensory disabilities qualify because the criterion is the ability to walk a certain distance - one recent example is of a person with severe and lifelong agoraphobia who was turned down purely on the grounds that they did not have a physical disability.

Other areas for attention –

8 https://www.kingqueen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Licensing-authorities%E2%80%99-approach-to-the-Equality-Act-2010-provisions-on-taxi-wheelchair-discrimination.pdf

11

We cannot accept that the current inconsistency of approach across councils coupled with the lack of public understanding should be allowed to continue. It is important that the review addresses the issue of specifying the eligibility criteria for people with non-physical disabilities so that it is interpreted in the same way by all local authorities. This involves broad thinking about why some people need to park their cars near to their destination. If there is likely to be an increase in the number of people eligible for a blue badge as a result of the review, there will need to be an increase in the number of places that people with blue badges can park in and greater enforcement of parking regulations to prevent abuse by those who do not have a blue badge. And to boost the public credibility of the Scheme, there need to be effective sanctions for misuse, in particular when they are used by non-disabled family or friends for their own purposes.

A recent pilot scheme in Scotland aims to make Blue Badge inclusive of people with serious mental health conditions and those with autism. We do not believe that this should be linked exclusively to those who ‘have no awareness of traffic’ as there are equally people who suffer from severe claustrophobia, severe anxiety etc who are unable to get out of their homes but for whom a Blue Badge could make all the difference. It is not just about danger but about access.

Pilot Scheme to Extend Eligibility - From 1st April 2016 a 12 month pilot is running across Scotland to extend eligibility for the Blue Badge Scheme to some people who have a diagnosed "mental disorder". The scheme is intended to include "people, who as a result of a diagnosed mental disorder or cognitive impairment, have no awareness of danger from traffic and are likely to compromise their safety, or the safety of others." To apply under the pilot scheme you must:- Have a diagnosed 'mental disorder' (as defined in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003). This includes any mental illness, personality disorder or learning disability,  (and are in receipt of higher or middle rate DLA)

This would be a very important step in moving towards a more holistic position where mobility is viewed as being not only about physical and sensory ability to get around but also about mental / psychological ability to get around successfully and safely.

DPTAC recognises that this is a complex area and we suggest that DfT commissions a root and branch review of the current Blue Badge policy, working in partnership with local authorities.

Railway station improvementsWe make a number of specific recommendations of our own for rail accessibility in Section 5 on ‘Monitoring the Impact of Regulatory Compliance’ below.

Action 8The desire to build on the significant progress that the Access for All programme has already made is a welcome aspiration. The programme has been an excellent and positive development that has improved access to train travel. However, to ‘continue to seek to extend the Access for All programme’ is not an action as it does not make

12

any commitment to accelerate improvements, to target the programme effectively, or to monitor and assess outcomes.

We suggest DfT considers promoting a means to encourage joint bids (public and private sector) to boost Access for All funding to undertake accessibility improvements. We also suggest that DfT requests train operators to propose a priority (and timebound) list of stations to be improved across their operating areas on an incremental basis over the lifetime of the franchise.

Guidance on access to air travelParagraph 4.71This states that ‘We are planning to develop a new Aviation Strategy’. We propose that this is included as a specific action in this plan.

Consultation Question 2There is insufficient easily-available information about what support is available. And there appears to be little if any information about what help passengers can get if they are travelling with a child with autism for example, or if they are unable to stand for a long time in a queue, but are otherwise mobile.

The biggest problem is the tendency for many airports not to use audible announcements, such as when a particular flight is boarding, restricting this to information on screens. This can make this information inaccessible to travellers with a visual impairment.

As the airport and airlines are commercial organisations, with an obligation to provide reasonable adjustments, they should provide information in an accessible format.

There is definite scope for improvements in information provision regarding disabled people’s rights in relation to air travel, and to pro-actively raise people’s awareness of these rights.

The guidance set out on airline websites etc is generally clear. The problem comes because staff do not know what it is. For example, even if the rights to travel with an assistance dog are clearly set out on an airline’s website, in that the dog must be an ADUK dog, when some passengers try to fly with a ‘canine partner’ (even if an ADUK dog) they may be told they can’t as it is not a guide or emotional support dog.

The work of the CAA in producing guidance on hidden disabilities for both airports and airlines is to be applauded. However, it is very difficult to find information on websites that gives any indication that assistance is available for someone who does not have a physical or sensory disability. The symbol used for assistance is still often the wheelchair. They need to be more explicit about the fact that you can request assistance through the airport for other non-visible disabilities.

The official guidance being issued by CAA should drive this change in information and guidance but if it needs reinforcing by the Government then it should be.

Consultation Question 4

13

This question relates to travel ‘by sea’. Ferry services such as those offered in Merseyside and many other similar locations should be included. We suggest that DfT considers this point in the context of what is being explored here.

Many smaller vessels are still inaccessible to wheelchairs and those with a severe mobility impairment. Inaccessible boats and ships need to be replaced with accessible versions. We would welcome a specific action to consider how the maritime sector currently understands and meets the requirements of disabled people.

The Coalition Government when it introduced the EU Regulation on the rights of passengers using maritime services undertook to amend the Equality Act 2010 to cover smaller vessels which are exempt from the Regulation. This was not done and there remains a gap in the protection for disabled passengers.

5. Monitoring the Impact of Regulatory Compliance

Improving accessibility and passenger experience on board trainsSpecific DPTAC responses:With an ageing population, and a Government drive for greater integration of disabled people in the workplace, we urgently need a long-term and ambitious programme of targeted improvements, rather than well-meaning statements. The rail network currently excludes a large number of disabled people who have the right not to be excluded.

It is disappointing that while with some parts of the AAP there are ‘gaps’ identified and ‘specific commitments’ to increase accessibility, there is no such clarity with rail.

The DfT should seize the opportunity to: quantify the current principal barriers to access; set targets for improvement; and propose a funded schedule to meet those targets over a defined timescale.

There are numerous references to further research being undertaken – which is of course always welcome – but already there is sufficient knowledge and evidence available to enable the Department to plan with confidence. Where further research is desirable, it would be perfectly reasonable to adopt working assumptions and where necessary build in some flexibility to the Plan.

