https://committees.parliament.uk/event/19483/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/
Welcome to today’s session of the Transport Select Committee. Before I invite our witnesses to introduce themselves, I remind witnesses and colleagues that, as a formal proceeding of the House of Commons, certain rules apply about referring to specific court cases.
I therefore ask you not to make reference to any live case that might be before the courts. That includes applications for judicial review. You can of course talk about the topics more generally, should you wish to, but please avoid referring to any live cases.
For the purposes of our records, could I ask each of our witnesses to introduce themselves and their organisation? Good morning. My name is Jacqueline Starr. I am the chief executive of the Rail Delivery Group. Good morning, everyone. My name is Stephanie Tobyn. I am the director for strategy, policy and reform at ORR.
Good morning. I am Alison Smith. I am the accessibility and inclusion lead at Network Rail. I extend that responsibility into GBRTT. Thank you all, and welcome. Thank you for your time this morning. We have been doing quite a long-running inquiry into accessibility issues in transport.
Later this morning we will be hearing from the aviation and road sectors, but for this first panel we want to concentrate on the rail sector. During the course of our evidence, we have heard quite alarming stories about the difficulties that people with disabilities or other mobility needs have while using the rail network.
It seems to be getting worse since the pandemic. Do you think that is a fair assessment of where we are? We will dig into some of the specific issues in a minute, but we are interested first of all in your overall impressions on the issue.
First, the Rail Delivery Group, RDG, has a role co-ordinating activity and delivery across the train operators. In particular, we have a key role to make sure that there is delivery against accessible travel plans, ATPs. I certainly recognise that there are some inconsistencies across the network.
I would not support the statement that it is in absolute deterioration because there is evidence, particularly around the Passenger Assist app that we offer, that there has been increased satisfaction from customers. I acknowledge that there are still way too many cases and instances where disabled customers
Experience difficulties when they are travelling with us. We acknowledge that there are a number of failed assists as part of Passenger Assist. We have measures in place to course-correct that, to include a working group that the Rail Delivery Group has instigated with the ORR and Network Rail to understand why these
Things are happening so that we can action-plan to prevent them. I would like to pick up on that point in a minute. First, I will ask Stephanie and Alison for their initial comments. I have listened to all of the examples, as you obviously have as well, and they are certainly very alarming.
They impact on the confidence of people to travel. They are very difficult to watch and understand what has actually gone wrong. On the whole, we carry out research on satisfaction of a wide variety of passengers. On that basis, we see that the majority of people have a positive experience.
That only works when every step of the process goes to plan. Previously we have discussed ramps not being provided. I think what you are seeing is where one step does not happen and, effectively, then the whole system collapses for that passenger.
It is very difficult, but I think that on the whole, for the wide variety of passengers, when it goes well, it goes extremely well. Building on what colleagues have said and from a Network Rail standpoint, we are responsible for and look after 20 of the largest stations in the country.
We have a significant responsibility for supporting customers through those stations. Obviously, we look after the infrastructure across the country. I would characterise it as a huge amount having been done. As colleagues have said, from the monitoring that we do and the insight we look at, in
The vast majority of cases things go right. I absolutely acknowledge that there is a lot more to be done. We agree that some of the instances that we have similarly witnessed are unacceptable. There is more to be done.
A lot of the evidence we have had points to the fact that while an individual journey may go well, and that is possibly reflected in the figures you referred to, Jacqueline, on Passenger Assist, it is when there is a more complex journey, with a change of train,
A change of operator or even a change to another mode of transport, that it all seems to fall down. Would you acknowledge that? Absolutely. We recognise that, and it is one of the reasons for instigating the group I referred to.
Whether it is the interventional systems or human intervention as part of that process, something is failing due to the complexity that a more complex journey introduces. That is what we want to get to the bottom of to really understand what the trouble and pain points are so that we can course-correct that.
Would the other witnesses concur? We think about it very much as an interlinking process. For one step of the process to fail—for example, for one member of staff not to adhere to the processes that are required—then it will all fail, yes.
The more touch points you have in a journey, the higher the risk that something could go wrong. Alison? We think of it as a chain of care. We are one part of that chain. It is important that we are very focused on our own performance, which of course we are,
But that we collaborate extensively with colleagues in train companies and the RDG to make sure that handover protocols are as strong as we can possibly make them. Would you also accept that a number of people with disabilities are put off travelling altogether
Because of their fear that something will go wrong, and the anxiety that that induces? Whatever your satisfaction figures capture, there will be another cohort of people who, for whatever reason, have decided, “This is too much of a problem for me. I can’t face it.” Do you accept that? I accept that.
I recognise that. At RDG, we have instigated a programme called travelling in your shoes, which is where I, the executive team and our senior leadership group go out with disabled customers to truly understand their experiences.
It is one thing to read it in black and white and analyse data, but it is another thing to experience it yourself. That is why we have instigated that, and it has confirmed to us the challenges that people
Experience on a day-to-day basis and why there is such reticence and lack of confidence in travelling with us. Of course, we do not want people to experience that. We want people to feel that they can use the railway, regardless of disability, as a preferred mode of travel.
If I could briefly put this into the context of the work that we do in assessing passenger satisfaction, where we had a big sample—with over 8,000 passengers responding, which is significant—there is only a small number of people we can look at, which is exactly your point.
We do not know the people who are not travelling. We can only look at the very small proportion who are. It is a valid point to raise. It is an entirely valid point. In recognition of that, we run a mystery shopping programme across our managed stations.
One of the things we test as part of that is confidence levels before taking a journey, based on everything that is provided in terms of information, and then once the journey has been taken. Interestingly, there is a perception issue.
We have seen some of those confidence stats improve once people were able to experience a journey. We very actively try to listen to and understand people who are not using the railway, and why and what the barriers are, as well as the reasons why people use the service and
What contributes most to lack of confidence. Thank you. This is the last question from me at the moment before I turn to colleagues. Is there an exemplar operator in this country, or even overseas, that we can learn from who has either got it right or is close to getting it right?
I don’t think there is a clear yes to that because there are still failings across the network. There are good and bad examples across all operators. Some operators perform assistance exceptionally well but, conversely, those operators also have some failings. I do not think there is a yes to that.
Across the globe I acknowledge, in preparation for this actually, that we have identified there is more opportunity for us to liaise better with colleagues from other transport sectors and across Europe and more broadly, not just from rail but perhaps air and other sources.
Stephanie and Alison, is there anyone you would hold up as a good example? I agree that it is very difficult to highlight one particular operator or one area. They are all very different and there is often not a single cause of failure. I am reluctant to name anyone.
We have looked closer to home, where there are some really good examples of best practice, and learned, where we can, how we can deploy those a bit more comprehensively. We are always very conscious, when we are looking at international examples or even
Some of the examples closer to home, of the context in which some of those operations are potentially performing slightly better. There are some important factors. Some things that work very well internationally may work less well in the UK because of some of the wider context.
It is always worth looking at benchmarking, but we have to be mindful of context. Karl has a quick supplementary. It is on the question you have just asked, Chair. If the three of you watched the previous witness sessions for this inquiry, you will be aware that a legal professor gave us some examples.
You have been quite generic in what you have just answered. Are there any specific companies or countries where regulation has been, or is about to be, put in place which you think the UK could take lessons from?
I will ask the question again on behalf of the Chair because I don’t think you gave good enough answers. As I sit here now, no, I can’t offer anything specific. I understand that you said you have done some research and you realise there is more to
Do, but what I am saying is that we already have that answer and we are looking to you to give us some information that helps us recommend to the Government what they should do. Alison or Stephanie, you might have something to add to that. I am going to help you.
We were told about Canada and Norway. Are there any other examples, or do you think they are two good countries that we should look at? You are the people who are working in this sphere, so we are looking to you to give us some information that is helpful to us.
I just don’t think you have been as helpful as you could have been. I certainly have not looked at legislation in other areas. I am obviously very familiar with the UK. I listened to that session. I could understand what they were recommending, but I certainly have not assessed it.
When we have done international comparisons, we have tended to look more at facility and service provision and less at regulation or legislation contributions. I heard the session and I acknowledge that Canada and Norway were mentioned. Canada operates in a very different type of operation, so I think that context point is very useful.
Perhaps this is still too generic, but we work with a number of independent parties. We work very closely with the Institute of Customer Service, who hold us to account in terms of the level of service that we provide generally and for disabled customers. We also use independents.
Very recently, one was working with us in GBRTT to develop the national rail accessibility strategy. That doesn’t enable us to reference specific countries or examples, but we use them to bring a global perspective to some of the consultation process, so there is that feed.
In terms of booked assistance, I understand it is difficult to mention specific operators, but if you look at the latest report compiled by the ORR, apparently it makes better reading than previously, but it is still lacking, it is fair to say.
For instance, I will name ScotRail, which is the third best in providing all booked assistance types, but it still only performs at 84%, so for 16% of the time it does not, and that is for the third best operator. The worst is at 76%. I won’t name them.
Clearly, the delivery still needs to improve significantly. We have heard from Transport for All, who are critical of the ORR on their enforcement. You say that your enforcement approach is to take early and informal regulatory action to try to stave off more formal action.
