Accessible transport: Legal obligations – session 4. EHRC and DFT

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/19490/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

Welcome to today’s session of the Transport  Committee, which is our final day of evidence   for our accessibility in transport inquiry.  Before we start, could you state your name   and organisation for our records, please? My name is John Kirkpatrick. I am deputy   chief executive at the Equality  and Human Rights Commission. 

We are grateful for your time  and evidence this morning.  The Equality Act contains a number of provisions  in parts 3 and 12 that guarantee the rights   of disabled people when travelling. Can you  briefly set out your organisation’s role in  

Enforcing those rights and give us your general  assessment of how effective that role has been?  Of course. We are, as you indicate, the  regulator of equality and human rights law, and,   in particular, the equality obligations imposed  by the Equality Act. We consider ourselves to be  

A strategic regulator. That means that we operate  in a variety of ways in this respect. We try to   enhance the quality and availability of evidence  to allow for regulation. We try to influence   standard setting. We try to monitor and assess  compliance with those standards. Where necessary,  

We act as an enforcer in various ways. In this context, our frame of reference is   probably a bit narrower than it is in some others,  simply because of the interaction of the Equality   Act and the various regulations that govern  transport and accessibility of transport. We do  

Not have power to act under the Equality Act where  those regulations apply. Both for that reason and   for reasons of effectiveness, we consider that  most of the law in this area is probably better   applied and enforced by the regulators, under  those regulations. We definitely see our role  

As being to work with them to encourage them  to comply with the public sector equality duty,   which binds them as it binds others,  and to regulate effectively in that way.  That is not to say that we do not act. We have  acted in the past. We have a record that we are  

Moderately proud of. Therefore, we clearly see  that we have a role in this area. Particularly in   times when transport has been a strategic priority  for us, as it has been for periods in the past,   we think that we have had a real impact  for the benefit of disabled travellers. 

On the actions that you have brought,  can you give us a general overview of   the number of organisations that you have  taken to court and that have been fined,   with one or two specific examples? The numbers are relatively small. Our  

Powers are somewhat constrained. We have powers  to inquire. We have powers to investigate,   where we have reason to believe that there has  been a breach of equality legislation. We tend,   where we can, to work with people. For  example, we use our section 23 powers  

Under the Equality Act to agree action plans  with providers, or whoever it might be, for how   they might go about improving the position. I will take you back not necessarily to numbers   but to specific examples. I will give a couple of  examples of what we have done. Earlier this year,  

We concluded—it finished—a section 23 agreement  with London North Eastern Railway. That was   initiated as a case related to a visually impaired  customer who had been very poorly served by that   company. The fact that our preferred means of  working with the company was to make an agreement  

With them enabled us to oblige them to think much  harder and much more rigorously about the way they   go about dealing with accessibility for passengers  and to improve their practice on that front.  That is one example. The other prime example  would be the action that we took against Network  

Rail to ensure that it properly secured  accessibility of stations while they were   being refurbished. That was a matter of lifts,  primarily, at Piccadilly station in Manchester   and in Macclesfield. Those are two of the prime  ones. I can talk more about some of the other  

Things that we have done, if you would like. My colleagues and I will dig into some   of those points later. You mentioned  that you work with other regulators,   such as the Civil Aviation Authority and the  ORR. Is that a statutory engagement, or is  

It just a practice that has evolved over time? It is a practice that has evolved. As I said,   those regulators are themselves bound by the  public sector equality duty, under equality   law. To a certain extent, it is our job to keep an  eye on whether they and, indeed, all other public  

Bodies subject to that duty are complying with it. The nature of our engagement is not because there   is something in the law that says, “You must  talk to these people with this frequency about   these topics.” It is rather because, where  we think there are issues that can be best  

Pursued by co-operation between us or a proper  allocation of responsibilities between us,   we think that the right thing to do is to  interact with them on that front. As a result,   we have, and have had over time, somewhat  different levels of interaction with different  

Regulators. Most recently, we have spent more  time with the ORR than with some of the other   regulators, for reasons that will be obvious. This is the final question from me for now. Do   you think that that informal, loose  engagement works or does there need  

To be a more specified level of engagement? It is varied, in our experience. Our practice   with different regulators is different. We have  formal memoranda of understanding with some   other regulators in other sectors—the Care Quality  Commission, for example. We have found that useful   in teasing out different responsibilities  and terms of engagement between us. 

As it happens, we do not have any formal memoranda  of understanding with any of the regulators this   Committee is concerned with. We have not felt  the absence of that, but there certainly can be   circumstances where having that formalised in one  way or another is quite helpful. Of course, the  

Absence of a memorandum of understanding does  not let them off the hook in terms of the public   sector equality duty. They are still obliged  to do the things that they are obliged to do.  Mr Kirkpatrick, thank you very much for  being with us this morning. It all sounds  

Very touchy-feely to me. I do not think that you  were appointed as regulator of the regulators. You   said that the number of actual actions that you  have taken is very small. How small? Is it zero?  It is not zero. I can go back over a  period of five years. In the period  

Of our strategic plan that ran from 2019 to  2022, we opened up a transport legal support   fund. As you probably know, we have powers  both to bring actions in our own right,   as strategic litigation, and to assist individuals  or groups bringing actions, where they need to do  

So. The legal support project was designed to do  the latter of those. It supported 26 cases through   its life, of which six had broadly positive  outcomes. The other 20 achieved something in terms   of clarification of the law or routes to address— In those three years, how many  

Actions did you take off your own back? Off our own back? We took two strategic actions   coming out of those cases, because we decided  that we were actually better off acting ourselves—  Next question. How many people are in your  senior management team? You are the deputy chief  

Executive. You have a chief executive. How many  other people are in your senior management team?  I have another seven colleagues. Okay. Did anybody take responsibility   directly for transport as a strategic aim? To be honest, that was before my time,  

So I would not be able to tell you that. It  is not a strategic aim for us now, so the   answer at the moment is no, we don’t have  anybody who is specifically responsible—  Does your senior management team,  however much they all earn between them,  

Think that they did enough in those three years  on the specific issue of transport, or not?  We feel that we did a respectable job, within  the capacity of our powers and our budget,   to make a difference to the accessibility of  redress for people who were affected by that fund,  

And we feel that we have made a difference by  virtue of our strategic litigation. The fact that   we have litigated against LNER, for example, does  not just affect LNER. It causes all the other rail   operators you have had in these seats as well,  to think, “What did they do there? We need to  

Have our house equally in order.” We would like  to think that they would act in response to that.  I understand the point that one does not  want to act entirely consensually and that   there are times when one needs to bring the— I am going to interrupt you. From my perspective  

Here, it is great that you all sit in meetings,  drink coffee and tea and eat biscuits. We can all   do that. It is an Olympic sport for some people  in quangos and so on. What proper actions have  