For example, the following significant barriers to access could be quantified across the National Rail network, and targets set for improvement:

Barriers to access Current % Target % Target Date

Station/ train facilities and staffingLack of step-free access from street to platformsLack of step-free access from platform to train

14

No adequately-trained staff at station, or on-board trains calling at the station (including re ramp deployment/ provision of assistance)Excessive platform-train stepping distance (including re ramp gradient)Narrow/ obstructed platforms (re ramp deployment and turning radius, including re increasing access for mobility scooter users)No heated waiting areas (or locked at times)No toilets on trains or at stations (or locked at times in the case of the latter) – including reliability issuesNo/ inadequate audio announcements – including reliability issues Confidence to travelLack of knowledge of accessible journey opportunities, including re availability of assistancePersonal safety/ security concerns (linked to staff availability)General lack of confidence to travel (may be adversely affected by negative press coverage of failed assistance etc.) CostRail travel not perceived as affordable (including re lack of knowledge of discounts, and retailing barriers)Rail travel not affordable

The issues above would seem a reasonable starting point, and in most cases their significance is supported by existing research, or is self-evident. Of course, many other issues are also important, and could be quantified – for example tactile warning strips on platforms and stairs.

Unfortunately, in the draft AAP the only quantification of any issue relating to a barrier to access is the percentage of TSI-compliant rail vehicles (which however does not cover the crucial issues of toilet provision, on-train staffing, or equipment reliability).

This is not a sufficient basis upon which to formulate an action plan, and DPTAC are concerned that beyond 2019 there are no quantified and time-specific commitments to improve the accessibility of stations or rolling stock – and thereby increase the usability of the rail network to disabled people. It could be useful to monitor impact for other users when a rail station becomes more accessible - many people benefit but this doesn’t have tangible evidence currently.

We have set out more detailed comments in our specific responses below.

Action 9

15

We welcome the allocation of additional funding. We also recommend that funding is allocated for a proportion of accessible toilets to be Changing Places toilets. In addition, if an accessible toilet is unavailable, there should be real-time information about this (available online and through other means), to give passengers the ability to make an informed choice to explore alternatives (this also links to Action 12).

Action 10Recent high-profile reports have highlighted the effects of a lack of accessible toilet provision on trains. While it is welcome that the DfT will fund a pilot to explore opportunities to increase the availability of train toilets, DPTAC recommends that what is needed is a definite commitment to increase the number of toilets. And, as with Action 9 above, and linking to Action 12, there should be real-time information if a particular train does not have accessible toilets, for any reason.

Action 12This is not really an action. It should be made clear what ‘alternative journey options’ are being explored. We would also want to see information and options made available to allow passengers to avoid stations that become inaccessible for any reason.

Actions 13This not an action. While this is welcome as an exploratory exercise, the DfT must make specific commitments to action, timescales with a means of tracking and monitoring the improvement this delivers for existing disabled passengers and in giving disabled people who do not currently use rail services the confidence to travel.

Action 14Again, while this is welcome as an exploratory exercise, it not an action. The DfT must make specific commitments to action and timescales, and develop a means of tracking and monitoring the improvement this delivers for existing disabled passengers and in giving disabled people who do not currently use rail services the confidence to travel.

The axing of the Transport Direct website was criticised by the Transport Select Committee in its 2013 report on ‘Access to transport for people with disabilities’9. We recommend the re-establishment of a website similar to Transport Direct as a solution.

Action 15This is a promising and welcome development. We recommend that this is not seen as a ‘one-off’. It is unlikely that one competition will elicit all the possible cost-reducing innovations. We recommend that the DfT commits to an ongoing programme of grant-making competitions aimed specifically at accessibility improvements across all parts of the rail network.

Action 16We welcome proposed investment in initiatives aimed at accelerating innovation in the UK rail sector. We recommend that the DfT commits to and publishes a

9 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/disabled-report--substantive/

16

clear programme of innovation initiatives aimed at targeting the challenges that disabled people face to ensure that there is a coherent and joined-up approach.

Other areas for attention -One key issue that is missing from the AAP consultation concerns the level of staffing on the rail network and the role of the franchising (DfT) and licensing (ORR) processes in that.

We accept that it is not the DfT’s policy to promote a reduction in staffing levels on trains or at stations across the network. Our concern is that the increasing emphasis on technology and automation, and changes in passenger practices, are leading to a reduction in the levels of available customer services that all passengers, particularly disabled people, need and rely on.

Our expectation is that disabled people should increasingly be able to travel independently. Ideally the requirements that disabled people pre-book necessary assistance for rail journeys should be steadily, actively, eliminated as the norm, with a simple, efficient and accessible system retained for those people who do need to pre-notify to ensure they have confidence to travel and that their needs will be met.

Our advice is that, trains without a member of customer service staff, combined with unstaffed stations make it impossible to reduce the need to pre-book, and create a ‘toxic’ combination for many disabled people that excludes them from using rail.

As set out on page 2 above, a key principle that DPTAC has developed, and which it uses to offer advice to the DfT, is that there should be no public funding and no public approval granted (including approval to operate a franchise) unless there is a commitment from those receiving the funding or approval to deliver truly accessible services against agreed criteria. And this must be supported by evidence that accessible outcomes are delivered in practice throughout the life of the franchise.

Requirements should be clearly set out and be part of the franchise scoring systems so they are fully weighed in the assessment and decision-making process. Only then can the Government effectively pick the transport operating companies it believes will deliver the best overall service for all passengers.

This assessment needs to factor in how the operators intend to attract potential passengers, by overcoming information barriers, and include service levels to ensure that service is delivered to meet the varied needs of all passengers. We question how older and disabled people, and particularly those who suffer from acute anxiety and mental health issues, can travel when there are effectively no customer service staff on the train or on the station at all stages of the journey and at all times the service is operating. On this point we know from reports we receive from stakeholders that the combination of driver-only operated trains and unstaffed stations fails to deliver a service that meets the needs of an increasing number of disabled passengers. As a result DPTAC is seeking action by the DfT to urgently research this area to gather evidence of whether the way franchise holders operate their franchised services are delivering accessible rail services or excluding disabled people. DPTAC urges the DfT to gather evidence to show whether its policies are

17

acting in a way that undermines the fundamental principle of accessibility.

Continuously improving the passenger experienceAction 17This says that research will be commissioned and published ‘by 2018’. It is unclear whether this means before 2018, i.e. during 2017, or by the end of 2018.