Given the criticism that has been levelled at the ORR, how effective do you think that has been? There are two things to mention to put that into context. We have two routes of enforcement. One is through health and safety legislation, where we have inspectors on the network.
We may touch on that when we come to ramps. The other is economic enforcement under our licences that we grant operators and Network Rail. I think Transport for All were referring to the more economic side.
What perhaps they do not see, and most people do not see, is the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes, and the number of things that we change when we intervene and change behaviour. We do not necessarily shout about it.
Some of your previous witnesses are very well aware of that because they raise issues with us and see us taking action and changing things. Enforcement is certainly there as a tool, but we have to balance it proportionately with our priority and what is going to deliver the best outcome.
What are we doing in terms of funding for taxpayers? Is a move to formal enforcement really going to deliver the best outcome? A lot is done, and I can certainly come back to the Committee if it is helpful to explain
Various examples of that, but what you see above the surface is purely the enforcement action. Do you think that a set of more formal actions with the ORR would improve things more quickly? We do it in two ways. We take proactive action, where we decide on subjects that need deep dives.
At the moment we are looking at the transfer of information between operators, what we call the handling protocol. We are looking at lift reliability and information for passengers. We are looking at how easy it is for passengers to complain if they have a disability.
We are taking deep-dive approaches, as well as reactive approaches, which is where some of your previous witnesses come in. Things like social media are very helpful because particular instances are brought to our attention, which we can then follow up.
That can lead to enforcement action, and indeed has led to action on ramps, for example, in relation to ScotRail. You say you do not shout about the informal work that you do. Should you be shouting about it so that all of us are more informed? The short answer to that is yes.
I say that simply because I am going to a meeting later today to talk about some of the work that we do that we do not promote, and perhaps we should do more widely. We can also use it as a potential communication tool to the operators, when we have intervened
Where they have similar issues. There is one last thing, on your picking out the worst performers. We are auditing the five lowest performing operators in our survey results to see why they are lower than some of the higher performing ones.
For the record, can you tell us how many improvement notices you have issued relating to accessibility? We have actually only issued one improvement notice, and that was in relation to ramp provision. It was when the operator was using trains on which they should have been able to provide a ramp.
This was a health and safety improvement notice. There was a bike storage area in the way instead. We engaged with them extensively and asked them to resolve that. You would assume that they would have operated quite quickly to fix it, but unfortunately
It went on for such a period, and we had such disagreement, that the only way to change their behaviour was to issue an improvement notice. I accept that it is a last resort. Given that the regulations themselves are disparate and there are obviously different
Regulations for light rail, heavy rail and so on, would it be easier for ORR to enforce regulations if there was one simple set of regulations that were essentially the same across the board and clearer about the actions they advised you to take? For example, “You must take action.”
It is not whether it is clearer for us, because I think that we deal with the tools that we have quite well. Is it better for the industry to understand what they need to do, and if you consolidated things, for example, would that be simpler, and would it be more effective for people
To understand their responsibilities? Now they have to look across multiple pieces of legislation. I look at it from that perspective. They may find it more helpful, but I think we respond with the tools that we have quite effectively. Jacqueline, my last question to Stephanie related to a point that RDG has made about
The regulatory framework being complicated, to say the least. That is the nature of the UK’s fragmented rail system. Operators obviously have different expectations. What is the RDG itself doing to try to rectify the situation? Have you had conversations with the ORR, Network Rail and indeed the DfT on all of this?
Can you feed that back to us? We work hard to try to navigate all of the regulation and legislation that is there. I definitely support Stephanie’s last point about consolidation. From a train operator perspective, that would be exceptionally helpful. We have shared that view and had those conversations.
There is a need for a tighter action plan to address that, if we believe that it is the right thing to do, noting some of the complexities of changing regulation and removing elements of it to compound that.
To have a single reference point for train operators and then to be held to account by the regulator for those in a timely fashion would be extremely helpful. I believe it would also give us some pace around some of the changes that we see.
As an industry, when we have serious incidents across the network, we are very collaborative. We all engage immediately on those. What we perhaps do not see is the remedial action that needs to take place as a follow-on, so I think that would be extremely helpful.
Alison, what conversations have Network Rail or indeed the GBR transition team been having with regard to any potential consolidation of regulations? Would you welcome that? Simplification in any context is helpful. The rail industry certainly has opportunities to do things more simply.
The plan for rail and the reform agenda set out a very clear call to action in that regard. As I say, we welcome all opportunity to simplify things and to bring consistency. The work that the ORR did and consulted extensively on, as far as the ATP guidance is concerned—the
Accessible travel policy guidance—applies consistently as a floor, if you like. At Network Rail we have a single national accessible travel policy that applies to all of our managed stations. We get the opportunity every year to reflect on our performance in relation to that and offer up improvements.
We talk very regularly to the ORR about what we are doing. We see that as an absolute floor and not a ceiling. The other areas we look after most are in our capacity as infrastructure provider. We have the code of practice that is part of the Railways Act.
The DfT is consulting on that just now, so we will take the opportunity to offer some suggestions as part of that consultation on how to simplify the code. We are committed to the idea, and it is important to retain that as part of primary legislation under the Equality Act.
How do we simplify it for our colleagues? Notwithstanding the complexity of the regulation, we have internal mechanisms to simplify that for our colleagues. We have reached consensus on simplification of regulations, but beyond simplification what would be the one thing that each of you would change about the regulations we currently have?
I will start with Alison. What would be the one thing? Again, we have done a lot of work to make sure that we translated some of the complexity that sits at the regulation level for our colleagues into much clearer and more straightforward guidance.
Some things that sit in the legislation refer to the code of practice. Because they are part of legislation, they can be difficult to change, and can take time to change. One thing we would probably look for is the ability to slightly streamline what is in
The code, so that it can be flexed to accommodate changing standards around building regulation, for example. That is probably the one thing that would make our life slightly more simple. I think you have made it more difficult for the other panellists to answer.
I do not know if I would point to one particular thing, but if there was an exercise to bring things together, potentially to simplify or consolidate, it certainly would provide the opportunity to consider whether there are any overlaps or gaps. Some of the regulation dates back to the late 1990s.
Like the rolling stock. Yes. It is an area that moves particularly quickly, and operators have to adapt. Where there is no guidance on that, it is now evolving. I am thinking of things, for example, like mobility scooters, where we may consider doing more in the future.
I feel there is an opportunity to consolidate and move forward. To build on that, the Rail Delivery Group and GBRTT are working collaboratively on a national rail accessibility strategy. That is the here-and-now strategy to deliver ultimately against disabled customers’ needs. It should be real time and reflect needs on an ongoing basis.
Regulation needs to cope with that, as opposed to looking at what might have been relevant yesterday or years ago. For me, one of the key changes would be for regulation to be able to cope with real-time changes in a strategy wholly based on the needs of disabled customers.
Ultimately, it is them we will consult, and deliver against their requirements within that. Thank you. Stephanie, you have touched on this already, but what is the ORR doing to monitor and then enforce against the use of non-compliant equipment across the network—for example, wheelchair ramps?
The example I was thinking of on ramps was fairly recent. It was brought to our attention that one operator was not storing or maintaining ramps appropriately. We engaged with that operator to understand whether they had a maintenance schedule, how they were storing the ramps and what their plans were to improve things.
As a result, they actually withdrew a lot of the ramps from their stations and decided to use ramps on the train instead. That has now evolved into deciding that the train ramps were not the best option, and they are moving back to replacing ramps on the platform.
That was done without an improvement notice. It was done through looking at different stations, looking at maintenance schedules and working patterns, and trying to understand what the staff were doing on the ground. It was then looking across the wider network for that particular operator.
I still think there is more to do, but that was with our health and safety inspectors, who are actually on the network and can visibly observe what is going on. How often do the health and safety inspectors go out on to the network to check? We have over 100 inspectors now.
They are on the network every single day. Obviously, there are 2,500 stations so they have to prioritise their work appropriately. It is a matter of when an issue is brought to our attention, even if it is reactive. Obviously, we have a proactive programme of work.
It might be, for example, looking at level crossings. If an issue is brought to our attention, and we recognise that it is not an isolated incident and it was not a single person who perhaps did not adhere to a process, but is more a
Maintenance issue or a hazard for passengers and staff, they start to look at that more widely and sample stations. It is an important message for us that we can choose proactively what to look at, but the information we receive from passengers or from stakeholders then directs us to look
At things more reactively as well. Are you able to confirm that all wheelchair ramps across the network currently in use are compliant with the regulations? I would not be able to give a cast-iron guarantee on that.
It would be a question of whether we were going to carry out that work with every single operator now. When you are looking at one operator who has had a problem, you then question whether it is a wider problem. That is still an option for us.
We are certainly discussing in the coming weeks what more we need to do. The issue of ramps does seem to be becoming more high profile. There seem to be more things coming into the media where we have concerns. It is just whether we now need to take it more widely.
You would hope that the profile of what we have done would act as a deterrent for other operators, but I cannot give a black or white answer to your question. Alison, why is Network Rail still building new inaccessible infrastructures—for example, footbridges?