Been taken where actually you can stand up and  say, “This is something where we have delivered   on the role and responsibilities  that we have and have been given”?  The answer to that is that we do it not by sitting  and drinking coffee, but rather by setting out  

With people, “This is what we think you need to  do.” That is the way the section 23 provisions   work. We and they agree an action plan. That  action plan needs to be one that causes change  

In behaviour on the part of the person who is  committing to do it, which should be the change   in behaviour that improves circumstances. I don’t think that it would be right to   characterise that as soft. Yes, we have to  negotiate it, and they have to agree it. If  

We cannot agree an action plan that we think  is adequate, there are other options that we   can pursue to greater degrees of enforcement. Finally, I am going to pick up something else that  

You have just said. You are here on your own. Fair  play to you for being here on your own, with no   chief executive. Are there members of the senior  management team who have been at your organisation  

Since prior to 2019, or are you all new in? We are not all newbies. There are others who   were around earlier. I could tell you  more if you wanted to know the history   of how we organised our responsibility for  those things in the past. I don’t know that  

Off the top of my head because I am the new— It would have been helpful to have somebody   who has had the experience of when it was  a strategic aim to sort out the transport   sector come to the Transport Committee. I am not  knocking the fact that you are in front of us,  

But maybe you can take that message back for  the next time that you are having a meeting,   with or without tea, coffee and biscuits. I will happily pass that on.  Thanks for being here. I want to follow up on the  central theme of where you have engaged and the  

Like. The Equality and Human Rights Commission  support scheme for transport accessibility has   provided legal aid to 26 people. One of our  witnesses alone told us that they had brought   20 cases and had 20 other cases pending. We know  that you cannot do individual cases, but given  

Some of the high-profile things that we have seen,  and in order to be more active and engaged, should   you not be picking up case situations and actually  driving them, rather than waiting for individuals   with disabilities and so on to pull them  themselves? Should you not be overarching that? 

Where we think that it is worth  doing, we can, and we have.  Have you? To take the obvious example, the question is how   we then act. Our ambition would be to try to act  in the way that we think is most likely to have an  

Impact, which might be to take an individual  case. Our view has generally been that it is   more likely to be to work with the collective  of other regulators, or whoever it might be.  For example, the most recent large issue—I am  sure that you will want to talk more about this,  

Possibly with the Ministers rather than with  me—relates to the proposals to close ticket   offices. When those proposals came forward, we  had some concerns about whether their equality   implications had been properly thought through.  We considered that the best way to do that was to  

Engage with the Department and the regulator and  to talk to them about it. As I am sure you know,   we issued public comment on that  consultation, setting out what we   thought some of those concerns might be. Our view was that, as a regulator,  

We were better off doing that, in an attempt to  head off such proposals, or at least to make sure   that they were properly considered, than we would  have been had we let it happen and then tried  

To support a legal case thereafter. The way we  thought about it was, “What is the most impactful   course of action that we think we can take?” Isn’t it the case that, if the regulators   are not enforcing accessibility duties under  their public sector equality duty, you should  

Be pushing the regulators and should be really  on top of them in terms of what is happening?  We can and we should. As I said, we have had  conversations both with the Department and,   recently, with the ORR about the public sector  equality duty. You heard from them about it. I  

Have read the evidence. I do not recall exactly  what was said, but our impression is that the ORR   takes seriously its obligations under the public  sector equality duty. Of course, it has both its   own obligations and the obligation to ensure  that those they regulate comply with the full  

Range of the law, including those provisions.  Our sense is that there is movement in that   area, that it is positive and that the  engagement of the regulators is positive.  As I said earlier, it is important to remember  that it seems to us that most of the issues that  

Arise—that we are aware of, anyway—are both  properly dealt with by the regulators and   probably better dealt with by the regulators,  because they are more expert in the detail of   the regulations and of the situation than we  are. Exactly as you said, our concern is to  

Keep an eye on whether we think that they are  taking their obligations seriously and to leave   the principal burden of enforcing in specific  cases, or pursuing specific instances, to them.  To follow on from what has been said, our  concern is whether you are too hands-off  

In that situation—that you are observing, but  not enacting. We are concerned that you are not   enforcing and that you are not going back to  the regulators and pushing them hard enough.  Our view is that we need to think about where we  can have the most impact, where the issues that  

Are most salient are arising. In the general  transport space, our sense was that the most   salient issues on which we needed to be keeping  both the Department’s and the regulator’s feet to   the fire were the recent proposals around ticket  offices. Our choice of a way to work there was  

To press both the Department and the regulator  on their action. I do not think that that can   be characterised as sitting back. I think  that that can be characterised as acting.  I guess that the point I am trying to make is  that our view is that the most effective way  

Of acting is not necessarily to bring individual  cases. We are neither empowered nor equipped to   do that in a serial way. Rather, we are trying to  make the system work better for those passengers.  I will leave it there. Still on the point around your  

Strategic priorities, do you think that things  actually improved during the period when transport   accessibility was one of your priority aims? We would like to think so. We set ourselves   some objectives for the legal support scheme  specifically. One of the things that I know  

You have been told is that in the past it has  been very difficult for people to find advisers   and that it has sometimes been difficult  to find lawyers to take cases. Clearly,   the fact that there were then another 20-plus  cases on the books indicated that there were more,  

Better sources of advice out there for people. Even some of the cases that did not necessarily   yield an outcome have helped to clarify  the law—on where it is. You had Mr Paulley   sitting in this seat a few weeks ago. We  supported his case. The way in which that  

Was decided clearly clarified the law on what the  obligations of bus operators were and were not,   and the way in which they should do that.  That seems to me to be a desirable impact.  You have mentioned some of the evidence that  we have heard. Some of it was pretty scathing  

In terms of the daily experience travelling around  the country of some individuals with accessibility   needs. Why do you think that this no longer needs  to be a strategic priority for your organisation?  My best answer to that would be that the  fact that it is not a strategic priority  

Does not mean that we don’t think it matters. But it is not one of your top issues. If you   think that it is so important and needs the  attention that you have suggested, why is it   no longer one of your top priorities? We work on a three-year strategic planning  

Horizon. In the strategic plan we are currently  two thirds of the way through, we had to make some   choices at the start, which was in the midst  of the pandemic, about where we were going to   focus our attention. At that point and in those  circumstances, we focused more on the equalities  

Impacts on children and young people and on health  and social care that we could see around us.  That is not to say that we regard this as  unimportant, any more than we regard the rest   of our range of activity as unimportant. Where we  are seeking to move the system, we will seek to  

Concentrate and focus such resources as we have in  some areas at a time. At the time of the pandemic,   when transport appeared to us not to be not  a priority, but a lower priority than some   of those other things, we moved a little  way away from that. That also reflects  

The fact that we felt that we had made a bit of a  difference in the previous strategic plan period.  What evidence of that do you have? That is our sense from the nature of   the queries and questions that we see. We  are not a complaint-receiving body, but we  

Get intelligence from others who are. We see a  number of issues still out there for disabled   passengers. Absolutely. For the most part, they  seem to be issues that are best addressed within   the framework of the existing law and the existing  regulatory system by the regulators themselves,  

By duty holders. There are a lot of things about  accessibility of taxi and private hire services,   for example. There are still some things about  accessibility of buses. You had evidence from   those responsible for both of those things that  they are trying to move those sectors over time. 