Action 18We agree with this proposal to make use of performance data.  It would be helpful to say where the performance data will be published. It would also be useful to include as part of this the performance of the Passenger Assist scheme.

Action 19it would be useful to know with whom the data will be shared, how and when.

Other areas for attention -An important area for development is the availability of assistance once on board the train. This does not need to be extensive but many disabled people would be encouraged to travel if they knew they could assistance was available on request if and when needed once on board. This might be simple reassurance that somebody is aware of you and in particular will look out for your needs if there is an unplanned change to schedule. Such a development would be helpful for many disabled people. Currently, the only way of getting assistance if you need it is to press the button in the toilets, unless you are in the wheelchair space which has a help button. A means of asking for help and ensuring that help is always available would be beneficial to all disabled travelers an indeed to many other passengers.

Consultation Question 5DPTAC awaits with interest the feedback from this consultation question and proposes a workshop with the DfT to discuss in more detail

DPTAC members have provided the following specific feedback on this question: Accessible toilet often out of use. Insufficient use made of visual announcement system when there is a delay

or problem. Not enough audible announcements during delay/problem. Difficult to find train staff if there is a problem and you need information. Audio / visual systems not working. Sometimes disability seats are pre-booked by non-disabled people. Problem with insufficient luggage storage for those that cannot lift onto top

shelves.

The Access for All programme has been very helpful in getting disabled passengers to the train. However, that is where the problems often begin. The AAP aims to help disabled people into work. Assuming that the majority of work requires a person to be at a workplace, they will have to commute. Since many disabled people do not drive, they will need to use public transport, often trains.

The lack of a guaranteed seat or comfort on commuter trains acts as a massive deterrent against rail commuting for many disabled people, thereby restricting their

18

opportunities for employment, and potentially increasing the costs by having to use alternative and more expensive transport means. Similarly, overcrowded conditions are not conducive to travel for those with mental health or neuro-diverse conditions. Overcrowding has a disproportionately negative impact on disabled passengers, so measures need to be taken to combat it. We would therefore recommend that the maximum number of carriages available is used for rush hour and commuter trains. This will help all passengers to avoid cramped conditions and increase the chance to get a seat.

The “please give me a seat cards” suggested by some train operators put the onus on the passenger to request a seat. There is absolutely no obligation on other passengers to comply and requests for a seat can be met with abuse, particularly if the disabled passenger does not have an ‘obvious’ disability. We recommend that disabled passengers who need a seat should be entitled to upgrade to first class where a seat will often be available (if this forms part of the particular service), at no extra cost.

Even a pre-booked seat is not a guarantee that a seat will actually be obtained. The cancellation of trains can lead to reservations being removed and a free-for-all to get a seat. In these circumstances there needs to be firm guidance that on-board train staff will ensure that seats are provided to those disabled people who need them.

There is a lot of disparity between what is provided on the UK rail network with regards to accessibility equipment. Most stations have ramps to access trains but it can be difficult getting help onto a train if it has not been booked in advance and there have been many incidents of people being left on the train at their destination as nobody has turned up with the ramps.

There is a lot of confusion regarding the emergency button as most people presume it is for a dire emergency whereas it may be a tool for disabled people who need to request assistance. It comes with a big warning saying that a fine would be imposed. If this could be re-labelled this would be very beneficial as wheelchair users could use it to summon attention without the fear or anxiety.

There is scope to further develop a suite of actions to improve the transport and travel opportunity of disabled customers. These include:

explore how train operators provide pre-journey information (websites and other means) to help disabled rail customers make informed choices about making rail journeys;

explore options about aligning fares and ticketing choices and purchases using Disabled Persons Rail Card (and other Railcards as appropriate) as part of the purchase process (National Rail Enquires website ticket purchase section is a useful model example to illustrate this), and create options for customers to book Passenger Assist at the point of purchase;

explore options to further develop spontaneous travel solutions (‘Turn Up And Go’);

review the provision and quality of disability equality and awareness training for all front line operational staff;

19

ensure that staff are available to assist disabled customers board and alight trains. This is crucially important in the context of unstaffed and partially staffed stations, of which there are many across the national rail network;

review the effectiveness of current Disabled Persons Rail Card discounts, and factor in the outcomes of the current work DfT is leading on in terms of fares and ticketing approaches;

develop new ways to make use of franchising processes to improve the journey experience of disabled customers through the lifespan of the franchise by continually developing specific and timebound Committed Obligation improvement measures.

Ongoing accessibility of buses and coachesAction 20DPTAC agrees with the action proposed. The rights of disabled people cannot exist just in theory. They need to be enforced. We suggest that DVSA should publish this report on the basis that the Public Sector Equality Duty requires public sector bodies to publish information and data on an annual basis. The Action lacks any timescale or specific outcome that it is aiming to achieve.

DPTAC recommends that the DfT also considers ways to understand and target the challenges with bus stops access and develops appropriate actions on this area.

Refusal of assistance dogs in taxisAction 21We agree with the action proposed. It would be beneficial to clearly explain if the purpose of this action is to fund research. However, many of the reasons why some taxi and PHV drivers refused to carry assistance dogs are well-known, so the focus should be on identifying the key actions and outcomes, and timescales. There is an urgency needed to deliver improved compliance in this area.

As discussed in Action 5 one issue is the growing number of owner-trained dogs that are not part of Assistance Dogs UK (ADUK). This makes it impossible for drivers to know if a dog is recognised by one of the regulated charities or not. Although some of these dogs are very well trained, issues such as dog welfare, flee treatments, worming and safety are not regulated. In addition, many drivers of taxis and mini-cabs have religious reasons for not wanting to carry a dog and don’t understand that they are under an obligation to do so.

We urge the DfT to commit to stronger deterrents to the behaviour targeted in this Action by introducing a range of disciplinary sanctions such as suspension and formal warnings. We would also welcome a clear commitment to increasing fines, to funding a communications campaign, and to investing in training.

We also urge the DfT to adopt Recommendation 63 of the Law Commission report that the Secretary of State can require information on how to complain about taxi and private hire vehicle services to be displayed inside vehicles.

20

Monitoring abuse of disabled parking spacesAction 22: We agree with the action proposed but would like it to go further. It needs to be more specific about how better enforcement will be achieved.