I will offer you some context both from the station and off station; for example, we might be looking to close level crossings. In the station, beyond our general obligations to ensure that we have paid due regard to all protected characteristics at the point when we change anything about our infrastructure,
We have the code of practice. It would be in very rare situations, as we took the opportunity to put in new infrastructure, that we would ever install inaccessible infrastructure in our station environment. We have formal dispensation routes that we would have to pursue if we had to do that.
A lot of scrutiny is placed on that to make sure that it is an entirely appropriate decision. In a station context, it would be absolutely by exception. We would only do that with scrutiny from DfT colleagues and the ORR. Outside the station environment, which is probably where the vast majority of our potential
Need for footbridges exists because we have thousands of crossing points on the railway, under our obligations under the Equality Act we have to think very carefully and balance what can quite often be a set of competing needs. We look at health and safety.
Many crossings are being closed because they carry such a high risk of death. At that point we go in and explore every possible option for putting in an accessible footbridge, but we have to balance that with some of the wider considerations, such as lineside neighbours.
Very often, these are in locations that we cannot power with a lift, so we are talking about ramps. Ramps can be very substantial bits of infrastructure and they are not always supported by the community. Again, we have to balance what can, at times, be competing needs and make sure that we make
A decision that is in the best interests of the taxpayer. It is never our intention to go in with any preconceived idea that the footbridge would be steps. That would be a decision we have to make in the round.
Could you provide us with an update on when the results of the network-wide accessibility audit for stations will be published? DfT concluded those audits in April. They did some final work on the dataset in about May. We took possession of the data from a Network Rail standpoint just at the end of October.
We are now working towards fully integrating that into our asset management systems. We are working collaboratively with colleagues in RDG to establish the integration timeline for that dataset into some of their systems, which are passenger-facing systems. We are working to provide that dataset to train companies and the teams in Network Rail,
To use it to help inform investment priorities. It is a complex and very large dataset. In its current state it is not possible to provide it directly to customers. It needs quite a lot of transformation to ensure that it is valuable to customers, which it will be. It is a game-changing dataset.
We work directly with disabled people to form the basis of their requirements, and work that back into the datasets. We are very clear what we need to do, and we are now in the process of delivering on that. Do you have a timescale on it?
We are still finalising some of the details, but we are going to be in a position to release that data in stages. We are already able to provide the data to train companies. We are giving them access, now that we have transitioned it to Network Rail.
The first thing we will do is build what we call an ATI, which will give that data. That will go into Rail Data Marketplace, which makes it available for developers. Then we will have that integrated into RDG’s station information pages. All of that will take place over the next six to nine months.
Slightly longer term, we are looking at something called an accessible journey planner. That does not just rely on the station data; it needs to integrate with train data and staffing data and is a slightly longer-term commitment. This is a question for all the panel. What are the biggest barriers to accessibility?
Where do they lie? Is it infrastructure, funding or culture? Disabled customers would respond to that by saying that the reason they are always given is funding. In part that is true, but I don’t think it is the whole reason. There is a question of prioritisation, and that should be assessed.
We welcome the ORR’s role in making sure that we get that right as an industry. Funding is definitely part of it. There are some challenges in terms of human intervention. We need to make sure that we have the proper skillset.
We are doing quite a lot of things across the industry to make sure that people are sufficiently trained to deal with disabled customers in a way that is expected. Those are probably the two key ones that I would offer. For me, it is very similar.
It is a combination of the people, the skillset, the knowledge and adherence to the actual processes. There are processes for the majority of instances where assistance is required. The important one that is going to make it all pull together will be technology, which requires investment.
We see it as a combination of factors and not just one simple thing, unfortunately. I have the same answer as Steph. We have done a lot of work on this as part of our thinking on the national rail accessibility strategy. There is a range of factors which, in combination, contribute.
There are some aspects that are very directly related to the provision of the service for customers. There are also barriers which make it more difficult for our staff, so we are focused on better data, better tools, better equipment, but there is no one single silver bullet.
The main thing I want to ask about is lifts, but I want to ask Alison a bit more about the ramp issue. As you rightly say, ramps take up a lot of space and can often be difficult to install. The gradient of ramps is extremely shallow at the moment in your guidelines.
Do you think that is too restrictive, and should it be looked at further? They are not our guidelines; they are wider guidelines. That is a standard. It is not a railway-specific standard. We would therefore be guided by the body that looks after determining that.
Certainly, it is not just about the steepness for wheelchairs. There is also a stamina issue to be factored into that, but it is not a railway standard. It is a wider standard. Yes, a wider standard. The main thing I want to ask about is lifts.
We have had lots of issues with lifts not working throughout the network. That was raised by a number of our witnesses previously. A lot of the lift infrastructure on the network is ageing. A lot of it is not the same; we have different types of lifts throughout the network.
Do you think there should be more of a rolling programme of lift replacement through Network Rail to standardise the lift infrastructure better and ensure that we can have more effective and more reliable lifts throughout our stations? We have identified lifts as our priority in our CP7 plan.
There is money in CP7 to address that exact issue. Is there anything that ORR wants to add on that? No. I am not an expert on it, but I know there is money available. Network Rail put forward plans on it and I think it is a very high agenda item.
Stephanie, earlier you mentioned the pre-booked Passenger Assist arrangements. What is your assessment as to how that is working? Would a passenger need to book that 24 hours in advance, or an hour in advance, in order to get assistance with ramps and someone to assist on and off the train and so on, or
Is it variable according to the operator? Is it fair to ask you that? You can ask me. It is certainly not variable; 24 hours was applicable up until 2019. I am sure that we heard a figure of two hours. Yes, now it is two hours.
We instigated policy that reduced it from 24 hours to 10 pm the night before, to six hours, to two hours. We did that over a three-year period because we felt we needed to give the industry time to adapt.
The period now is up to two hours before travel that you should be able to pre-book assistance, although I am aware that one operator just allows people to turn up and go without any pre-booking at all. Every operator can offer turn up and go, but obviously for the industry—Alison and Jacqueline
Are better to talk about this—it is easier to resource and plan if people give advance notice of assistance. At the same time, you can turn up at any station and watch people turn up and go every single day. Alison, perhaps you could amplify that in relation to other operators and the aspiration
Of getting turn up and go for disabled people wishing to travel by rail. In a Network Rail context, we deliver about 40% of the assistance that is delivered across the network. That is just through 11 stations. About 60% is booked and about 40% is unbooked, turn up and go.
We recognise that that is a really important part of the proposition and we are well equipped to deliver it. We do not see any particular variations between our performance. I do not have a definite perspective from Network Rail, but it would not be very variable.
We recognise that a large number of disabled customers are calling for a turn-up-and-go railway, and we should not be immune to that. They were quite specific, weren’t they? Yes. From a moral perspective, of course, why wouldn’t disabled customers want the same service that we all enjoy as able-bodied customers?
I would be nervous about our ability to deploy that, given some of the challenges that we have currently with scheduled assistance. The working group that we have set up to get to the pain points and the process fractures that Stephanie referred to is critical to demonstrating our ability to deliver against that.
On the ORR Twitter feed, or whatever it is called now, I noticed publicising of the new railway station at Gatwick. It cost £250 million. I assume that it will be completely compliant, with lifts and ramps to ensure that disabled people have access to the airport and on and off the trains.
Is that correct? One of our roles, as you point to, is the authorisation of new stations. I am certainly familiar with that one. There have been some issues around it. We have intervened to look at the project and look at the work to ensure that things are compliant with the regulations.
Yes, we are quite close to that one. I hope the new stations at Hartlepool and Sunderland are reconstructed stations and are going to have disabled access, not least for me. You mentioned the aspiration of operators to move to turn up and go.
I want to ask you about some evidence we heard from the first panel. Their view was that one of the reasons why that is not happening is that disabled access is seen as a kind of customer service issue rather than a fundamental issue of human rights. Is that a reasonable contention?
Is that how the operators look at it? I don’t think it is a unanimous yes to that. There is a huge appetite across operators to deliver against the needs of disabled customers. They hear loud and clear what they are calling for in relation to turn up and go.
Are there some challenges with people really recognising that and showing appropriate empathy? Yes. Are we doing something about it? Yes. We are undergoing significant training to help people understand better. It is not a unanimous yes to that, but we recognise that there are challenges to overcome in that space.
In terms of carrots and sticks, who imposes the fines on operators for non-compliance? Is it Network Rail or ORR? If it is non-compliance with the accessible travel policy, ultimately that would be the ORR. Are the fines effective, or do operators just think, “Well, it’s an inconvenience, and
Rather than go to the expense and trouble of reorganising timetables and staff rosters we’ll just bear the fine”? There isn’t a failure fine arrangement. There isn’t a standard like, for example, Delay Repay to claim compensation. Some people might find that sort of target or fining approach appropriate in other industries.
Certainly, it is not something that we have imposed. It is more about identifying the wider and broader issues that cause failures across the network and trying to intervene to stop them at the fundamental level. We are not imposing fines at that level.
Did you earlier tell my colleague that there was only one improvement notice? That was a health and safety improvement notice. To give you an example, we imposed one fine of £5 million on one operator several years ago. That was not for accessibility, but that is a very difficult position to reach.
The issue affected hundreds of thousands of passengers over a period of almost two months. It is not something we would go into lightly. Certainly, in the environment that rail is in now, you have to look at the trade-offs of what impact that would have on the funds of the Secretary of State.