It would be very useful if you could provide some  hard evidence that things have improved. From what   we are hearing, it is actually the reverse since  the pandemic. If you have evidence to suggest   that this no longer needs to be a strategic  priority for your organisation, it would be  

Very helpful if you could write to the Committee. I am happy to do two things. First, I can provide   you with such evidence as we have on that.  The second thing is to say that in the next  

Nine months or so we will be consulting on a  new strategic plan going forward. One of the   things we will be looking at is what the evidence  tells us right now. Obviously, we will need to   revisit a variety of things in that context. From that conversation, it sounds like there  

Are a lot of strategic plans going  forward but a lack of action for people,   to be quite frank. Do you genuinely believe that  you have the necessary expertise and resources to   pursue breaches of transport accessibility law? We definitely have powers, if we need them. As  

I said, we have powers to investigate. We have  powers to support cases. We have powers to pursue   cases on our own. As I said, those powers are  constrained by the fact that we cannot pursue   things that are properly pursued under the  regulations. The Equality Act is a kind of  

Fall-back from that. That is why I talked about  us using our power to seek to press and influence   the regulators, rather than necessarily taking  action ourselves. It also speaks to the question   of expertise. We would not pretend to be as expert  in the situation on the railways as the ORR,  

In the situation on the roads as the traffic  commissioners, in the situation at airports   and in the air as the CAA, and so forth.  They unquestionably have better expertise   than we do, which is one reason for doing that. We are constrained on resources. We have roughly  

Half the budget that we had eight or 10 years  ago. As I was telling Mr Brereton, we have to   prioritise reasonably rigorously. Our capacity for  pursuing expensive investigation and, potentially,   litigation activity is constrained.  That is why we have to make choices. 

Are there any other factors that lead  to those constraints? You mentioned the   costs. Is there perhaps a shortage  of experts in accessibility law?  Not that we are aware of. As I said, one of  the desirable outcomes from the transport legal  

Support project was that it somewhat increased  the number and availability of legal advisers   willing and able to act in this area. We had  evidence after that closed that there were more   people talking to us about their availability  and willingness to act in that area. Clearly,  

Many of them will act only if instructed and  paid. Therefore, there is a cost implication,   which brings us back to the same thing. I suspect that there could be the capacity in   the system. It is not a straightforward system. It  is quite a complicated body and area of law. You  

Are quite right. It needs people who are familiar  with and expert in those areas to work in it.  Good morning, Mr Kirkpatrick. Thanks for giving  evidence today. I appreciate that you have not   been in post for a very long time, but I was  interested in some of your earlier responses—in  

Particular, the fact that the EHRC shares concerns  about the impact of closures of ticket offices,   especially on disabled passengers. Can I ask you about an earlier letter   that the EHRC wrote to the Transport Committee? I  don’t know whether it is fair to ask, but perhaps  

You could find out for me. This was in 2019. The  chair of the EHRC wrote to the Committee. In fact,   the Chair of the Select Committee then  was Huw Merriman. That letter stated that,   “the impact of ongoing transport policies remains  a concern, in particular the move to driver only  

Operated (DOO) trains, as well as reductions in  staffed stations. We believe that the shift to   DOO trains, with the increased likelihood of there  being no second member of staff on board to assist   passengers, and a decrease in staffed stations  could represent a diminution of protection for  

Disabled people, and potentially be a breach of  the Equality Act 2010.” Has anything changed since   that opinion was given to the Committee in 2019? What lies behind that opinion is our view,   which would be the same as is expressed there  and as we expressed to the consultation on  

Ticket offices, that when steps of that kind  are contemplated, what is most important   is that the authorities involved properly  think through whether they have understood   the equalities implications of all of those. You understand how the system works. Ministers—the   Department for Transport—are pressuring  the train operating companies to reduce  

Costs. Train operating companies are trying  to reduce costs by reducing staffing levels,   closing ticket offices, reducing the number of  staff on stations and introducing driver only   operated trains. Ministers and others must be  aware of their obligations under the Equality  

Act. I hope that you and your colleagues will  point those out to them in no uncertain terms.  We agree. We consider it our responsibility  to remind Ministers, in this and other fields,   if we think that there is a danger that they  are not fulfilling their equality obligations  

Properly. We have written at different  times to a number of different Ministers,   not just in Transport but in other Departments  of State, asking them that question.  To be clear, and I think this is absolutely  consistent with what you have said,  

Our ambition is to make sure that they have  thought through the equalities implications   properly and are making such changes as they want  to make, for whatever reason, in a way that takes   those properly into account and does not give rise  to disproportionate harm to particular groups of  

The population. That is our obligation. That is  the obligation that we continue to seek to fulfil.  I understand. Thank you for sharing that view  with the Committee. I would be grateful if,   when you are reviewing your strategic objectives,  you could check with colleagues and clarify that  

The position remains the same as it was in  2019, as the Committee was informed by letter.  Karl has a quick supplementary. That’s right. You have not been in your   position for very long. How long has your chief  executive been in position, since he left IPSA? 

He will have been in place for about two and a  half to three years, something of that order.  Okay. Will you pass the message back that  the next time you are in front of us we   would like to see the chief executive? The chief executive is currently unwell,  

I’m afraid, which is why you  have me, but I hear the message.  Can I conclude this part of the session with a  fairly general but important question? We have   heard considerable evidence that the experience  of disabled people travelling is poor and has got  

Worse since the pandemic. You have said that it  is a complex area of law. Our main exam question   in this inquiry is to determine whether there  is sufficient legislation and regulation in   place and, therefore, it is a question of  enforcement, or whether there are gaps. Do  

You think that the Equality Act is the right  place for transport rights to be enshrined?  We don’t have a strong view on that. We  are not aware of gaps. We believe that it   is possible to act under the regulations and, as  a fall-back, potentially under the Equality Act,  

Where we are able to and need to.  We do not have a shopping list of   changes to the law to offer to the Committee. The Equality Act is a big, broad-ranging piece   of legislation. It was a very consolidatory piece  that deliberately draws together multiple duties,  

Multiple protected characteristics and so  forth. Carving bits out of that would have   consequences that would need to be thought about  fairly carefully, because the coherence of that   broad legal framework seems to us to have  some value. That is not to say that there  

Isn’t a case for doing things in a different  way. We do not see a compelling argument that   there are gaps now that need to be filled. That is very helpful. I am not sure what   our conclusions will be, but that is the question  that we are trying to answer through this inquiry. 