As stated in Action 7 there should be an obligation on local authorities to provide the number of Blue Badge prosecutions for misuse and fraud to the DfT. It seems that at the moment it is voluntary and so many authorities do not bother. Where there are no cases reported questions need to be asked. A small number of local authorities now employ Blue Badge enforcement officers and we would like to see the number of these increasing. We suggest this could be a specific outcome in the AAP. Without enforcement the scheme is becoming redundant.

We would also like to see a way for operators of off-street car parks to report suspected abuse so it is investigated by the local authority. There needs to be better examples of working together.

Other areas for attention -We also believe that disability equality and awareness training should be obligatory for all involved in providing transport services, including those dealing with Blue Badge enforcement.

The scope for technology to play a role in increasing compliance here should be explored.  For instance, the wider application of projects such as that developed for Reading should be investigated.

6. Training and education

Specific DPTAC responses:Action 23We agree with the action proposed. The more fundamental problem is the nature and content of the training to be provided. The Paulley v First Group case has left some unanswered questions and it is vital that the DfT takes full account of the advice DPTAC has provided jointly with other stakeholders on the tools available to give wheelchair users confidence to use buses, with a particular focus on driver training.

The DfT must ensure that disability equality and awareness training is mandatory for all transport providers and is comprehensive and high quality. DfT must give a clear and unequivocal message on this and ensure that bus and coach training does indeed become mandatory by 1st March 2018 (as outlined in paragraph 6.5) and is proactively monitored and effectively enforced.

It can often be bus drivers that are the problem rather than the physical features of the bus, for example, drivers moving off before a disabled person is seated, or leaving a big gap between the bus and kerb. These issues will have to be effectively addressed through training.

21

It is crucial that the good practice guide developed with DfT and DPTAC is published urgently in preparation for the March 2018 deadline. The Department must also commit to resisting any watering down of this requirement once the UK is no longer a member of the European Union.

Other areas for attention –

There should be a general principle across the provision of all transport services that those who provide these services are fully trained in disability equality and awareness. We believe that training should be mandatory for all staff on all transport services, including the transport police.

DPTAC also produced a training framework (2008) which covers an excellent range of learning points that are relevant to this action. We would welcome DfT commitment to working with DPTAC to review and update this as soon as possible.

Action 25Our view is that this action is insufficient and does not make the required commitment to action that will deliver access for many disabled people that is currently denied them. Just encouraging the promotion of good practice is not sufficient. Licensing authorities have had the powers to make training mandatory for taxi and PHV drivers for decades, yet a large proportion of authorities still don’t even have any policy on this matter. The DfT should now step in and follow the recommendation of the Law Commission to make such training mandatory.

Other areas for attention – It is very important to ensure taxi drivers who take disabled children to school have child protection and safeguarding training and some specific child disability training.

Consultation Question 6We await with interest the feedback from this consultation question and propose a workshop to be convened with the DfT to discuss in more detail.

Much relevant to this question has already been outlined under consultation question 5 above.

DPTAC members have provided the following specific feedback on this question: there is a very weak, and in too many instances non-existend understanding

of autism, sensory processing and mental health conditions; the levels of understanding from transport providers can vary from people who

could not do more to help to those who see a disabled person as someone out to ruin their day by asking for assistance;

customer facing rail staff are not geared up to support people with mental health conditions appropriately. Staff are not provided with training to help them understand the psychological barriers and therefore deliver assistance confidently and sensitively. Simple things can make all the difference between a journey completed or not;

Consultation Question 7

22

As stated earlier, compulsory disability awareness training should be required for all those providing transport services, whether employees or self-employed. This should include regular updates and refresher training. It should include training about people with hidden disabilities. Blackpool has excellent disability awareness training. This could be considered when developing a model for the whole UK.

DPPP Guidance must be urgently reviewed and updated to include specific assistance for people with hidden disabilities.

Franchise contracts must be used to enforce the requirement of assistance for people with hidden disabilities.

7. Spontaneous travel

Specific DPTAC responses:Spontaneous rail travelWe welcome the research carried out by the ORR and Transport Focus on accessibility and assistance. It is very important that the views of disabled people who do not currently travel by rail are sought in order to ascertain common themes. This has not been given enough priority in the past so we hope there will be helpful evidence in this latest research. We know that there are large numbers of disabled people who are not accessing train travel yet but who could if a number of barriers were removed. The DfT urgently needs to commission research to ensure it understands what is stopping these passengers – the real and perceived barriers.

On spontaneous travel and Passenger Assist some new thinking is required beyond the actions identified. In particular, there needs to be a much better understanding of who needs assistance, and equally importantly who doesn’t, or who only needs ‘light touch’ assistance such as deployment of a ramp. This could then be reflected in much clearer guidance to passengers on when pre-booked assistance is required or not required. Ideally, specific advice should be provided at a station / route level. We accept that while this sounds simple, it is not, and a lot of work would be required to provide station / route level guidance, although it would be a natural adjunct to both the existing ‘Stations Made Easy’ facility on National Rail Enquiries and the improved information suggested in para 8.11 and para 8.12. This has the potential to make pre-journey planning by passengers with a disability much easier.

Action 26We welcome the action proposed. There will need to be constructive and clear recommendations and timescales, and transparency around the actions taken as a result and the outcomes achieved for disabled people, otherwise those now unable to undertake spontaneous travel will not be able to do so in the future.

One area which needs to be considered is the inability on some trains to book in advance the wheelchair space. This means that a journey can be severely delayed if another wheelchair user (or even pushchair) is in the only wheelchair space. On journeys where several changes are required this can cause a lot of anxiety as there is no guarantee that the train you need to get on will have an empty wheelchair

23

space. This can mean having to sit in the corridor, outside the toilet or choosing not to travel at all.

Action 27We welcome the action proposed. As with action 26 there needs to be constructive and clear recommendations and timescales, and transparency around the actions taken as a result and the outcomes achieved for disabled people.

Consultation Question 8We await with interest the feedback from this consultation question and we propose a workshop to be convened with the DfT to discuss in more detail.