What would be the scale of fines on operators? You mentioned that really punitive fine, but are fines applied to operators a frequent occurrence? No, it is not. Could you give us a number? On the number of fines or the level of fines? Both, actually. We could fine up to 10% of turnover.
I do not have the number of fines. I could get that for you. I would say it is relatively low. There are potentially more serious ramifications of failure to adhere to ATPs, in that it is a breach of the licence agreement. That, of course, would have more serious implications for a train operator.
Our final question for this panel is from Greg. Thank you, Chair. Stephanie, this is more for you. In answer to earlier questions, you spoke about proactivity in monitoring potential issues before they arise. We have heard evidence in previous sessions from users, customers and campaigners in this
Space that there is a perception that when the ORR becomes aware of an issue they are very good at taking it on and putting compliance action in place, but people do not really believe there is anything actually out there trying to pick up issues before customers come face to face with them.
Is that a fair complaint? What would you say about the gap between what you said earlier about your proactivity and the actual experience on the ground of real people who come across issues every day? Our understanding and experience of real-life issues comes from a variety of sources.
One is my own team and ORR colleagues being on the network. That includes our health and safety colleagues. Another source is the large proportion of data that we collect—I said that we had surveyed 8,000 passengers just on accessibility—and another is on the interrogation of that data.
Then, there is regular engagement with all of the operators, with Network Rail and with our accessible travel advisory panel. Effectively, it is a combination of factors. Yes, I understand that people raise issues with us. Often, they are very perceptive and very knowledgeable people who understand the issues. Most often, we follow those up.
Quite often, they are not aware, as you have just said, of what is going on behind the scenes, what we are doing with deep dives and audits, engagement with individual operators where their performance is not as high as others, trying to understand why that is and then trying to drive improvement.
Everything is about trying to raise the overall standard of improvement. We always balance our resources on proactive work and reactive response work. If the perception is bad, the customer experience will be bad. If all of that proactivity is in place, and I take your word for it, unless you fix the
Perception gap in that, there is still going to be a bad customer experience at best and total distrust at worst from people with disabilities or other needs looking at the railways. There is a difference in the perception of what ORR is doing. I would not say that we have a huge public profile.
In fact, I do not think we look for that with passengers. For passengers, that would be for Transport Focus. The perception of passengers is affected by so many other factors that may give them a lack of confidence and willingness to travel. You have to look at it as a doubled-edged sword.
It is helpful for people to raise particular issues when they come across failures. Equally, if those issues then impact other passengers, they do not want to travel. There is a need for confidence building.
I do not think it sits with ORR to do that, and I do not think we create lack of confidence in passengers taking decisions because we simply do not have that profile. I think there is something about the industry giving confidence to passengers, pointing
Out all the good work that goes on and explaining how people can request assistance, and explaining what they can do if things go wrong; invariably, we need to balance it. I would not say the perception all sits with ORR. Fair enough; thank you. I am afraid the clock is against us.
We have two further panels to hear from this morning, but for now I thank all three of you very much indeed for your time and evidence this morning. Welcome to our second panel where we will consider aviation in our inquiry.
For the purposes of our records, could I ask each of you to state your name and organisation? Good morning, everyone. I am Karen Dee, the chief executive of the Airport Operators Association. We are the trade association for UK airports. Good morning, everyone. I am Rob Griggs.
I am the director of policy and public affairs at Airlines UK, the trade association for UK-registered airlines. Good morning, everyone. My name is Anna Bowles. I am the head of consumer policy and enforcement at the Civil Aviation Authority. Thank you all for your time this morning.
Rob and Karen, according to recent CAA figures, around 60% of people with a disability have experienced difficulties in accessing airports and planes. Could you, first, talk me through who is responsible at what point in a passenger’s journey through the airport and on to the craft?
We are responsible for that journey once the passenger arrives at the airport. Quite often that is provided through third-party services that contract with the airport. It is our responsibility to ensure the service through security to the gate and then up to
And including the point of boarding the aircraft, at which point we hand over to the airline. Conversely, when passengers leave the aircraft, that will be the airport’s responsibility as well. Airlines play a really important role, particularly with pre-notification.
An absolutely key part for the whole system to work properly is ensuring that the airlines communicate any special assistance needs to the airports in a timely way. Through our processes, airlines make sure that we are getting assistance information at the time of booking or thereafter.
That will then be transmitted through to the airports, usually around 36 hours before travel. Could I add one further point that I didn’t mention? The loading of equipment is, of course, the responsibility of the ground handlers, who typically contract with airlines.
If there is wheelchair equipment, that service is provided by the ground handlers outbound and inbound. To clarify, if someone has a wheelchair or other bit of equipment, do the airports have any responsibility for that, or is it entirely, indirectly, for the airlines?
It depends on the point when the person is required to use it. We provide alternative wheelchairs or mobility assistance. At the point at which the passenger is transferred to alternative arrangements, those go to the ground handlers. Sometimes, that is as late as actual boarding. Some equipment can be taken up with the passenger.
They can use their own up until the point of getting on to the plane. It depends on the type of equipment. It is really important that the airline’s role is to make sure that any mobility equipment or wheelchairs are transported safely, obviously within the aircraft or on board, and get to
The destination appropriately. The in-flight process to make sure that is done properly would be our responsibility too. Given that approximately three in five experience problems, where are the weak points in the system that you have just described? Why does it go wrong for so many people? Aviation is complex.
There are lots of places, depending on the individual person’s needs, where things can go wrong. We all recognise that sometimes there is a problem with pre-notification. The more information we have about an individual’s needs beforehand, the better we are able to plan for them. But things sometimes go wrong.
Sometimes, that is with the staff in the services. There is a training requirement that is being addressed. Sometimes, we do not have all the information that we need, so the equipment turns out to be not quite what we were expecting or the passenger is not aware of some of the restrictions
That might apply. There are certain things that are not easily carried aboard an aircraft. Batteries have to be treated in a special way for safety purposes. There are lots of areas that we want to address. Part of that is making sure that passengers are given as much information as possible
About what they need to tell us, and therefore what we then can deliver for them. Information in advance is crucial. The industry recognises that there is more for us to do, but there are various touch points where things can go wrong in a complex environment.
We are working hard to make sure that we reduce those. Rob, what is your perspective? I agree with Karen. The number of those experiencing difficulties is obviously too high. Looking at the same survey data, it is good that those who have travelled recently had a better experience.
That is not to say that it is a perfect experience or that there is not a lot more to do, but it feels like there is a generally improving picture and greater awareness of the needs. Systems are being put in place.
There is definitely more to do, and that number is too high, but it is safe to say that there is progress. It is certainly something that airlines take incredibly seriously. There is a huge amount of work going on. As Karen said, pre-notification is hugely important.
Where you can have issues is, for example, if it is an airline coming in from overseas where those rates were lower. You may then have a spike in demand in the airport that can have knock-on effects for the ability of the airport service providers to meet the needs of other aircraft coming in.
Always within aviation, which is a complex ecosystem, there are weather delays or other things that can compound that. We say that not by way of excuse but more to flag up that it is complicated. Of course, we need to make sure as a sector that we put in place sufficient resilience
To meet those kinds of situations when they occur. My final point is that there is, generally, a huge amount of increasing demand. There were something like 3.5 million pre-notifications for assistance over the last reported year period. My understanding is that that does not include those who arrive at the airport not having
Pre-notified, which can still be a considerable number. Of course, there are lots of reasons why someone may not pre-notify. They may be booking at the last minute; or they may realise on arrival at an airport that they need assistance when they thought they might not. There are lots of reasons for that.
Next summer, with passenger numbers coming back up to where they were pre-pandemic and even beyond, there is probably going to be a greater percentage of people seeking assistance than there have been historically. It is going to be really important that not just airlines but the whole system recognises
That long in advance to make sure that the resources are there. As you said, travelling by air can be a complex process. There are all sorts of issues that can occur, and disruption happens. It can be stressful for even seasoned travellers, but someone with a disability can end up feeling
Very distressed if they are not being handled properly. They will not really care whether it is the airline or the airport. Is there more to be done on having a single point of reference at airports to assist people with disabilities when there is disruption? Is that something you are looking at?
Better co-ordination is always something that the sector wants to deliver. At each airport they take a role and they have a forum with the airlines they operate with. I think you are absolutely right Rob? It is absolutely recognised that if you are travelling, as you say, you don’t care which
Part of the system is responsible for what. You primarily have a relationship with the airline with which you bought your ticket. I know that the airlines work closely with the airport and airport colleagues in handling issues or complaints if they come through.
One example of recent good practice is that we as airlines, with airports and others, work with DfT to publish what is now called the air passenger travel guide. It was the air passenger charter. That quite neatly sums up what expectations are throughout the journey for all passengers,
But also for disabled passengers and those with additional needs. There is what you should do, who you can talk to and how you can complain, if you need to. That is by no means a silver bullet, but steps have been taken to try to make sure that the
Information is out there for those who need it. Anna, can you reflect on what you have just heard? It was the CAA figures which said that nearly 60% of people have difficulties. Are things getting better or worse, or is there not much change?
It may be helpful if I set out our role and how we enforce the legislation. The CAA is the body responsible for the enforcement of passenger rights legislation in the UK. We do that under the banner of our access to air work.