Thank you for your time and evidence this  morning. I ask the second panel to come forward.  Welcome to our second panel. Usually at this stage  of the proceedings, we have a Minister to join us,   but we have a richness of Ministers. I’m not  sure what the collective term for Ministers is. 

I think you will get a very  mixed answer to that question.  For the purposes of our records, could I invite  you all to state your name and position, please?  My name is Liz Wilson. I am the deputy director at  the Department for Transport with responsibility  

For accessibility and inclusive travel. My name is Guy Opperman. I am the Member of   Parliament for Hexham. I am a Minister at the  Department for Transport. I look after roads,   buses and active travel. I am the  accessibility lead in the Department. 

Good morning, Chair. I am Huw Merriman.  I am the Minister for Rail and HS2.  I am Anthony Browne. I am  the Minister for Aviation,   Decarbonisation of Transport and Technology. Thank you. We are grateful for your time this   morning. Guy, perhaps I could start with  you, given that you have, as you say,  

Lead responsibility in the Department for these  issues. You are relatively new in position,   which gives you an opportunity to look at the  issues with fresh eyes. What would you say is   working well in terms of accessibility?  Where is there room for improvement? 

It is a pleasure to do this job. I asked to do  this job. I took a demotion from Minister of State   to Parliamentary Under-Secretary to do it.  I welcome the inquiry because I think it is   needed and it is appropriate. I welcome  the exam question you just posed to the  

EHRC because I think it is the right exam  question. As the lead departmental Minister,   I began a process on day 30 of this particular job  to try to assess where we are and have a look at   the overview. To be fair, the Secretary of State  provides very strong leadership in this particular  

Space. I will come on to that in detail. I come from a personal standpoint. My   mother is disabled and requires a wheelchair.  I do not fully understand the implications of   what accessibility is for all the people  from whom you have heard in evidence,  

But I have a degree of comprehension because  of that. I also have a 20-year legal career   challenging public authorities, and sometimes  representing them. My last client when I was a   barrister was Ed Balls, but obviously I  spent most of my time as a human rights  

Lawyer and a public law lawyer, challenging public  authorities on accessibility and things like that.  My take is that we are doing well but could  do significantly better. There is much that   we can change going forward. The Department has  individual areas where it is making real progress,  

But there is a danger in every Department in  every bit of Government of being in a silo,   and the other bit of its not being an  all-pervasive attitude in that Department. That   is my very preliminary, 30-day, assessment. That  is not a criticism of individual civil servants,  

Ministers and previous portfolio holders. It is  merely asking how we make accessibility and the   rights of the disabled something that is  fundamental to the whole delivery of the   Department. That is what we need to try to do. Thank you. In the course of this inquiry,  

We have heard individual bits of evidence from  witnesses. We have also conducted a survey, where   members of the public shared their experiences  with us. The position is not good. Nearly 90%   of people who responded told us that they have  challenges. Particularly alarming evidence is  

That since the pandemic things are getting worse  and not better. What areas are you going to focus   on initially to try to remedy that situation? My take is that you are right. It is not for   me to assess the individual Department, but the  evidence that I have read, particularly the first  

Session on 23 June, was pretty overwhelming. Covid  had a negative impact in a whole form of ways,   and we need to make up for that. I wrote down three words  The second thing is integration. I can only  speak for my piece, but it is ensuring, from  

How you design a housing estate to how you drive  forward transport infrastructure, that all aspects   are considered. That includes active travel and  accessibility. Those must not be things that are   added on at the end or considered at the last  minute. Integration of services, as provided by  

The state in all its shapes and forms, is surely  key. Again, that is a ministerial direction.  The final bit is ownership. It is not for  me to comment on previous regulators or   people who have given evidence here. That is  for you to comment on. Owning the problem is  

The most important thing. Sticking your hand  up and saying, “This is in my wheelhouse and I   own this problem,” is utterly key in all  aspects of government and regulatory process.  Thank you. This is the final question  from me for the moment before I pass to  

Colleagues. You alluded to our central question  of whether there are gaps in the legislation,   or whether it is primarily an enforcement  and, as you say, attitude issue. From what   you have seen thus far, are there gaps  in legislation that we need to fill? 

We will probably come on to things like  an accessibility Act in a bit more detail   and at greater length, but my take is, no, not at  present. I don’t rule it out. That is the genuine   point. There is some very telling evidence—I  will find it later—about the assessment of why  

The Equality Act was bought into, and the purpose  behind the Equality Act. I cannot remember off the   top of my head who gave that particular evidence,  but they spoke very eloquently about how it was   meant to simplify the process. Trying to introduce  a new Act to simplify the process does not  

Necessarily get the outcome that you are seeking. We have to make the system, in all its shapes and   forms, work better. That is patently clear.  I accept that challenge, and if I have any   influence on the Department and the various  regulators that we are all overseeing, and which  

Individual Ministers are looking after, it is  in acceptance of that challenge and the driving   forward of attitudinal change. That is surely  key. We must make the system work better.  There is a legitimate point that you will  probably raise with me about individual  

Aspects of individual pieces of legislation  where there may be tweaks, whether it is taxis,   e-scooters or whatever it is. One can have a  chat about that and say, “Are there individual   tweaks that need to be made in individual bits  of legislation?” Fundamentally, own the problem;  

Run it better; and have a change of attitude. I have a quick supplementary. The inclusive   transport strategy has a target for 2030. Given  what has happened with the pandemic, do you still   believe that you can meet that target of 2030? Yes. I can give you the long, political answer  

But, yes, I believe that actually. I will amplify  briefly, Chair. There are a number of key reasons   why, which all of us can give evidence on,  but the fundamental is this. There are,   I think, 91 metrics in that. I have what in  departmental terms is called a Gantt chart,  

But you and I would call it a flow chart. Are  we achieving what we are trying to achieve?  In 2024, we will publish a proper audit of that.  It is similar to what the Select Committee is   trying to do in auditing Government. Having  an assessment of the ITS—a real, published  

Assessment of where we are going on it—is a proper  thing. There may be isolated elements where there   is difficulty. A good example is lifts in every  single railway station, or whatever. There are   specific isolated areas. Huw is much more expert  on that. In the most remote rural station in the  

World there may be problems getting to 2030 on  this, but fundamentally things are changing.  The key changes, of which this Select Committee is  aware, are obviously the change in respect of HS2,   the transformation of funding through Network  North and the money that will be made available  