DPTAC members have provided the following specific feedback on this question: members have been refused assistance because they didn’t book 24 hours in

advance. Usually they are assisted either by staff or fellow passengers. Advance booking has not always been easy or reliable;

it would be good if booking assistance could be made easier, and more reliable;

some stations are completely inaccessible for some disabled people; for many disabled people it is impossible to make spontaneous journeys by

public transport. It is arguable that this amounts to indirect disability discrimination. While transport companies and Government may suggest that the current arrangements are reasonable, many disability people would disagree;

spontaneous train travel is pretty much impossible for those in wheelchairs. The need to pre-book assistance removes the possibility of such spontaneity and therefore effectively denies many disabled people the same access as everyone else;

generally most people report that when they turn up at a station having not booked the ramps in advance they will still be given assistance to board. However, the issue is always at the other end when it comes to getting off. If you have not booked it is likely that nobody will know that you are on the train and so no help is there on arrival. Even if the guard says that they have phoned the destination station, still there is nobody there on arrival. In an increasing number of journeys there is no second member of staff onboard the train to even ask. To promote more spontaneous travel there needs to be a fail-safe solution to seeking assistance on arrival at the station. Whether this is a button to press on the train that rings through to an office or an advertised number for people to ring. When you are the only person left on the train with no sign of anyone coming to help it is a very worrying experience;

offer a full rebate on ticket cost for railcard holders who are unable to travel on the day due to health related issues (see response to Action 32);

the worry about not being well enough to travel is a huge deterrent for people, especially those with fluctuating conditions. If they knew that a rebate would be easily obtained they would be more likely to book in the first place. Advance booking is essential for most disabled people in order to afford travel (see response to Action 32).

24

Passenger AssistParagraph 7.15This mentions a new Freephone number for Passenger Assist bookings, but this requires the user to phone a number and then select a particular option. It would be simpler if there were a dedicated phone number for Passenger Assist bookings.

Action 28See our response to Action 12

Action 29See our response to Action 14

Other areas for attention – We suggest that the DfT designs and develops an approach for both planned and unplanned disruption to include the following aspects:

train operators provision of PSVAR compliant buses when rail replacement bus services are commissioned;

train operators to promote agreed and published DPPP solutions to provide Taxi / PHV services as necessary and required;

train operators to ensure that when a Taxi / PHV is required wheelchair accessible vehicles are available, if necessary working with the relevant licensing authority to ensure wider provision of WAVs;

train operators to undertake review work around infrastructure used when rail replacement bus services are required and use outcomes to commission improvement work in partnership with other relevant stakeholders (local authorities and Network Rail);

train operators to provide information through a range of channels about alternative travel options in the event of planned and unplanned disruption;

DfT to consider creating a Best Practice Guidance information set to help inform processes and practices when alternative transport arrangements are required due to disruption.

Consultation Question 10We will await with interest feedback from the AAP consultation on this section as we are keen to work with the DfT to define and develop a way forward.

The future of rail ticketingConsultation Question 11Paragraphs 7.19 to 7.25 of the Plan rightly point out the potential benefits of smart ticketing but consultation question 11 has a narrow focus on ticket vending machines (‘TVMs’). There are significant issues with TVMs, largely because they are not designed with the needs of a variety of disabled people in mind. There is an urgent need to promote better inclusive design and operation, and perhaps an innovation competition around co-design of TVMs could be a starting point.

However, while TVMs will remain essential for a number of disabled and older people who do not have access to all new forms of technology, they are rapidly becoming old technology themselves, essentially being made redundant by smart ticketing in its various forms.

25

There is a missed opportunity in this consultation question, as a more useful question would have been to ask about experiences of accessibility across all ticket purchase channels and, in particular smartcard and online purchase (e-tickets), which are likely to, fairly rapidly, become the new norms for ticket purchase, and to explore the universal availability of this technology across all modes of public transport.

8. Building confidence and empowerment

Specific DPTAC responses:Action 30We welcome this action but we consider that the statement that the DfT will simply ‘work with’ other bodies is a low level of commitment. The Government also needs to listen to bodies and groups representing disabled people - principally DPTAC - and not just to transport service providers and their representative bodies.

While it is sensible that this starts with rail services, a similar system is needed on buses and taxis / PHVs. Disabled people need the confidence that buses and other transport modes will provide them with the service they need. Currently the theoretical threat of a civil action under the Equality Act does not act as a true incentive to make bus operators, taxi or PHV operators decide that giving disabled people a reliable service is a priority.

Consultation Question 12We will be interested to see the consultation feedback and are keen to work with DfT to discuss this and to develop future policy as appropriate.

Our view is that the current dispute resolution process is inadequate, disjointed and confusing. The general sense is that the various complaint mechanisms across different modes are passive - in that they are ready to receive complaints if people bring their complaints – rather that proactive. This assumes that consumers have a level of understanding of their rights that we believe does not exist, and a level of awareness of and confidence in compliant systems that we also believe does not exist. As a result current complaints data is inadequate and cannot be used to draw a realistic picture of consumers experiences generally, or specifically where disabled people receive poor levels of services, or no service at all and are excluded altogether.

The Equality Act 2010 gives consumers rights and the ability to bring civil claims for compensation. At present we do not have confidence that the current complaint systems are able to deal with these claims. This effectively forces disabled people who have been discriminated against to either go to court, with all the costs and uncertainties that entails, or to give up. This is not acceptable and cannot continue.

Individual passengers lack the bargaining power in negotiations with transport service providers to have a fair opportunity to secure an equitable outcome.

26

Most passengers have no choice but to continue using the same service, even if they are dissatisfied, as competition is often, in reality, a myth.

The best solution would be to have an independent form of ADR (Alternative Disputes Resolution), such as a Transport Ombudsman covering all modes with a single entry point. This should be free to consumers and binding on providers. It should also include the possibility of a number of different outcomes ranging from compensation through to the ability to require the provider to change a practice, policy, so passengers are reassured that the same problem will not happen to them again, or to any other passengers.

Information on accessibility levelsPara 8.10Improved information about the accessibility of services would be very welcome but the issue is not about the accessibility of vehicles - all low-level buses should be accessible now. What is needed is information about transfer from one bus route to another, how to locate the next stop, what distances are involved and what the terrain is. The TfL website is a good starting point as a model.

Action 31We welcome the action but are concerned that it is too vague and would benefit from a clearer statement of what is going to be done. Realistically this would only help disabled people to decide whether or not to travel, as many will not have the option of an alternative route, or mode of travel.