A key part is a framework that we refer to as the airport framework, which we introduced in 2014. That sets out a set of standardised requirements at airports in order to allow us to compare how different airports are performing in the provision of accessibility services.
It primarily focuses on the timeliness of the provision of service, but it also looks at the quality of service. We get that information from surveys of the individuals who receive the assistance. We published the first annual report relating to that.
We gather the information on a monthly or quarterly basis, but every year we publish an annual report. That scores the airports and sets out how they each perform. They can be very good, good, needs improvement or poor.
What we have seen over time is that no airport likes to be bottom of the pile. No airport wants to be considered poor. In the years that we have been undertaking that work, airports have improved and have invested significantly in the services that people receive.
We believe that everybody should have access to travel by air, whatever their disability and whether it is visible or non-visible. Some of the investment that we see at airports is also about non-visible disabilities. It is making sure that everybody has the confidence to travel.
Due to the success of that framework, we propose introducing a similar framework for airlines. We consulted on that relatively recently. The consultation closed in June. We hope that it will drive similar sorts of improvements. I absolutely agree that passengers do not care who is responsible for the provision of their service.
They just want to get from A to B like everyone else and have a stress-free journey. It is improving. It is clearly still challenging and there is more that needs to be done. When it comes to things like safety, obviously the airline industry has a very good record,
But, as we have heard, on accessibility issues it is the reverse. Do you think that this should be treated more as a health and safety issue? Would that result in more focus and attention on improving things like disability access? I don’t think that it is seen as the reverse.
There are lots of very high-profile cases of things that have gone wrong that clearly should not have gone wrong. Of the 3.4 million passengers who requested assistance last year, 88% were people who requested assistance for travelling through the airport—people who cannot walk long distances and cannot walk up and down stairs.
On the whole, their request for assistance stops once they get on the plane, and they are okay to deal with their needs on the plane themselves. Six per cent. of people are wheelchair users and 6% are blind, deaf or have some other non-visible disability.
Those more complex needs tend to be where things become more of a challenge, particularly as you get on the aircraft. There can be more inconsistency in the service that is provided. I think that is where the focus on improvements needs to be.
Is enough prioritisation being given to these issues by airlines and airports? I think it is taken seriously by both airlines and airports. As I said, no airport wants to be rated as the worst airport or poor. It is quite high profile when our annual report comes out.
They take it seriously, but that is one of the reasons why we are looking to put in place a similar sort of framework for airlines, where we can identify both how airlines are performing against quite a complex journey and consistency in meeting the obligations
Across all the elements where airlines are required to provide support. Rob and Karen, obviously significant disruption was caused as a result of the pandemic. A lot of staff were made redundant which meant that when numbers came back, and when people returned to flying, there was not necessarily the support that there had been.
Are we now back to a state whereby passenger assistance support is at the standard that it was before the pandemic? You are absolutely right; 2022 was a very particular problem. Resilience across the airports, not just for disabled passengers but for all passengers, was very challenging. Confidence is much improved.
We have seen services much improved during 2023, partly through very significant investments and recruitment; for example, at Heathrow their service provider has added another 600 people to the service since last summer. For 2024, the airports are continuing to invest in not just staff but equipment. Rob touched on this.
Most airports are seeing something like a 20% to 30% increase in passengers requiring needs, based on 2019, even though our overall passenger levels are still below pre-pandemic. That is a good news story because it means that more passengers are travelling, but it has meant that airports have had to make those investments.
We are now pretty confident that we are in a much better place; 2023 was much better than 2022. Are those resources at the level that they need to be, or is there still further to go to get them to where they should be? Airports keep those levels under review.
They are partly driven by the CAA annual report. I would say that, from an airport perspective, that is a good example of how the regulatory reporting system drives the behaviours that we want to see. We are seeing those investments. It is taken very seriously, and it is under constant review.
Most of the airports believe they are in a good place. You are always trying to anticipate where demand will go. For example, Luton has re-tendered its PRM service at least twice since the pandemic because it is seeing those increased levels. Airports react when they can see that there is demand.
Training was an issue, but again once the recruitment was in place staff were trained and are catching up. That is driving a feeling of confidence going forward, but it is always kept under review so that we can continue to make the improvements that we see.
Rob, is there anything that you want to add in terms of how things recovered? Are airlines satisfied with how things have recovered in that respect? Yes. I will not cover again too much of what Karen said. Last year, spring and early summer were really challenging, not just for accessibility provision
But for the whole system. Hopefully, that was a one-off, very specific, circumstance. This year, notwithstanding issues that were not within the airport/airline purview, there was a good summer. We have had a strong summer and, in many cases, while overall levels of demand might be equivalent
To or around 2019’s, often the spikes have been greater at certain times. The system has held up pretty well overall. There is confidence that the staffing is there across the sector, including in airports and service providers. I think, though, that what airlines are mindful of, and we will be talking to airport colleagues
About, as Karen said, are the sometimes double digit increases in the relative number of those seeking assistance. That is a good thing, but there is a lead time to making sure that there are staff in place, particularly for next summer.
The next stage on from that is that, even if you have the people in place, they need a little bit of time to train and get up to the standards of where you would be after a few years’ experience.
It is then making sure that those people are deployed where they need to be at the time aircraft are arriving, which is where we come full circle to pre-notification and other things we can do to make sure that the resource is being deployed.
Having it is great, but it needs to be used properly. On the pre-notification point, to give you a sense of things, with very good airlines you can see 80% pre-notification, but some experience at Heathrow last year, for example, is that it was as low as 60%.
That means that, on average, there were about 1,500 passengers per day requiring assistance that had not been pre-notified. Those are quite large numbers of passengers and unpredicted services that will need to be provided. Clearly, the better we can get with pre-notification, the better able we are to deal with that.
Is anything being done through both airlines and airports to try to encourage passengers who need assistance to book it? Clearly, it is about providing passengers with the information and asking not just airlines but travel agents. People book to fly in lots of different ways.
There is a challenge for us as a sector to make sure that we get that information, and ask passengers and make them aware of the sort of information that we would like from them. The more that we can do that, the better. Of course, as Rob said, some of that assistance is inbound.
There may be people travelling from other countries where they have not been asked those questions. We have to deal with that. We strive as airports to provide the service to those who have not pre-notified, but it has a knock-on impact. Before I turn to Gavin, Sara has a quick supplementary. Thank you, Chair.
This is slightly off topic. Anna, you rightly said that we want to have everybody travelling by air. One of my concerns is people with allergies. They have concerns that there is not an overarching framework for airlines when it comes to serving food in flight.
Airlines are left to decide their own individual policies, which can lead to confusion. I have experienced that with one of my own constituents. On being able to access air travel, what assessment, if any, has the industry made of the benefits of an overarching regulatory framework for airlines for passengers with allergies?
Has there been any assessment of that? Right now, individual airlines can just decide what they want to do for people with allergies. It is very off topic. It is off topic, and it is not an area that I am an expert on.
I would expect it to be something that was considered by our cabin safety team. It is perhaps better if we respond to you after today in writing, if that is okay, about anything around that. I would not want to tell you the wrong information.
I am very happy to take it away and look at it in more detail. Ultimately, what airlines want is consistency and clarity in any guidance. Whatever the policy is, if there is to be one, just make sure that it is clear and that they can enforce it.
In the world of more specific accessibility, assistance animals is an area where airlines report increasing challenges. There used to be a pretty clear definition of what constituted an assistance animal. There isn’t now. It has been left to airlines to make decisions about what constitutes an animal that should
Be safely on board an aircraft, which does not really benefit anyone. It is something that is being worked on by the CAA and colleagues. It is an area where, ultimately, what airlines want is a policy they can communicate clearly to their customers, be that around allergies, assistance animals and so on.
In preparing for this panel, I was having a look at the airport access reports. I was quite pleased to see that Glasgow is consistently one of the better performers or the most consistent performer for airports above a certain passenger level, which is heartening for the MP for Glasgow airport.
Notwithstanding that, Anna, you have taken us through the CAA responsibilities, and I want to probe a little further on how you actually carry them out. Could you tell us how you ensure that the accessibility regulations, such as they are for both airports and airlines, are currently followed?
How in practice do you work to ensure that they meet their obligations? Obviously, we engage with airports and airlines on a regular basis. We also have a team of individuals who are responsible for those areas. We go out to airports on a really regular basis and observe the service that is being provided.
Across September and October, which are peak months for the provision of accessibility services, we spent about 36 days in my team monitoring 10 different airports so that we could see for ourselves how well the airports were performing.
It also enables us to check that the data they provide us with is a true reflection of what we see on the ground. We are looking at the timeliness of the provision of that service. We get survey responses from consumers who have received the service themselves.
As part of the framework, airports are required to have in place working groups, which disability organisations join to impart their lived experience and to make suggestions as to how things can improve. We attend those working groups so that we get to hear both sides of the story.
We can then use the information that we glean from that to encourage further improvements. Since Brexit, the CAA has taken on a slew of new responsibilities and has obviously increased in size. Has there been any issue, with regard to capacity, in any of your proactive work in health and
Safety and in ensuring that airports and airlines meet their obligations? We have a distinct team that looks at accessibility and passenger rights in general. The team has grown slightly in that period of time. We have plans for it to grow a little bit more.