As a consequence of that. That is new money in  this space which can be utilised, particularly   in the mayoralty regions, to make a  big difference in delivering the ITS.  My answer is, yes, there may be isolated  exceptions, but come 2024 we still have  

Six years to fix it. A large proportion  of the 91 objectives—it is a strategy,   but you still have to deliver it—have  been achieved or are being achieved.  Would you agree that accessibility  failures on our public transport   networks are completely unacceptable?  They are not just an indicator of poor  

Customer service. They are unacceptable.  When there are good access facilities,   often they do not work for lack of investment  or maintenance. What is your view on that?  Who are you directing that to? All of you.  I will start, and then other colleagues can  come in. The answer to your question is yes,  

Fundamentally. I do not think there is a single  person in the room who would disagree with the   fundamental premise that we want to make this  the best possible experience, and that we are   all on a journey—forgive the pun—that needs  to be much improved. Where there are failures,  

One would sincerely hope that they are brought  to the attention of those who are responsible,   and that action is taken. I don’t think anybody  would disagree with the fundamental premise.  Perhaps I can add something from a rail  perspective when it comes to lifts. For the  

Next control period, control period 7, which  will commence in April 2024, maintenance and   delivery of lifts is one of the key requirements  for Network Rail. It is recognised across the   rail sector that there is more we need to do.  A number of MPs in this place have taken it up  

Directly with me. It will become a key priority  for Network Rail for the next five-year period.  Let me interrupt you. I am glad to hear that.  Last summer or early autumn, I was at a remote   station in Bradford. There were two people  stuck in a lift. They were absolutely trapped;  

The doors didn’t work. I couldn’t get them out.  They didn’t get a response from the emergency   helpline. They rang but there was no reply, just  an answering service. That is surely unacceptable.   Is there not a dilemma between the need for  train operating companies to cut costs and  

Increase profit and the maintenance that they  absolutely have to have for things like lifts,   to stop people getting stuck in them? They  were stuck in those lifts for about an hour.  You are absolutely right, Mr Hamilton. It is not  good enough. That is why we have that focus. It  

Is also important that as well as delivering  more step-free stations, we ensure that the   ones we have are properly maintained. It  is absolutely right to get that focus.  To your point on the profit element, the way  the railway now works post covid and post  

Franchising is that the costs are provided by the  Department for Transport for the train operators   to run the services. All the revenue is then  collected back by the Department. It will not have   an element of profit increment in that regard. All  of our contracts have performance fee elements,  

So if a service is not good enough, and that  includes the entire service, that fee will not   get earned either. Mr Browne?  I would like to put on the record that I agree.  It is completely unacceptable if disabled people   cannot travel without having problems. I  am completely committed to the 2030 target,  

Ideally beforehand, of disabled people  being able to travel with confidence.  Mr Opperman mentioned his mother. My father  needs a wheelchair going through airports. I   have taken one of my children through an airport  on a wheelchair. That was Heathrow. It has to  

Be said that the experience was exemplary,  but I know the issues that people can face.  The Government, the airports and the airlines have  done a lot. You have had an evidence session on   this before. We clearly need to do more. One  of the questions was, do we need legislation  

On it? We actually published a response earlier  this year to the aviation consumer policy reform   consultation. We said that when parliamentary  time allows, we would like legislation to be   able to give the CAA better enforcement  powers. At the moment, we have very good  

Guidance and quite a good framework, but  there is a problem with enforcement. That   would enable it to issue fines to companies that  breach or do not live up to their guidelines.  We would also introduce mandatory alternative  dispute resolution, so that when people have  

Complaints they always have somewhere to go. It  is a voluntary scheme at the moment. We would   remove the cap on compensation for damage to  wheelchairs and mobility chairs. At the moment,   there is a cap under the Montreal protocol that  we cannot go above. We need legislation for that. 

The other thing I would like to see is this. The  Civil Aviation Authority currently has an airport   accessibility framework forum, which is where it  monitors what all the airports do. It does quite   a close inspection and provides statistics  on how they are doing. You heard this in the  

Oral evidence from the airline industry. I think  there is one airport that still needs improvement,   but it has come a long way. We could do a  similar sort of framework for the airlines.   It is more complex because 100 airlines come  to the UK, and obviously they are not all UK  

Airlines. It would be really good to have  the same sort of scrutiny and pressure put   on airlines. A lot of the stories that we hear  and that get into the media about people being   stuck on planes for hours, and not being able to  get off, are clearly totally unacceptable. It is  

The airlines that have not been communicating  well or dealing with it well with the airports.  I will ask this question of all four  of you. Ladies first, and then I will   make the Ministers work, alphabetically by  surname. Some of you might have heard me being  

Mildly critical of our previous witness. Do you  think that they should remain at arm’s length,   as it seems it is, or should they back off  completely? Should they help the various   Departments by getting their hands dirty and  enforcing what the Government are trying to do? 

The EHRC in particular? We need to think about  how the regulators work together collectively;   how the EHRC is working with the regulators,  but also how the regulators work together.   We should look at opportunities for what  collaboration and co-operation there is.   There are examples internationally, and in other  sectors, where there are cross-cutting issues,  

And regulators come together. It is something  that we would like to think about a bit more.  There are 218 staff and quite a large budget.  I am just picking on them at the moment, but   within the realm of things that is quite a large  organisation. You would have hoped that transport  

Would still be a strategic aim of theirs, but  they have knocked it back, for whatever reason.  Yes. Minister.  In week four of the job, I do not have much  experience of the EHRC and how they operate within  

The aviation sector. As I said, the main issue  in aviation is that there is lots of really quite   detailed guidance out there, but it is about the  enforcement of it. In the aviation sector it is  

The CAA that has the primary role of enforcement,  but it just does not have the tools. We need to   give it the tools. How it would interact with the  EHRC in terms of enforcement, I am not sighted on.  Huw, welcome back to something  that you started. Full circle. 

Yes, I know. It was actually one of the last  inquiries that we commissioned when I was   Chair. I did not expect to be sitting here;  I expected to be sitting where the Chair is.  It is a really interesting point, and one that  we need to look at as a result of this inquiry,  

Looking through the various patchwork  of rules and legislation. We have the   Equality Act and the public sector equalities  duty and that is where you see the EHRC.  On the rail side we have the Railways  Act, which gives power to the regulator,  

The Office of Rail and Road, to then deliver their  powers. In effect, you have two opportunities in   that particular way. There was one case recently  with LNER where it was the EHRC that ended up in   detail and signing a legal agreement with the  train operator rather than the ORR. I would  

Expect the ORR to make sure that everything that  is revealed on that particular equality side is   then followed up from a railways licensing  and powers part. We could probably do more,   as Liz says, to join it together. Thank you. Guy. 

