Guidance

Response from the DPTAC to the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail: A consultation on legislation to implement rail transformation

Published 29 July 2022

Introductory remarks

This response is submitted on behalf of DPTAC. As the future of DPTAC itself forms part of the consultation, we believe it appropriate to provide some information on DPTAC, its role and the approach that it takes to its duties.

DPTAC

DPTAC was established by the Transport Act 1985 and is the statutory advisory body to the Secretary of State for Transport on matters relating to disability and transport. The committee has a chair and 15 members, 50% of whom are required to be disabled.

DPTAC’s vision is that disabled people should have 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.

In practice DPTAC’s ‘established role’, as defined on the Department for Transport’s website, has extended beyond solely the provision of advice to the Secretary of State and now includes a number of other advisory functions:

• the provision of advice to the entire ministerial team either individually or jointly depending on the subject matter
• the provision of advice directly to civil servants within the Department for Transport (DfT)
• the provision of advice on the regulatory framework to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR)
• the maintenance of relationships with other key industry stakeholders such as Transport Focus, Network Rail and train operators through their industry association the Rail Delivery Group
• liaison with equivalent bodies that provide advisory services on transport and disability to the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
• the maintenance of informal links with disability charities and advocacy groups and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

DPTAC is not an advocacy body, but seeks to provide objective and informed advice to the government and other related stakeholders within the legal and regulatory framework provided by the Equality Act 2010 and accessibility-related regulations specific to the rail sector. This advice is often critical or challenging, but also seeks to be constructive and balanced. As such, DPTAC can be seen as a ‘critical friend’ of government.

DPTAC has adopted a proactive approach to its role in the rail area, raising issues that it believes to be relevant and important, suggesting initiatives that would improve the accessibility of the rail network and challenging actions and policies that run counter to the legal and regulatory responsibilities of stakeholders or the government’s policies relating to disability.

DPTAC works within the government’s confidentiality bubble and has a limited public presence, although it seeks to make its formal advice public wherever possible. DPTAC is also subject to freedom of information (FOI) requests.

Disabled people and use of the transport network

Disability affects around 14 million people in the UK. It includes physical or sensory impairments as well as ‘non-visible’ disabilities such as autism, dementia, learning disabilities and anxiety. For many disabled people a lack of confidence in using the transport system is a barrier to being able to access employment, education and health care, as well as participation in a broader range of social, leisure and commercial activities.

DPTAC’s consultation response

Whilst in general, DPTAC is supportive of the current programme of rail industry reform, which it believes that, if implemented properly, provides significant opportunities to improve the accessibility of the rail network, many of the consultation questions relate to activities outside the scope of DPTAC’s remit. As such, we have responded solely to those questions, which have clear implications from an accessibility perspective.

In this context, we have not responded to the following questions: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 25.

DPTAC is happy for this response to be made public and will add a copy of our response to the DPTAC website.

DPTAC’s consultation responses

Question 1

Does the scope of the proposed designation of Great British Railways as an integrated rail body appropriately capture what you would expect for an effective guiding mind for the railways? (paragraph 2.6) Please explain.

The lack of a coherent, long-term strategy for improving the accessibility of the rail network defined and managed by a single guiding mind has been a major obstacle to delivering a more accessible railway. This has been exacerbated by an often uncoordinated or partially coordinated approach to the implementation of initiatives to improve accessibility, and a complex industry structure that has undermined and weakened the ability of disabled people and their representative organisations to hold the rail industry to account.

As a result, the railway remains inaccessible to many disabled people, the approach to accessibility is inconsistent across the rail network and practices that are essentially discriminatory allowed to continue unchallenged.

In this context, we strongly welcome the introduction of a body that will function as a single ‘guiding mind’ for the rail sector. The creation of Great British Railways (GBR) as this body, alongside other initiatives such as the development of the new national rail accessibility strategy, has the potential to deliver fundamental improvements to the accessibility of the rail network.

In this context the proposed scope of GBR seems appropriate, but we would emphasise the concomitant need for GBR to be held clearly accountable for rail sector accessibility as it will effectively control all the key levers necessary to achieve this. Clear accountability for GBR in this respect will allow it to be challenged and held to account by the ORR, as well as disabled people and their representative organisations.

Question 9

Do you support the proposal to include in legislation, a power for Great British Railways to issue directions to its contracted operators to collaborate with one another in circumstances where doing so could otherwise give rise to concerns under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, in particular, where this could lead to defined benefits to taxpayers and/or passengers? (paragraph 2.54)

Whilst we are not aware of any current constraints on the delivery of accessibility as a result of competition law, it is crucial to the consistent delivery of an accessible railway that contracted operators are able to collaborate, where necessary, in delivering accessibility. As such, we strongly support the proposed power.