We think we need to do a bit more work in that area, but it has not been negatively impacted by that. Karen, you and passenger groups have indicated that airlines should be obliged to carry out the reduced mobility reporting mechanism as well. Why do you think that is the case? We support that.
It is something that the CAA has been consulting on, and it goes back to my point earlier that passengers do not care who is responsible. Our view is that we can see the behaviours that are being driven by the framework that
We have for airports, which is positive and drives the focus on that. We would like to see that extended through all of the passenger journey throughout the flight. We think that makes sense, and we would support it. Notwithstanding that, do you think there could be improvements to that mechanism as it stands
At the moment? As airports, we feel that the framework we have is working well. I don’t necessarily see any further changes to that part. As I say, we would like it in as similar as possible a framework for the airlines. It should be matched.
We think the more that you make this information available to the public, the better, because that drives improved behaviours. Rob, do you think that the airlines should be under the same obligations? In terms of the airline accessibility framework, we have responded to that.
We are happy to work with the principle of the framework. There were some aspects that we had comments on. The initial proposal was for an equivalent framework to cover something like 20 airlines. There are over 100 airlines that come into the UK.
We would say that the performance of the UK carriers that we represent is pretty good in this space, so you might be missing a trick if you have a framework that does not actually look at quite a few other airlines. It gets into aspects where some things are outside an airline’s control.
Up front, aircraft are designed by the manufacturers, and sometimes that gives limitations. We did not want something where airlines might be unduly penalised disproportionately for things that they may not have control over, which could be the way that an aircraft cargo door opens.
The principle is something we are very happy to work with. We understand why it is being done. We understand the role it has played with airports. It is something we are going to have to continue to talk to the CAA about as it is developed.
Do you think that airlines are sufficiently knowledgeable or seized of the importance of this issue? We had Michael O’Leary here a few weeks ago. I paraphrase, but he said that airports were terrible at getting wheelchairs to aircraft when it is the airline’s responsibility—in his case Ryanair—through their ground handling
Contract to get the wheelchair to the aircraft. Do you think that is an issue? Is the culture not the same in an airline as an airport in that respect? In all the conversations we have had—we obviously represent UK carriers—it is taken hugely seriously.
No airline wants to be seen as failing its disabled passengers and customers. Talking to our members, there are often dedicated teams. There is an increasing amount of focus. I know, for example, that fairly recently easyJet relaunched its assisted travel advisory group, and Lord Blunkett is chairing that.
There is a huge amount of willingness and good work. In the last few months we have seen IATA, which represents international airlines, publishing a really good piece of new guidance on how to move mobility equipment safely. It gets into the weeds of how different wheelchairs work, the common issues around how they are
Transported, which bits might break off and which bits might be vulnerable, and how they should be safely stowed aboard different aircraft. There is a lot more work to do. That is somewhere there can still be incidents, for example, but I don’t see any lack of desire by airlines to improve.
You’ll note I let you off and did not ask you if Michael was wrong when he gave evidence to the Committee. I will move back to you, Anna, and the CAA enforcement powers. Strangely, when we talk about the CAA we are generally always talking about whether they
Need more powers for customers, or what have you. Many people have given evidence. We have heard from Transport for All. To quote them, “The CAA is very limited in its ability to hold all airlines to an equitable consumer standard.” Do you think that is fair?
Do you think you need more powers and, if so, what powers do you think you need? We have been quite public about the fact that we would like more powers. Our powers currently stem from the Enterprise Act. We would particularly like more powers around information gathering.
Those powers would enable us to get much more information directly from the airports and the airlines, particularly when things go wrong, so that we have visibility of where there are challenges and where we can look for trends. We would like civil powers that potentially allow us to do things like impose fines when
Things go wrong, and we deem that necessary. We would always want to continue to have the positive engagement with industry that we currently have, but having those additional powers would be really helpful. I know that the Government announced in June that they were supportive of us getting those additional powers.
We really welcomed that announcement. It requires primary legislation change. They have said that they would look to provide us with those powers when parliamentary time allows. At the moment, you are just relying on reputational behaviour, or the impact on reputation from airlines. Are some better than others in that respect?
The reputational impact is quite powerful. We also have undertakings that we can put in place, and have put in place in the past, which effectively require an airport or an airline to change their behaviour and do something. It is quite a time-consuming thing to put in place when we do that.
In the event that it does not work, the next step would be to go to court, which is, again, also very time-consuming. We find the reputational side of things very effective. We have seen that in our airports framework.
To give you an example, when we produced our first report in 2015-16, there were 10 airports which were considered very good and 12 that were “Needs improvement” or “Poor”. In our most recent report, granted that 2022 was a very challenging year, by the end of
The year 25 airports were very good, and 16 of those airports managed to achieve very good for the whole year. There was just one that needed improvement. I think that demonstrates the impact that reputational regulation can have in making improvements over time.
Rob, would you welcome the CAA having more civil powers and indeed the power to fine airlines? Our priority in the space for accessibility is co-operation. We have a good relationship with the CAA. We are talking to the regulator about the airline framework.
There is a workshop coming up with the DfT on these issues in a couple of weeks, where we can deep-dive into some of the problems. On the powers themselves, I think we would want to see what those are. The CAA has a suite of powers in this space.
There is the reputational and the ability to get commitments from carriers to improve in certain places as well as other parts. We think the powers are there. It is important that any additional powers are there for a reason, to address something that is currently not working.
We want to see a little bit more about what that could be and how those would be used. Again, it is a conversation we are absolutely willing to have. Karen, there is overwhelming support from passenger groups for the CAA to have robust powers in this area. Would the AOA welcome that?
Like Rob, we would be open-minded. If the CAA feels that there is something in the regulatory framework that does not currently work, we would consider that. But I go back to the fact that what we have seen is that reputation for our industry, for airports, is absolutely key and really drives behaviour.
One of the challenges always with having multiple players, whatever the powers, is that if you are looking at fines it becomes quite complicated as to who you fine and who was actually responsible. As a system what we want is for it to work.
We would consider powers if they were necessary—we will have a look at that—but I think having the framework that requires the publishing of reputation immediately drives behaviours. On the level of fines, a £50,000 fine to Heathrow is somewhat different from a £50,000 fine to Newquay or somewhere like that. Thank you.
Thank you, Gavin. I would like to conclude this session by returning to the issue of how personal mobility equipment is handled. If a wheelchair or other piece of equipment is damaged or lost, do airlines treat that as a luggage issue or an accessibility failure?
I would say that airlines treat it as an accessibility failure. There is absolute recognition that wheelchairs and mobility equipment are not luggage. They are people’s independence. They are people’s ability to carry on with their life on their holiday or travel.
In the vast majority of cases, when mobility equipment is moved, it is done appropriately and safely and there are no issues. Issues happen, and we still see too many incidents when there may be damage to a wheelchair. The Montreal convention applies.
In theory, that caps the amount of compensation or damage that airlines would be obliged to pay to repair or fix a wheelchair. More often than not, when incidents happen, the value is less than the cap. I know that the Government are consulting on lifting that cap for domestic flights.
In practice, airlines look at it on a case-by-case basis. They see what has happened and they often go beyond the Montreal convention and those sorts of caps. It is absolutely not the case that, in the event that something goes wrong, on those rare occasions, they say, “Very sorry, that’s the limit.”
In our experience with our airlines, that is not how it is treated when an incident occurs. They look into it and often go further, if that is the fair thing to do. Are incidences of loss or damage recorded separately from other luggage issues? I believe so, but I would need to confirm.
I am happy to come back to the Committee on that. It would be helpful if you could supply that information and what the trends are. Is it getting better or worse compared to recent years? Is there an issue with out-of-court settlements for damaged equipment obscuring the focus on this as an issue?
I would struggle to answer that. From speaking to our airlines, if something happens it is prioritised internally. It is not something that is dealt with necessarily by the person on the frontline. It will be escalated and dealt with. The circumstances of any kind of damage or incident will be investigated, and a solution
Will be found. No airline wants to fail their customers in that way. I cannot really comment on whether and how it might get escalated to the courts. I have not heard from our members of that being an issue in this space.
It is very much on how they collectively reduce the incidence of its happening through better training and working with manufacturers to get the mobility equipment better able to travel safely. It is those sorts of things. There is also a live debate about the extent to which wheelchairs and other bits of mobility
Equipment can be taken into the cabin with the passenger. I appreciate that it is a broad simplification because types of wheelchairs differ and sizes of aircraft differ, so there won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution. From each of your perspectives, is there work going on to look at aircraft design, safety
Procedures and all the related points to allow more passengers to take their wheelchair or other equipment into the cabin with them? The short answer is yes. As you say, it is highly complex because there are lots of different types of wheelchairs and lots of different types of mobility equipment.
There are safety issues if there are, for example, certain sizes of batteries involved, but there is absolutely that desire. Often it means speaking to manufacturers as well, so it can be a long-lead situation. If and where we can enable people to go on to the aircraft in their chair and stay safely
In their chair throughout the journey, that is definitely an aspirational place we want to be. It is not a widespread practice at the moment. The individual tends to have to be transferred, but it is absolutely a live issue. It is something that the CAA is looking at?