You are not backwards at coming forwards, so I  am not going to be either. I am going to lean   in. I listened to the evidence. I have looked  at the evidence, albeit I am only on day 30.  

I manifestly think that the EHRC should be doing  more. I refer you to the answer at Question 286 in   the 25 October evidence, where Caroline Stickland  very strongly gave that view. I endorse it 110%. I   did not know the large number of personnel at that  august organisation. They have a very broad remit,  

And no one disputes that. I get why they may have  decided other things as an operational decision.   Again, all of us had to make decisions in covid  and post covid as to the operational priorities.   All of that is given, but going forward,  could they do more? Unquestionably, yes.  Should they? Yes. 

Thank you. Good morning,   panel. What is the Department’s ambition for  accessibility in transport infrastructure and   vehicles across modes? Is there a practical road  map for getting to 100%, whether that is defined   as travelling with or without assistance? Does the Department have a plan? Yes. Is  

It set out in detail? Yes. Is there a copy of  it here? Yes. This is the inclusive transport   strategy. As you can see, it is a very slim  document. It sets it out in great detail. We   have a metric by which we are judging  ourselves. In 2024 we will do a full,  

Published report on it, which obviously we  would share with the Committee. We would hope   the Committee would then make an assessment of  whether they agree or disagree on that. I think   the answer is yes, yes and yes. Are there any comments from the   other members of the panel? No, nothing further to add. 

As a supplementary, do you accept that,  under the UN convention on the rights   of disabled people, disabled people  have the right to independent living,   including being able to travel spontaneously?  How are you making that a reality in your remit? 

The answer, of course, is yes, we do. I will  be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that   was passed in about 2016. The ITS is 2018 and  takes all of the points that are made, sets out  

In copious detail how we are trying to address  that and is in a position where I would like   to think that we are going to do those points. There is legitimate criticism in isolated areas   where there are either gaps in the system or  we are not driving them forward as fast as we  

Can. We take that on board. We are, all of us  collectively, as civil servants, as regulators   and as Ministers trying to address that. I want to ask Minister Opperman a question,   following the questions from my colleague. You  were waving a copy of the Department’s inclusive  

Transport strategy. You mentioned that there  were going to be metrics to measure success   and so on and you will be coming back to  the Committee to tell us about that. Can   you point to some specific example, within  your remit, where the Department’s inclusive  

Policy has paid dividends? I want a particular  example. I want to ask each Minister in turn.  If I may, I would love to give you  a written answer. It is not fair to   say that there are 91 separate objectives— I just want one. I don’t want 91. 

I didn’t think you would. I could read it out  at great length. Genuinely, you should say,   “See what the 91 are and then see where we are.”  I can give a few. Huw, I suspect, will talk   about the rail ombudsman, the passenger assist  app, the “It’s everyone’s journey” campaign,  

Guidance on taxi licensing and the PSVAR  regulations and the funding that follows. I   could go on. There are individual things. Is  there more to do? Yes, there is. Genuinely,   look at the strategy. Look at what is being  delivered and look at what is still a journey. 

Some of those are incredibly positive steps, but  some of them are ambitions, such as the passenger   assist app. We have had lots of feedback to say  that the way it currently operates is far from   satisfactory, but I am grateful for your answer. Could I ask Minister Merriman the same question? 

Thank you, Mr Morris. Yes, that is an  example. The passenger assist app has   allowed for turn up and go with a two-hour  booking period. It used to be 24 hours. I   know that this Committee had been critical of  that policy. That is now down to two hours. 

The ORR’s last survey on this showed that  there was a 90% satisfaction rate, up from   87% the previous year. We are getting there.  In terms of stations, 75% of journeys are from   step-free stations. Even though most stations are  not step-free, the busy stations are. We have that  

Figure at 75%. It used to be 50%. Again, there  are improvements. Network Rail delivers 40% of   all journeys; 60% of those are booked and 40% are  not booked because people can turn up and go. The   staff are there at the stations and the lifts  are there as well. I believe that is progress. 

The final thing to touch on, which is really  important, is the rail ombudsman. Complaints   always get taken up with the train operator,  but now the rail ombudsman can intervene,   and has intervened and has the power  to enforce. Again, that has all come  

From the inclusive transport strategy. We have  delivered two thirds of the requirements under   that strategy, but there is more to do. Perhaps I might pick up on one of those   answers. There is the trajectory and  the vision. No one can argue about  

Improving from 24 hours to book passenger  assist to two hours, and assistance being   available to help passengers with disability. In my constituency we have two railway stations   that are unmanned. There are quite a number of  manned stations across the network which are  

Currently operating at below optimum staffing  levels, so staff are not readily available to   assist passengers with disabilities. Can I  ask the Rail Minister if he has any further   information on current levels of unfilled  vacancies, and what steps he is taking to  

Persuade the train operating companies to ensure  that stations are fully and properly staffed?  I will write to you with the information on  vacancy rates. You are right that there have   been vacancies at stations. On the requirements  that would fall under the accessible travel policy  

That all stations and train operators are required  to sign up to as part of the licensing powers from   the ORR, I will need to be in touch with the  ORR as to whether they believe that any of that  

Is not just a vacancy but constitutes, in their  view, a difficulty in compliance with the policy.  Will you be reminding them of that obligation? Absolutely. I speak to the train operator managing   directors on a regular basis. Matters  come up, and I will certainly make sure  

That that is there as well, Mr Morris. Can I come in on that? Only 30 days ago   I was the Employment Minister, whose  specific job at the Department for   Work and Pensions was to try to fill such gaps. There is a massive role for the local jobcentre  

And the individual local rail operator to work  together to try to create a skills bootcamp or   a sector-based work academy in order to try to  fill the gaps. That there are vacancies across the   sector is patently clear. I am doing a ginormous  piece of work to try to fill bus driver vacancies  

And have been doing that for some considerable  period of time. The DWP and the individual   organisations are working together. Could we  do more? Yes, but we are unquestionably trying   to address those problems. Minister, I am grateful for your intervention,  

But do you realise that there is a financial  incentive for the train operating companies   not to fill vacancies? It reduces their costs.  Where staff have been reduced or where staff   have left, if they can function on a minimal  service without any ministerial pressure,  

Or pressure from the regulator, they will do that  because they are under financial pressures on   their bottom line. I am just seeking to gently  remind you that they have other obligations,   as well as obligations to disabled passengers  that they should fully staff their stations in  

Accordance with the terms of their licence. I accept the point that you wish to make,   but I also make the point that the  Government, in a cross-departmental way,   are trying to address any ability to fill  the gaps. There is work we are doing. 