Disabled Persons RailcardAction 32While this action is welcome, we do not believe it goes far enough. The AAP refers several times to the findings of the Extra Costs Commission and accepts a number of its findings. We support the Government’s desire to remove barriers to travel as a means of improving access to employment, healthcare and a social life. As part of this there is a need to fundamentally review the aims of the DPR and the current eligibility criteria, particularly to assess whether it is able as currently structured to deliver the stated ‘role in increasing the confidence of disabled passengers’. We welcome the Government’s desire to ‘support further growth in its take up and use’.

According to ORR, there are 207,311 DPRs in use10. That means that less than 1.6% of the 13.3 million disabled people have one. The full review of the eligibility criteria for the DPR should also include a review of promotion about the card. It would be helpful to see some really targeted promotion. It may be possible to deduce from applications the sectors of disability which have particularly low uptake.

The DPR currently gives a discount of 1/3. For disabled people able to travel independently this is beneficial, but if the person’s disability means they have to travel with a carer it still only gives 1/3 off each person’s ticket price. It therefore costs a disabled person more to travel than a non-disabled person where a companion is needed. We recommend the introduction of a rail card for disabled people who travel with a companion where a 50% concession is given to both the disabled person and their carer or 1/3 could be deducted from the disabled persons 10 http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/24936/DPRC-factsheet-2016-17.pdf

27

ticket price and the carer should be able to travel free of charge. This would stop the disabled person from being unfairly treated with regards to ticket pricing.

As stated earlier in our response to Consultation question 5, on crowded trains disabled passengers who need a seat should be automatically entitled to a seat in first class, as a reasonable adjustment.

Other areas for attention – We make no particular recommendations about other possible options at this stage but we suggest that there may be a number of options that a review could examine to encourage more uptake. For example, these could include increasing the discount of 1/3 to 50% for all disabled people, or considering free travel to mirror the disabled persons bus pass. Other options to be examined include whether free off peak travel, with a 50% discount at peak times, or allowing DPR users to be able to have a free upgrade from standard to first class would deliver the outcome of increased travel.

We would welcome research into the impact that the lack of consistency across different modes has as a potential barrier to accessibility and the impact each option would have on removing barriers to travel.

The benefits of booking in advance to secure lower fares are promoted by the rail sector. Yet for many disabled people it is not possible to be confident that they will be able to travel on any given future date. Early booking therefore creates the risk that they will be penalised if they are unable to travel on the day booked with no prospect of a refund. We therefore suggest that an automatic reimbursement for a disabled person who is unable to travel on the day due to their health should always be available. If this were guaranteed as a safety net more disabled people would be able to take advantage of advance purchase tickets at reduced cost and not be forced into buying their ticket, often at greater cost, on the day of travel.

National Assistance Card or other assistance for people with less visible disabilities

Consultation Questions 13We support the introduction of a National Assistance Card. A nationally recognised cross-modal card would be preferable.

Most people with a hidden disability would wish to have an assistance card with them for reassurance should the need arise for it. Those who currently rely on the national bus concession as evidence find that they are challenged by bus drivers because their disability is not obvious.

It is important to let the person who wishes to use a card choose whether they want it to be discreet or not – we recognise that fellow passengers can be really helpful if they know you have a disability, but they can also be challenging, rude and sometimes aggressive if they cannot see the assistance needs of the disabled person, for example when occupying a priority seat.

28

Any card would need to record the person’s individual difficulties. These cards need to have more clout than the “please give me a seat” cards. The obligation remains on the service provider to comply with disability equality legislation. The card should place an obligation on the service provider to act in response and to apply any necessary reasonable adjustments.

Travel training, buddying and mentoring schemes

Action 33We welcome this action although the wording is very vague and we recommend more substantial action in this area.

Training is crucially important in terms of establishing the means to make independent journeys for older and disabled people. And while buddy schemes are to be welcomed, they should not be used to dilute the legal obligations of service providers.

The examples given in para 8.21 and 8.22 are all local. It is not clear what support DfT has given these. We would urge DfT to include action to share information about such initiatives by providing information about examples of good practice on its website and elsewhere. The Department should also work with special schools.

We suggest the DfT revisits work previously undertaken to support the establishment of a National Association of Independent Travel Training to create a national platform to deliver agreed outcomes against this action. The Department may consider the Greater Manchester Travel Training Forum (GMTTF) as a model example of how this approach could work at national level.

Mobility CentresAction 34We welcome this action as long as the aim is to enable disabled drivers to continue driving, by providing focused training, and not to reduce the number of disabled drivers on the roads. We recommend that the action states clearly how the DfT will ensure this will happen, for example, through extra funding. Paragraph 8.32 says that the Mobility Centres are committed to expanding the range of services they offer. How does this fit in with DVLA? If an individual has an adaptation are they only allowed to use a car with that adaptation?

Advice on when to stop drivingActions 35 – 36We welcome these as a statement of some of the actions that Mobility Centres will take. However, they should include a statement of the actions that DfT will take to ensure that this will happen setting out timescales, resources, and targeted outcomes with monitoring of impact.

Community TransportConsultation Question 15

29

The main way the DfT can help community transport operators is to revert to the previous position for community transport operators competing for local authority contracts using Section 19 and Section 22 Permits, or as closely as possible within the legislation. This is particularly relevant as the DfT Single Department Plan says: “We will … ensure the community transport sector has the skills and support needed to operate effectively.”

A straightforward answer to this consultation question is to provide adequate funding. We would refer the DfT to the Transport Select Committee report in 2013 which criticised the cuts imposed to community transport following the 2010 election which led to many local authorities having to cut back important community transport services.11

Mobility scootersActions 37 – 38:These action are welcome but the commitment needs to be clearer. We recommend that the DfT secures input from disability groups - and DPTAC - not just service providers. It also needs to provide clear answers to questions such as - how will training for mobility scooter users be promoted? Who will pay for the provision of facilities?

Other areas for attention – We suggest the DfT considers revising the current information provided to help people who are considering purchasing a mobility scooter covering types and models which can be accommodated on public transport. We also recommend the DfT undertakes work with RDG to explore current TOC policies in terms of carriage of mobility scooters on different classes of rolling stock.

Pushchairs and buggies are - in principle - capable of being folded, while it will be very rare for a wheelchair-user to be able to fold their wheelchair and sit elsewhere. It needs a clear decision that wheelchairs should take priority ahead of pushchairs and buggies. And while pushchairs and buggies seem to have expanded in size over recent years, mobility scooters have shrunk, and theoretically should fit onto trains and buses better than previously.