We are very much aware that technology is being developed that could potentially allow individuals to stay in their wheelchair and for the standard seat to be adapted so that the wheelchair can slot into that position. I believe that is being looked at by the FAA in terms of the safety legislation around that.
It is a really exciting time, actually. There is the potential for this making a big difference for people who are wheelchair users. I suspect that it will not fit on the configuration of every aircraft that currently exists because
They need a little bit more space, but it is certainly a brilliant step in the right direction to enable improvement in accessibility for wheelchair users. Is it something that would require an international agreement? I am not an expert on all the associated safety legislation, but I think it is about the Civil
Aviation Authority in the region where the aircraft is registered. Certainly, the CAA has had conversations with the individuals involved in developing that technology. We would very much be willing and happy to work with them to try to enable that to become a reality for people.
It would be helpful if you could write to us afterwards with more information about the timescales for that work and when we might be able to see some definitive proposals. We would be really happy to do that. Lovely. Thank you. Again, I fear that the clock is against us.
We still have to hear from our third panel. For now, thank you all again for your time and evidence this morning. Witnesses Keith McNally, Loveday Ryder and Councillor Linda Taylor. Welcome to our third panel this morning. Could I ask each of you to introduce yourselves and your organisation, please? Good morning.
I am Keith McNally, operations director at CPT, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the trade association for the bus and coach sector. I am Loveday Ryder, the chief executive of the DVSA—the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency. We look after drivers, vehicles and enforcement activity on the roads. Good morning. I am Linda Taylor.
I am the leader of Cornwall Council but I am here representing the LGA. I am the vice-chair of the local infrastructure and net zero board. Thank you very much and welcome to you all. Linda, we have heard in the course of our inquiry many complaints about street clutter,
Poor maintenance of pavements and e-scooters all combining to make the public realm harder for people with disabilities to navigate. Can you tell me a little about how local authorities apply the public sector equality duty when it comes to the streetscape? For a lot of local authorities it is a challenge.
I am going to use local experience. In most places like Cornwall, there are A-frames, chairs and furniture. If local authorities have not trained the appropriate person who is able to go out and issue tickets, which is a costly process, they have nowhere else to go.
The easiest answer that we see happening is a default position to the legislation that London has in relation to enforcement of street pavement activity. It seems sensible to have that default position. Could you tell us a little more about how that works in London and why it is not applicable elsewhere?
My understanding of what happens in London is that if there is pavement parking, in particular, you can be issued with a fixed penalty. Local authorities outside London could have that ability, but they would have to train specific officers to deal with it, whereas if it was a default position, it would make
Accessibility easy to implement across the whole of the UK. Would that be welcomed generally across local authorities? Definitely. It would be cost-effective and it would allow local authorities to make sure that pavements were kept clear. It is not just for disability.
Where there are joined-up cycle routes, it could be to protect the cycle routes. In Cornwall, we are very passionate in delivering our active travel, but we need very clear legislation. It is there for you Thank you. To follow up that point, you referenced active travel.
There is lots of money being spent on redesigning streetscapes. How well are the needs of people with disabilities taken into account when those are being designed? As an example of where there is a very obvious failure, just over Westminster Bridge, outside
County Hall, there is a floating bus island, where there is the pavement, a cycle lane and then a bus stop on an elevated bit of pavement. It is safe as regards cyclists not being in the same path as buses and other traffic,
But when people with a visual impairment come off the bus there is a very dangerous crossing point, with bikes often going at high speeds. That has been flagged to us as a particular problem. Clearly, the needs of visually impaired people were not taken into account when that was being designed.
I use that as one example. Generally, how well does involving disabled people work in the design process? Being parochial, and going back to what we do in Cornwall—I know other local authorities follow our lead—we implement a decision wheel called doughnut economics from Kate Raworth.
It is a decision wheel that we demonstrate for every decision we make that has an impact on our residents. Disability is a characteristic that is built into the decision wheel. We look at all aspects so that we can see that the decisions we are making are right
And proper and do not disadvantage other sectors in our community. That is our guidance. Is that specifically for Cornwall or is it a standard practice across local authorities? We introduced it and a lot of local authorities have adopted the model. It is not just for travel; it is every decision we make.
We look to see, with our protected characteristics and with our community, that the decisions we are making are right for everybody. It is an incredibly useful tool. Happy to send it to you. We would be very interested to see that. Typically, who would you consult?
What types of groups would you consult when making design decisions? Most road schemes have to go out to consultation, especially for active travel. We have extensive consultations, and that happens with the majority of local authorities. It is beholden on the local authority to make sure that they engage and identify.
If there is somebody not responding, in Cornwall we absolutely actively make sure that we engage with every person who could be impacted. We go out and talk. The first question is particularly for Keith. It is about some of the transport used for home to school transport, rail replacement
Bus transport and things like that, a lot of which is currently exempt from the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations. When do you expect those sorts of vehicles to come into compliance and reach compliance with some of the legislation? As an industry, we are very much committed to improving accessibility.
We have demonstrated that over the years. Where the regulations were well understood, the delivery of compliance has been very good. Where the problem arose is, as you say, on certain home to school services and rail replacement services, where the regulations were not as well understood.
A problem developed where there was an insufficiently compliant fleet to deliver all those services in a compliant way. Hence the need for the medium-term exemptions currently in place. How medium term is medium term? It has been going on for quite a while, hasn’t it? They run through to 2026.
Do you expect that we will be entirely compliant by 2026? I don’t, if I’m honest. We have put forward a proposal, as part of the DfT call for evidence on PSVAR, which are the regulations on public service vehicle, bus and coach accessibility.
That proposal is that what we call open-door services—services that anyone can get on, whether it is a local bus service, long-distance express coach or, indeed, a rail replacement service—should be compliant in the future. Most of them already are. The other element of the proposal is that where services are closed-door and the passengers
Are known about in advance, which are largely home to school services, those services would be compliant on the basis of demand. Where there was an accessibility requirement, it would be provided for. Are we sufficiently meeting those needs? Every year, there are children who do not have their transport in place soon enough;
I am sure colleagues have similar issues. There does not seem to be a sufficient supply of vehicles with the accessibility requirements for children who have a disability. Is a more widespread issue the lack of vehicles suitably adapted to facilitate home to school transport?
We are playing catch-up, in effect, because coaches do not have to be accessible by law. Coaches, when they are used on services that are in the scope of the regulations, need to be compliant. As I say, it was not understood that certain services that were in scope were indeed in scope.
That is to do with some of the complexity around the regulations, the way they were written and the way the home to school market has changed over the years since the regulations were originally written. At the moment, it depends on whether a separate fare is paid as to whether the service is
In scope of the regulations or not. Our proposal is that that aspect will be swept away, so that if a service was what we describe as regular, and had a timetable, such as a home to school service or a works service
Operating on a daily basis, it would be compliant on the basis of demand, whether or not a separate fare was paid. That complexity would be taken away. I understand that. The question I am asking, though, is whether we are sufficiently meeting demand. That seems to be a wider issue.
The other thing I want to ask you about—maybe Loveday might be able to give some stats as well—is the scale of the issue? How many vehicles out there are non-compliant with this legislation? We believe that there are in the region of 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles used on home to school services.
Many of those—most of them— would be covered by the medium-term exemptions. The default position in 2026 is that many of them would come into scope. We probably have between 3,000 and 4,000 coaches that are PSVAR-compliant at the moment.
There are more coming on stream all the time, with new vehicles and existing vehicles that are adapted. As I say, we are playing catch-up in the context that the covid pandemic hit the coach industry very hard and made it more difficult to invest. Loveday, is your data at DVSA showing an improving picture?
We do not hold data on that, per se. The Department collates the numbers of the medium-term exemptions that there are. My understanding of that is there is a requirement that each year the percentage of compliance will go up or it will not be granted for the next year.
I agree with Keith that we should see an improving picture between now and 2026, certainly. You are not responsible for ensuring that those vehicles are compliant with some of the public sector equality duty and accessibility requirements. We work with operators to make sure that they are in compliance where they have buses on
Services that are in scope. That means that we work with them right from the beginning, with a new operator seminar, where we make sure that they are educated and the drivers are trained. We work through content in the theory test.
Every one of the things, the touch points that DVSA has with a PSV, we check, either to make sure that there is a medium-term— You are not collecting data on any of it. We have data on the number of checks that we do and then the number of offences.
I cannot tell you, in total, as a percentage of the fleet, how compliant it is. For example, we did 5,100 roadside checks on PSVs in 2022-23. Of that number, we found 14 accessibility offences. That 5,100 is about 6% of the fleet.
When you take out earned recognition, which is for our best and most compliant operators, and we do not pull them over at roadside, the equivalent is that we pull over about 8% of the non-earned recognition fleet each year. What are the consequences for those operators and vehicle owners?
Is there a fining regime that you implement? What is the consequence? We take intelligence from the roadside. We take intelligence from complaints that we receive from the public. We put that through a triage process. We certainly log them all and then we work our way through them.
Our approach to enforcement and our strategy is always that the best approach is to begin with education. By and large, operators want to be compliant, so we start with educating, providing additional information, helping them to comply and making sure that they know what they are supposed to be doing.