There is a challenge because the funding going  into the railway by the UK taxpayer has been £32   billion since covid, whereas in years gone by the  train operators paid money in to the UK taxpayer.   We have to get the balance right between looking  at costs, making sure that we are efficient and,  

At the same time, ensuring that there is  compliance with the accessible travel policy.   I understand that there is that tension, but the  requirement for all operators to comply with the   accessible travel policy is absolute. If it  gets to the level that you are alluding to,  

Where that is not being complied with, that is  when the Office of Rail and Road will take action.   I do not believe that it is at that level at the  moment, but I will find out and come back to you. 

I believe it is about 11%, but you might check  that. Minister Browne, could you give me an   example from your portfolio? Of improvements?  A specific example of where the Department’s  inclusive transport strategy has paid a   dividend for people with disabilities. As I say, there is actually a legal requirement  

Under EC Regulation 1107/2006. I just want an example.  That has produced guidance which has transformed  what all airports and airlines do in terms of   helping disabled people. The airports now have  teams of people. They prefer pre-notification;   if somebody is arriving in a wheelchair, they  prefer to know in advance. They had 3.5 million  

Pre-notifications. They will help people. All  cases and disabilities are slightly different,   but they will give appropriate help  to them from however they arrive at   the airport through to the check-in desk and  security. They will often be in a wheelchair,  

And somebody will push the wheelchair through  immigration and deliver them to the plane. At the   plane the responsibility goes over to the airline.  The airlines have a range of different things,   but they should have wheelchairs that you can use  in the aisles to help people get to the toilets. 

As I mentioned, the CAA does close scrutiny  monitoring of the airports and what they do.   The number of airports that it deemed inadequate  a few years ago was 12. It is now down to one.   There has definitely been an improvement,  but we clearly can do a lot more. They need  

More powers to be able to enforce more,  but the overall experience has improved.  Recently, as part of our HS2 scrutiny, the  Committee visited Birmingham International   airport to see the HS2 station and the works that  were going on there. They pointed out to us some  

Of the improvements, including the access for  disabled passengers. The standards from airport   to airport vary enormously. They do, yes.  If the Department is aware of that and  is seeking to level up the performance,   that would be much appreciated. I have one more  question for Minister Opperman. You mentioned  

That you had twice reviewed the evidence to the  Committee from the Disabled Passengers Transport   Advisory Committee. We have heard very powerful  testimony from its witnesses. Can you tell the   Committee a little bit about how you work with the  Disabled Passengers Transport Advisory Committee,  

And whether there are specific policy decisions—I  don’t want to put words into your mouth—about   ticket office closures, where the Department has  promoted a policy that clearly was at odds with   the views of disabled passengers in that forum? There are about six questions there. I will  

Endeavour to unpick them as best I possibly  can. Bear with me. I will try to address the   particular points. It starts from the Secretary  of State, who has made it a priority to include   DPTAC as part of the Department. He took  Professor Mat Campbell-Hill with him to the  

G7 summit in Japan on sustainable and accessible  travel. I spoke at length to Mat yesterday, to   have a discussion about the evidence today. I will let Liz come in in a second because she   is the civil servant who has been looking at this  in a much wider context. She can probably give  

You a much more balanced view over a period  of time. There is no doubt that DPTAC is an   integral part of the Department for Transport.  I think that we can do more to include them.   It is not a question of being consulted. It is  being part of the decision-making process when  

Decisions are made. I am looking at a particular  example on a footbridge/crossing to a road at   the present stage that I very much want their  view and opinions on before I make a decision.  We need to have a very positive attitude to that.  I will leave Huw to touch on the specifics of  

Ticket offices because he is way more specific  on that. My view is that DPTAC is integral to   the Department. There is no doubt about that.  If you read the inclusive transport strategy,   the key passage comes from the DPTAC lead. That  is something that is utterly written hand in glove  

With them. Could we be better at doing that?  Yes, I am sure we could. At the same stage,   are they part of the Department? Yes,  they are 110%. I will let Liz come in.  DPTAC has been there since 1985. We have been  working with them for a long time on big policy  

Issues. Since Mat Campbell-Hill became the  chair, we have been thinking about the systems   and structures so that we absolutely do what  the Minister said and make sure that we are   bringing them in right across the piece.  There is a long history of getting DPTAC  

Involved in accessibility-specific areas  of work. I am sure that the Minister will   talk about their role in ticket office  closures as part of that and the ITS.  I think we want to move to making sure that  they are absolutely involved in all aspects of  

The policy that we are developing, where there  may be an accessibility implication even if it   is not an accessibility specific policy area.  We have been developing jointly with DPTAC a   forward work plan for them, where we look at  the big policy decisions coming up over the  

Next 18 months and how and when DPTAC are going  to be able to be involved in that. How often do   they need to be given our views? How are we  responding to them so that, when we are not  

Able to take forward some of the things that they  have suggested, we have a clear dialogue on that?  We have a very constructive relationship  with them. We have a number of working   groups sitting underneath that as well.  They are also very actively involved,  

Not just through the main committees but where we  have ongoing working relationships with them on   the big ticket accessibility policy areas, like  the development that is going on NRAS in rail   at the moment. They are integrated into that.  I agree with the Minister that they are very  

Much embedded into our thinking, but we  would like to see that improve even more.  I will go one point further. Every Minister  will have to make decisions on a whole host of   projects, particularly in rail, road, buses and  everything like that. Some of those will have a  

Direct implication in terms of accessibility,  but whether you are going to improve the M4,   or whatever, does not necessarily have it. What you have to have as a Department, though,   when you are making spending commitments in  particular, is proper understanding of issues of  

Accessibility. I do not just say accessibility.  The key word I tried to use at the start,   aside from attitude, was integration. We  must try to bring the different elements   of the Department for Transport, whether it is  active travel or accessibility in all its forms,  

Into the decision-making process so  that you have an integrated transport   system. That is what we are trying to achieve. For example, we take talking buses for granted   in London—I must say that I have noticed they  are turning the volume down, so you can hardly  

Hear them. They would be a real boon, but it is  not the norm on many of the routes in our region.  We are doing something on that. I  am happy to write to you on that.  Chair, do you want me to cover the point about  DPTAC’s involvement in the ticket offices? 

Yes, please. It came up in Mr Morris’s questioning.   They were heavily involved. The groups that  represent those with protected characteristics   were the groups that I met first of all, when  the consultation exercise was launched by the   train operators. Mat, who was the DPTAC lead  was instrumental in that. He provided not just  

A sounding board but acted as a critical friend.  He helped us all the way through that process.  We had three meetings in total with those  groups, with Mat very much taking a lead,   with me. He provided a lot of challenge and  did an excellent job. What was really important  

Was that once the ticket office closures were  cancelled, I met with Mat and the groups again to   ensure that, as a result of all the good that had  come out of the consultation exercise in terms of  

The challenges for those with characteristics and  what more could be done, we could see how we could   do it better. We are now working on making sure  that we take that and see what can be delivered. 