The inability to use a scooter at the “other end” of a train or bus journey is a genuine barrier to disability inclusion and employment. Therefore providing guidance on where and when scooters can be allowed on buses and trains would be a very positive development.

Unauthorised pavement parkingAction 39We welcome this action but question whether the stated deadline of ‘Autumn 2017’ has been met. We recommend that there needs to be a simple way for people to report vehicles constantly parking on the pavement and causing obstructions to wheelchair users and blind people.

11 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/disabled-report--substantive/

30

9. Strengthening our evidence base

Specific DPTAC responses:We accept that for the foreseeable future the majority of disabled people will find travel more demanding than do non-disabled people. It requires physical effort for many people with physical impairments and creates a degree of stress for any disabled people, particularly those with cognitive impairments, mental health conditions and autism. As a result of this disabled people have developed coping mechanisms to reduce their need to travel.

What would be helpful is to understand what are the latent travel needs of disabled people – where, if travel was easier, they would make more journeys which would have an important impact on their lives, or what would encourage disabled people who do not currently use public transport to feel confident to do so. Only when this data is known and understood will DfT be able to set realistic targets to measure whether transport accessibility is improving and whether the important outcome of more disabled people using transport is achieved.

para 9.3 2nd bullet pointThere needs to be specific reference to autism included here.

Action 40We welcome this action as research in this area is lacking. We recommend that this specifically includes autism which would not be covered by the general reference to ‘behaviourial …. impairments’. And as stated above, it is essential that this research covers people who do not currently use public transport, develops an understanding of why they do not and of what changes need to be made to enable them to be confident enough to travel.

It is important that the research outcomes are turned into positive actions with timescales, resources and mechanisms for monitoring impacts.

Other areas for attention – The Department could include specific research into the barriers disabled people face when using bus services with the aim of understanding ways to improve the take-up rate amongst disabled people of concessionary fares. There is evidence, for example, that the behavior of bus drivers and other passengers deters many people with mental impairments from using the bus (see below).

Actions 41We welcome this action as research in this area is crucial but lacking.

There is also a need to ensure that evidence obtained by DfT in the past is made easily available to prevent resources being wasted by repeating work in areas where the existing evidence base is sound. There should be an Action to bring together all the existing evidence by both the Department and other relevant bodies and make it available in one central place.

Innovation as a tool for accessibility.Paragraphs 9.5 to 9.20

31

The document acknowledges the potential of innovations such as e-bikes, connected and autonomous vehicles and demand responsive transport, but fails to include any Actions to help ensure these improve accessibility for disabled people or are co-designed with disabled people and developed with inclusion built in. We recommend that the DfT convenes experts in these fields with members of DPTAC to develop ideas around how these can be used, and a clear strategy for their future development and use.

Connected and Autonomous VehiclesWe think this technology has huge potential to make transport much easier for disabled people and bring advantages to some people who will never otherwise get the benefits of the private car. We would like to see assurances that the DfT will be willing to set design criteria similar to PSVAR (and similar regulations covering other types of transport) to ensure that vehicles can accommodate the needs of disabled people. Without a clear framework we are concerned that many disabled people will be accidentally ‘designed out’ of these vehicles and systems. For example, in order to maximise use of road space we anticipate vehicles for small local journeys will get smaller and smaller – but they must be able to accommodate wheelchair passengers.

Action 42 See our response to Action 15.

Action 43 See our response to Action 16.

Action 44We welcome this action, but there needs to be a clear mechanism to ensure that this happens. We refer to DPTAC’s Principles set out on pages 1 and 2 above.

10. Inclusive policy makingInclusive Policy Making would be a great step forward but it does need a serious commitment from the top level down. We will await with interest feedback from the AAP consultation on this section as we are keen to work with the DfT to define and develop a way forward.

What is unclear is the mechanism that DfT (and other public funded bodies such as ORR) currently uses to assess and address issues around equality and inclusion in policy making. We recommend that a robust Equality Impact Risk Assessment / Analysis approach is undertaken as part of any policy design and refresh exercise.

Other areas for attention – We recommend the Department considers developing a robust policy-making tool aimed at making it impossible to sidestep access issues. In transport, where infrastructure lasts 100 years and vehicles 20 or more, producing something which excludes disabled people has a lasting negative impact. Two recent examples highlight the need for this. The first concerns Crossrail, where until the very last minute some stations were not going to be accessible. The second concerns the

32

electrification of the west coast line to Wales where some stations on the GWR line have not had bridges made accessible even when they have to be re-built to accommodate electric power lines. This must stop happening.

We suggest that DfT requires all major programmes (not just investment in infrastructure, but policies on security or autonomous vehicles etc) should have an accompanying access statement which sets out what measures are to be incorporated to ensure that disabled people are not excluded in any way. The project manager should be held accountable for delivery of this access statement. This should be aimed at delivering DPTAC’s stated principles for accessible transport as set out on pages 1 and 2 above.

There is a need for a systematic approach to improving accessibility for disabled people because the situation for disabled people is not improving (shown in Table 1 below). This shows that adults with mobility difficulties made fewer trips compared to those without mobility difficulties in 2015 than they did six years earlier. It would be useful to see some discussion in the AAP about why this is the case, particularly in the light of all the improvements that have been made which are discussed in Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.9. If this is not known there should be research to find out why all the investment is not producing a measurable improvement in the amount of travel by disabled people.

Table 1 Ratio of trips per year by people aged 16+ with a mobility difficulty to the number of trips by people aged 16+ without mobility difficulties (%)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201564.8 64.8 67.3 63.6 65.6 63.7 58.6 58.0 62.5

Source: National Travel Survey

The AAP is referred to in the Department’s Single Departmental Plan, published 19 February 2016 and last updated on 12 October 201612 which says “We will … publish an accessibility action plan to improve access to public transport and contribute to halving the employment gap between non-disabled and disabled people”. While the first part of the statement is being implemented, the figures in the table above suggest that access to employment for disabled people is not improving and so the Department is not contributing to the halving the employment gap between non-disabled and disabled people. The AAP should be used as an opportunity to help achieve this objective.