If it becomes a theme or there is evidence that they may be, perhaps, wilfully not doing it, we use our investigative powers, do targeted checks on operators, maybe visit operator premises and look for evidence that their systems are right and that it is not a systemic or a wilful failure by an operator.
If we think, at that point, that there is an issue, we refer it to the traffic commissioners. The traffic commissioners are the regulator and they make a decision based on the merit and proportionality of the particular case, as to whether to take it forward under their powers. Good morning, panel.
My question is to Linda. How do local authorities procure accessible home to school transport if the vehicles used by local providers are exempt from the accessibility legislation? The exemption is a little bit of a lifeline until 2026 for local authorities to be able
To operate, but a lot of local authorities struggle to get appropriate vehicles under the requirements for accessibility. The bigger picture, if I may, is that we have the Education Act section 19 which is absolutely directional in how local authorities deal with and deliver transport for SEND children.
One thing becoming very clear is that that requirement is growing every year. Looking at the pressures for local authorities, for most of them school transport is a real, big issue. In 2019, the deficit was £111 million and it is growing seriously every year.
One thing I would ask that some consideration is given to is that, apart from the requirements under SEND, local authorities are working to very antiquated school transport legislation from 1944. That seriously needs to be looked at to help provide a better system, per se, for school transport.
When local authorities are not able to get vehicles that meet accessibility needs, that adds to the additional costs to make sure, under the education Act, that they get SEND children to school. It is a picture that is escalating every day.
Are local authorities that are unable to provide accessible vehicles in breach of the public sector equality duty? They have the fallback position of the exempt, which will run until 2026. It is an absolute challenge. They have to provide transport so that is why they are going out to taxis, which is
Quite a gold-plated service. That is an additional cost. For local authorities, once they have been able to procure a service that meets the accessibility requirements, there is the challenge of making sure that they enforce what I call the street furniture, the drop-down pavements, making sure that it is very clear.
There is a lot of work to be done there as well. Thank you. The last question is to Loveday. Cracking name that, by the way, isn’t it? Thank you. Could you explain the DVSA’s function and approach to enforcing the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations? Yes, absolutely.
As I answered previously and building on that, what we have aimed to do, with PSVAR, is to build it into all the processes we run and all the interactions we have with operators of PSVs; starting from a new operator seminar, working through our road to earned recognition
Scheme and making sure that we check KPIs monthly. The two-year audits have PSVAR as part of them. Obviously, there is the annual inspection of a vehicle—the MOT-equivalent for PSVs. PSVAR is built into that as well and it is checked as to whether the equipment is on the vehicle.
When we do roadside checks, as I said before, we look at the equipment, and check that it is working. Of course, there are some constraints in doing roadside checks, in that we do not go with a full coach or bus.
It needs to be a place where the passengers can safely alight before we do the check. We tend to use places like coach parks, stadia or motorway service areas. When we do checks like that, we check not only the vehicle itself, but the operation of equipment.
We make sure that drivers know how to do that and what their duty is in a roadside check. If we get intelligence that there is a problem, we follow up, as I said, with operator premises visits, where we talk to any drivers we can find.
For us, it is about satisfying that the vehicles in scope are compliant, the equipment works and that drivers are trained appropriately, and that the operators themselves have the right processes and systems. It is an end-to-end thing for us. How many public service operators have you enforced against in the past year for non-compliance
With the regulations? If you take annual tests, there were 69,000 vehicles that were tested. That includes those that would be, perhaps, coaches on scheduled services, and it includes out-of-scope vehicles. Of those, 33 failed on PSVAR items in 2022-23; 13 then passed after rectification, so it is quite small numbers.
On the roadside checks, again in 2022-23, we found, of the 5,100 we pulled over, 14 accessibility offences. So far this year, we have had three. They are relatively small numbers that we see. What concerns do you have, as a regulator, about accessibility in the sector?
The traffic commissioners are the regulator in this space. In terms of our enforcement, if I think about areas where we would like to see improvement, one of the things we will be looking at is how passengers can make complaints.
We hear a lot of reports from customers that they find it difficult to navigate the system. There is Bus Users UK, and a separate set-up in London. We tend to respond to the complaints that are about the vehicle and the way the equipment is working on the vehicle.
We are going to try to streamline our complaints process, signpost it to make it a bit easier and set up something that gives people feedback that their complaint is logged. That is an area we can do. The other thing we have done in the past is to hold awareness sessions.
In 2021, we had a special accessibility awareness week. We look to do more things like that, using more intelligence-led work and using ANPR to try to investigate better. They are all sensible things. We are going to invest in some wheelchairs.
On our roadside checks, we will be able to go with a wheelchair and get the driver to demonstrate that they know how to restrain it adequately, and get it on and off properly. There are lots of things we can do.
A number of local authorities are now introducing what are known as DRT services, demand responsive transit, that sit between a bus service and a taxi, where you have an app to summon a vehicle to come and collect you and others. To what extent are those services covered by existing accessibility regulations?
Is there a gap that needs to be addressed? In Cornwall, the delivery of a bus service is incredibly challenging; we absolutely have to work to a timetable. If other local authorities are using exempt vehicles to address the suggestion you have
Just made, which is a very good suggestion, they have a bit of a dilemma. If those exempt vehicles have capacity, they have to make a decision Keith, Loveday, do you have any views on the DRT provision? PSVAR regulations apply to vehicles with a seating capacity of over 22, so 22 or less
Are exempt. Many DRT services have fewer than that number of seats, so they are exempt. Many of the services provided are probably accessible, even though they are out of scope, so provision is made for wheelchair users and others with accessibility needs.
I don’t have any data on the proportions of which would be accessible and which not. I don’t have anything to add on that. Thank you. The last issue I wish to cover in this session is the enforcement of regulations with regard to taxis carrying people with disabilities, particularly people with assistance dogs.
The law is very clear that the passenger has the right to take their dog or other animal with them, but we hear many cases where that is not happening. What is the problem in enforcing that law, Linda? I am sorry to keep going back to where I can give evidence.
In Cornwall, believe it or not, it is not such a big issue. We have had very few cases where the local authority has had to go out and enforce. An issue I would like to raise is that where taxis have been licensed outside their particular
Area, it is a real big problem for local authorities to deliver enforcement. One consideration could be that local authorities license the vehicles and, if they are licensed within that local authority, it can enforce and make sure that the requirements under the law are absolutely delivered.
For taxis operating in another local authority area, who has responsibility for enforcement? Is it the local authority where the taxi is licensed or the one where it is operating? It is the local authority where it is licensed. Right, okay. It causes problems.
It can cause problems especially if there is a local area where taxis coming in know there is a lot of business, like coastal resorts. It is a big issue in Brighton, isn’t it? Yes. If the local authority had the ability to license, it would absolutely be able to enforce.
At the moment, that is a little bit of a concern for many local authorities. Talk me through that. To give your example, say someone in Liskeard— Well done. —wants to get in a taxi that is licensed by Plymouth, a different authority, and they
Make a complaint to Cornwall Council, what rights do you have as a council to take that up with Plymouth to get them to enforce? We do not have any legal enforcement. However, because of the close proximity of our two areas, our transport department would
Absolutely make sure that the licensing authority of that vehicle—for example, Plymouth—is made aware of the issues. As the local authority for Cornwall, we cannot enforce complaints. Should it be mandatory for all authorities to take proactive steps to identify non-compliance—for example, doing mystery shopping or other such measures?
I would suggest that where data shows that there is an issue, it would be absolutely appropriate. It is a really good suggestion to do mystery shopping, but a local authority that does not have those complaints should not have the burden of doing mystery shopping.
A local authority will know if there is an issue, because it understands its community. Obviously, if complaints escalate, it is a really good idea to take a mystery shopper exercise. Finally, should it be mandatory for all local authorities to maintain a list of all their accessible taxis under the Equality Act? Absolutely.
People’s health in some parts is not improving. It is really important that they know which taxis are accessible just to make their life easier as they move around. Also, it is assurance that if the local authority is listing accessible taxis, it is because it knows about them.
That is incredibly important for standards as well. Thank you very much. Do colleagues have any last questions? I have a quick one for Councillor Taylor. It is very kind of you to offer to share with the Committee the model you have in Cornwall. We would be interested in that.
To go back to the earlier point about floating bus stops, A-frames and street clutter, you mentioned the position in London. Things are getting worse with the advent of scooters, e-scooters and electric bikes littering the pavements. A little while ago, a number of us, at the invitation of the Royal National Institute
Of Blind People and Guide Dogs for the Blind, did an exercise where you wear a blindfold, go on to a talking bus and walk through a shopping centre or a neighbourhood centre to have the lived experience of what it is like for someone who is blind or partially sighted.
I thought that was incredibly valuable. I had bruises on my shins from falling over the A-frames and the chairs that were placed outside without any consideration of what obstructions mean for people with disabilities. Have any of the panellists done that? No. It is valuable, honestly; it is a good insight. No pun intended.
I think it emphasises the point, if I may, about delegated powers coming from London to the rest of the UK to deal with pavement furniture. I understand that. Point well made. Thank you. Thank you all for your time and evidence this morning.
We have had a packed morning, with lots of information to digest. Thank you, again, for coming before us.