Question 14

Do you agree with the proposal for Great British Railways’ new duties to be captured in the licence and that primary legislation should require the licence to include specific duties in relation to accessibility, freight and the environment? (paragraph 3.16) Please explain.

We have responded to this question on the basis of the proposed accessibility duty alone. The proposed rail freight and environmental duties fall outside our remit and we have no comment to make on them.

We very strongly agree with the proposed new accessibility duty and believe that, if properly worded and enforced, it can be instrumental in delivering the kind of cultural change needed to make the rail sector accessible. We have long advocated that accessibility needs to be at the very core of what the rail industry does in the way that safety is currently. It is only by embedding accessibility in industry culture in this way that the pervasive focus needed to deliver an accessible railway will be achieved.

It is worth adding that disabled people are often viewed as just another passenger group, albeit with some specific needs, but this ignores the fact that no other passenger group has either the same kind of physical barriers to access, or the diverse and critical support needs as disabled people. In this context, it is absolutely right that there should be a specific duty on GBR to improve accessibility.

The wording of the new duty will be critical to achieving real change and will need to ensure that the duty is clear, unambiguous, rigorous, comprehensive and capable of effective monitoring and enforcement. It also needs to embrace the full range of disabilities both visible and non-visible. We look forward to the planned further consultation on the detail of the new duty.

Critical to the success of the new duty is also to ensure that the ORR’s remit with regard to monitoring and enforcement compliance with the duty is clear, and that it is properly resourced to undertake this role effectively.

Finally, we should add that, while a little disappointed that the duty will not be set out in primary legislation, there are advantages to it, instead, being a licence condition. This provides a degree of flexibility, which should be utilised if necessary. In this context, we would suggest a 5-yearly review of the duty with amendment and/or strengthening if it has proved to be ineffective in delivering cultural change and improvements to accessibility.

Question 15

Do you support the proposal to amend ORR’s powers to exclude the ability to impose a financial penalty on Great British Railways for licence breach? (paragraph 3.26) Please explain.

We support this proposal as the imposition of financial penalties by one public sector body on another public sector body is an ineffective way of deterring poor performance and incentivising good performance.

However, we believe that effective penalties for non-compliance or poor delivery do need to exist and strongly support the idea suggested in the consultation document that such penalties are focussed on the senior leadership team of GBR and their remuneration. It is also important that the Secretary of State retains powers over the appointment and continued employment of the senior leadership team and board of GBR in this respect.

Question 16

Please provide any feedback on the proposed business planning arrangements for Great British Railways.

Given the importance of the 5-year business planning process envisaged for GBR, it is crucial that it explicitly and comprehensively takes into account the need to improve accessibility (in line with the new accessibility duty and in order to deliver the national rail accessibility strategy). We would strongly advocate that the Transport Bill includes this requirement.

Question 17

Will the proposed approach to independent scrutiny and challenge provide sufficient transparency and assurance that Great British Railways can be held to account? (paragraphs 3.45 to 3.47) Please explain.

The ORR will play a vital role in ensuring that GBR delivers on its responsibilities with regard to accessibility including the new accessibility duty and the new national rail accessibility strategy.

In order to undertake this role successfully it will need:

• to have a clear, unambiguous and sufficiently detailed remit
• to identify and put in place metrics that allow performance to be monitored
• to be properly resourced to allow effective monitoring and enforcement

Question 20

How can we ensure that accessibility is integral to Great British Railways’ decision making and leads to cultural change in the rail industry? Please explain.

The planned rail transformation programme includes the key components necessary to achieve the kind of culture change required:

• the new national rail accessibility strategy
• the accessibility duty
• a new national accessible travel policy (ATP)
• a consolidated and better-prioritised physical improvement fund based on the ongoing accessibility audit of stations (and future updates of the audit)

However, we do not believe that these components alone will be sufficient to deliver cultural change or an accessible railway. In addition, there will need to be real commitment to change driven by the senior leadership of GBR (and other stakeholders) and which permeates every strata of the organisation. We have some practical suggestions as to how this might be achieved:

• Ensuring that are clear (and public) individual responsibilities for the delivery of accessibility at an executive and board level (using, for instance, defined statements of responsibilities and a comprehensive management responsibilities map).
• That every board meeting agenda includes a regularly updated report on accessibility including performance monitoring, complaints, regulatory interventions and proposed remedial actions.
• Linking the remuneration of the individuals concerned to the progressive delivery of an accessible railway.
• Requiring all members of the senior leadership team of GBR (and other stakeholders) to complete disability awareness training (at an enhanced level) and attain accreditation under relevant schemes, such as the transport leaders scheme.
• Putting in place clear metrics for monitoring accessibility, making performance against them public (there is a role for the ORR in this area), linking them to key performance indicators (KPIs) for GBR and contracted operators, and also linking them to the remuneration of key individuals.
• Requiring accessibility impact assessments to be undertaken for all key policy and investment decisions by GBR and its contractors and partners, and ensuring that resulting changes do not disadvantage disabled people and that, wherever possible, improve accessibility.
• Ensuring that more disabled people are employed in the rail industry (preferably through a structured and targeted medium-term plan), and are present in its organisational structure at every level.
• Monitoring and adopting best practice approaches from other sectors. For example, the senior managers and certification scheme used in the financial services sector.

Beyond this there is the need to ensure that policy is coherent and that delivery is coordinated and consistent. At a macro level this means that the whole industry strategic plan, control period funding, national accessibility strategy, national accessible travel policy, passenger service contracts and consolidated physical improvement fund are all properly integrated and consistent with the new accessibility duty.

In addition, there is a need to include accessibility as a key requirement in considering end-to-end journeys and how the rail sector links to and interacts with other transport modes and operators. All this is an essential and fundamentally important task for GBR as the industry’s new single guiding mind, but to be successful requires support, most critically, from government, the DfT, and ORR.

It is also important that accessibility is included within work on innovation within the rail sector, as too often accessibility is considered as an afterthought. Once again, it is important that new, innovative initiatives that emerge do not disadvantage disabled people and that, wherever possible, improve accessibility

As the recent DfT research into disabled non-users of the rail industry highlighted, the cost of rail travel remains the most important barrier to use of the rail network by disabled people. This is unsurprising given the lower levels of employment and lower average incomes experienced by disabled people, but strongly suggests that accessibility needs also to be considered by GBR’s commercial policy with regard to fares, retailing, ticketing and railcards, with a view to ensuring the rail travel becomes affordable to as many disabled people as possible.

Finally, we should mention that funding is also crucial, not just for physical improvements to stations and rolling stock, but also the successful operation of an accessible railway in areas such as staffing.

The scope of our response highlights the challenges that need to be overcome if a true culture of accessibility, akin to that for safety, is to be embedded in the rail industry. Change needs to be comprehensive and pervasive for it to be successful. The Transport Bill and associated and linked initiatives provide the necessary building blocks for this but will, in themselves, be insufficient to achieve real cultural change.

Question 21

Do you support the proposal to expand DPTAC’s remit to become a statutory advisor to Great British Railways, as well as to the Secretary of State, on matters relating to disability and transport? (paragraph 4.15) Please explain.

DPTAC would be very willing to take on this additional role, which would reflect the transfer of many activities that it currently provides advice on from the DfT to GBR. However, given the potential conflict of interest in DPTAC’s response to this question, we will limit our response to the practical issues that need to be considered should the proposal be included in the Transport Bill and ultimately implemented.

Firstly we believe that is a need to consider how DPTAC engages with the equivalent bodies that provide advice to the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. DPTAC already engages on a regular basis with these bodies having established a 4 Nations Accessibility Group. And, in the context of this consultation, the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS) have suggested a memorandum of understanding be put in place to formalise the future relationship between DPTAC and MACS.

DPTAC certainly does not presume a level of understanding about specific issues and concerns that apply to Scotland and would absolutely want to maintain a 2-way engagement with MACS. As such we strongly support this suggestion and would be happy to put in place similar memoranda of understanding with bodies in Wales and Northern Ireland as necessary.

Secondly, we believe it would be sensible for DPTAC to set out on its website how it would work in the future with government, GBR, the DfT and other stakeholders, including the extent to which it would make public its advice to these bodies.

On this latter point there is necessarily a degree of tension in DPTAC’s work given the need to ensure that the relationship of trust that it has with the government and other stakeholders, which allows it to see and advise on often confidential matters, is balanced with the need for DPTAC’s activities to be sufficiently transparent to retain the confidence of other interested stakeholders, most importantly disabled people and the organisations that represent them. This is not an easy balance to get right, and we believe it would be sensible to set out the general rules that we follow in this area.

David Mapp, on behalf of DPTAC

26 July 2022