Specific DPTAC responses:Action 45We welcome this as a crucial part of the way the Department operates. A deep understanding of disability issues and of accessibility need to be properly embedded into the DfT’s ways of thinking, and at all levels. Likewise, the Public Sector Equalities Duty must be seen as not just a “tick-box” exercise, but as an essential and legally required part of policy-making.

12 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-single-departmental-plan-2015-to-2020

33

We recommend that this training is supported with a set of operational tools for policy makers to use which are designed to keep accessibility front and centre of their thinking at all times when doing their work.

Actions 46We welcome this action.

Action 47We welcome this action but it is short on detail. The action should specify how DfT will support work with local authorities. We suggest that DPTAC should have a pivotal role in the proposed work with local authorities.

11. Measuring delivery of outcomes.Monitoring and evaluation are key to any future accessibility strategy, so we welcome the emphasis placed on this in both here and in Chapter 9.  Usage is an excellent indicator of how accessible the transport network has become, and the idea of identifying a dedicated cohort of travellers within the National Travel Survey is a good one. However, we question whether this would deliver sufficiently robust data in terms of sample size, particularly when broken down by type of disability or age.

We suggest an alternative should be a dedicated ongoing (annual or bi-annual) survey of disabled people (travellers and non-travellers) with a sample large enough to provide statistically significant data even when broken down by type of disability, mode or age. The National Travel Survey could be used to provide comparative data for non-disabled people. This is fundamental in terms of measuring the success of the AAP. The CAA’s large-scale tracker survey would be a good model here.

One further area worth exploring in this context is the work already done by Transport Focus. Their large-sample, bi-annual surveys of rail, bus and tram passengers potentially provide very rich time-series data on the use of these modes by travellers with a disability (the rail survey, at least, asks passengers to identify if they have a disability). The nature of these surveys mean that comparative analysis of disabled and non-disabled passengers is relatively straightforward.

Effective monitoring is entirely possible, as noted in para 4.63 of the Plan which describes the how the CAA has developed a comprehensive and transparent monitoring regime. We recommend that a realistic action and target for this Plan would be to have something similar in place for rail and bus by mid-2019.

Action 48We welcome this as an initiative and are keen begin work on this urgently.

This action raises two concerns for DPTAC. First, while it is good that effective ways of measuring the travel patterns and trends of disabled people will be developed as stated, this will give little indication of which policy initiatives are being effective. Each action in the AAP should have a defined outcome and a target date for implementation, plus an indicator to show how successful it is. Only then will it be possible to see whether the AAP is successful and helping to improve accessibility

34

for disabled people. A system for monitoring changes in trip making for disabled people to see if progress is being made should be set up. The data should be used to explore the barriers to travel for disabled people and the ones that indicate relevant changes used as part of a monitoring system. Secondly, serious thought should be given in deciding where the responsibility for this should sit. Is it within the DfT, or might it be better placed with an independent body to oversee it (for example, Passenger Focus).

General summary from DPTACThe development of an Accessibility Action Plan is welcome, but the draft document is disappointing because it does not recognise many of the current contextual issues in this field such as the failure of the investment in public transport vehicles and infrastructure to produce a demonstrable increase in travel by disabled people in recent years. The AAP also presents an excellent opportunity for the DfT to demonstrate how it will deliver against the commitments in its Single Departmental Plan, and also to review a growing number of reports that either touch on or specifically target the challenges faced that disabled people continue to face when using transport and the built environment. Exampes are the report on the UK by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities13, the Women and Equalities Committee report on the built environment14, the Transport Select Committee in its 2013 report on ‘Access to transport for people with disabilities’15, Law Commission’s review of taxi and PHV legislation, 16 and other reports.

What is particularly disappointing is that many of the proposed ‘Actions’ are vague, as they do not make clear what the expected outcome is and the timing. A third area of concern is the lack of sound evidence to underpin the document.

All the actions currently in the draft AAP should be reviewed to ensure that they have a clear outcome and timescale, with a clear means to assess how successful they are.

Throughout our response we have suggested some areas where additional actions could be considered. Some further actions suggested by DPTAC are:

DfT should carry out research to establish why, despite the large investment in improving infrastructure and vehicles disabled people are not travelling significantly more than they were in the recent past.

DfT should bring together relevant experts to shift the underlying rationale for improving accessibility for disabled people to be in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

DfT should share information with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the differences in provision in the four countries and

13 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21993&LangID=E 14 https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/disability-and-the-built-environment-16-17/ 15 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/disabled-report--substantive/ 16 http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/lc347_taxi-and-private-hire-services.pdf

35

the effectiveness of various initiatives and then, as far as possible, ensure that the same best practice is adopted across the UK.

DfT should carry out research into the reasons why accessibility is poorer in rural areas than urban areas and ways of addressing the differences.

DfT should carry out research into whether negative attitudes towards older and disabled travellers are improving.

DfT should ensure that there are no cases when trains with no on-board staff other than the driver stop at unstaffed stations.

DfT should carry out research into the barriers to access for disabled people caused by shared space schemes, unless the report to be produced by CIHT contains sound evidence.

DfT should take action to prevent coaches which are not PSVAR-compliant from being used to provide local bus services.

DfT should undertake research into why fewer than 20% of disabled people have bus passes issued under ENCTS.

DfT should ensure that all taxi and PHV drivers receive disability awareness training, including training about hidden disabilities.

DfT should ensure that there is a single direct telephone line for booking Passenger Assist.

DfT should carry out research with the Rail Delivery Group and others to establish why fewer than 2% of disabled people have a Disabled Person Railcard and ways of increasing this.

DfT should encourage the sharing of information about initiatives to build up the confidence of disabled travel by putting examples of good practice on its website and by other means.

DfT should set up a knowledge hub containing all the research that it has produced in this area and relevant work by others so that it does not waste resources by repeating research that has already been carried out and to share knowledge with other experts in the field.

DfT should carry out research into ways that innovations such as e-bikes and autonomous vehicles can help meet the travel needs of disabled people and develop ways of ensuring that their needs are considered at the early stages of the developments of future innovations.

DfT should use relevant data in NTS to explore the barriers to access for disabled people and set up monitoring systems to demonstrate how levels of accessibility for disabled people are changing over time, and publish an annual report on this topic.

DfT should urgently review whether the current accessibility regulations for rail, bus and coach are fit for purpose. Within this should be a particular study into whether the ‘reference wheelchair’ is still a realistic or appropriate measure for physical accessibility.

36