It is not just a question of what he did during  the consultation exercise. He is now doing more   work to allow things that have been identified to  get better. That will help us when we are putting   together the national rail accessibility strategy.  We are trying to get one common set of policies  

Across train operators and he will be instrumental  in that. He is also instrumental in the review we   have at the moment of the eligibility criteria  for the disabled persons railcard. Again,   that work goes on. I hope that gives  a flavour of the work that he does.  

I have to be honest with this Committee and say  that I did not know much about it before I became   a Minister. I have worked with him really closely.  He is excellent. That body really does have clout. 

I am glad to hear it. Thank you, Chair. First, I want to ask Minister Opperman about the   legislative framework. You have already touched on  it and some of the challenges because of the lack   of coherence and the multiple different pieces  of legislation and guidance. Is the Department  

Doing more to look at how we can improve the  coherence of that legislation and guidance?  There is a legitimate question raised by this  Committee, and it is a legitimate point that the   Department needs to do, which is to assess whether  the delivery of statute and regulation across  

The board is appropriate, and then enforced  properly, as we have discussed in previous   evidence sessions and earlier today. I think  that is something that we are keen to do.  It basically comes in the form of an assessment  of the ITS in 2024. That process has already  

Begun. I confess I have not read it in the  copious detail I would have liked to do,   but I have a very detailed assessment of all 91  different objectives as part of that strategy,   many of which are whether regulation is doing  what it should be doing and whether we are  

Enforcing it. Bringing all that together is  difficult, but the work is being done, yes.  Minister Merriman, thank you for the help  you have been giving with lift improvements   at Longton station particularly. That has been  very challenging, with the local authority and  

Network Rail taking quite a long time to get the  TCF money spent to make those enhancements. What   more do you think can be done to make that  process easier, so that we get accessibility   improvements at some of the stations? Thank you, Mr Brereton. I enjoyed the visit  

With you because I know you have campaigned  to get that package delivered. It is quite   interesting that where you see that package as  part of a partnership with the local authority,   either through the towns fund or the  levelling-up fund, there tends to be a  

Wider package. The question is whether, if one  piece of work starts, it can eat up too much   of the money and then things are missed out. As a more general programme, Access for All,   which we have been running over control period  6, has allowed us to deliver more step-free  

Stations. We are now up to 220 additional  step-free stations from that programme,   and we have been able to make modifications to  1,500 more. The big challenge for me, and it is a   challenge that I take to Network Rail who deliver  the programme, is to make sure that they have the  

Best people on it to ensure we can deliver to  cost. I have made the point that it is always   a terrible thing when money is wasted on railway  projects, but when they are railway projects that   deliver step-free access it is intolerable.  It means that we cannot do the next project. 

The challenge for us is how we deliver the  next batch of stations. There are currently 300   stations under review for us to make next year’s  determination. How can we deliver more of them   and stretch the costing for it? I am concerned  about the cost overruns on a number, which then  

Cause that impact. Obviously, the design standards  of ramps going up are not just particular to the   railway. They are general design standards.  I know that that is a challenge as well.  I want to ask you a bit more about the  Access for All funding. The reason why,  

In Longton’s case, we went through TCF was that  the footfall was not sufficient for Access for   All funding to be eligible. Whatever bid we had  put in, we would not have secured the funding.  What more can be done for less well used stations  that have lots of potential and provide a really  

Important facility for local communities? What  can be done to improve access at smaller local   stations? Is there more that could be done  to try to make it easier to use other funds,   in addition to the Access for All fund,  to deliver some of those improvements? 

We have 634 railway stations where there is  step-free access. That means we have 1,941   where we do not. The larger stations with the  greatest footfall, which is why we have 75%   of all journeys step-free, are within that. In terms of the criteria, footfall is one of  

Them. We also look at age profile. Is it a  station that serves a community that has a   higher than average age demographic? There are  disability characteristics as well. Are they   particularly high in that area? Is it near  a hospital? Are we trying to do the entire  

Line of route? We look at a whole range  of criteria when we make those decisions.  As to whether there is more we can do to look  at the general enhancements that are going on,   yes, I believe we can. There are some examples  where stations, as they receive improvement,  

Are required to put in step-free access due  to the Equality Act, as it almost counts more   towards new. We had one recent example where  we had to lift up a footbridge in order to   deliver overheads for an electrification  project. That was then classified, from an  

Equalities perspective, as requiring lifts to go  in there. It is a helpful way of delivering more.  I am particularly interested in the enhancement  programme that we have from Network North,   to ensure that the work that goes on at stations,  because we have to deliver the stations because  

Of electrification projects that are signed  off, gives us Access for All sign-off as well.  Minister Opperman talked about bringing  accessibility issues overall in the   Department into the decision-making process. We  have seen examples when rail infrastructure is   being built or refurbished where some of the cost  pressures or local objections meant that we saw  

Derogations from the original plans. Accessibility  requirements have then been overridden. Following   on from this conversation, surely accessibility  issues need to be prioritised in these cases.  I remember that this Committee, in “Trains  fit for the future?”, had a recommendation  

That compliance for heavy rail must be met.  There was a commitment from 2010 that by 2019   all of the accessibility requirements would be  in force. When the Committee sat, that was still   outstanding. Those were delivered in 2021, so the  requirements on heavy rail are now there. I will  

Write to you about that, because something that I  have been discussing this morning, and yesterday,   with officials, as a result of this session,  is how that compliance is delivered in full,   and your point on derogations is  something I have asked about as well. 

There is still an issue on light rail.  When, for example, London Underground   are upgrading their rolling stock—Bakerloo is a  good example of that—that means it can be taken   out. The reason why we had a failure to comply  when the Committee sat, which was after 2019,  

Was that some rolling stock came late on to  Greater Anglia. At that point I think there   were 525 vehicles that were still not compliant.  That was delivered by the end of 2021. It was a   Committee recommendation for that to occur. I  will write to the Committee setting out in more  

Detail what that compliance actually means. Do you think, as a Department, that there   needs to be a bit more honesty about  the priority of accessibility issues   across stations rather than promising  change that cannot always be delivered? 

That is a fair challenge. It is one of  the things I leant into when I got the   draft skeleton of what we expected the national  rail accessibility strategy to look like. The   key deliverable for me is that all of it can  be achieved within the budget that we have. 

This is something that has been put on  me by my place on this Committee. It is   important that we stretch and set deadlines  and targets, but they have to be deliverable.   It is really important for Ministers to set  those targets on the basis that they will  

Still be there to justify whether they have or  have not been met. Yes, that is a fair point.  Minister Opperman touched on it. When will  the dates be available for the station audits?  The station audit is the audit that every  single one of our just over 2,500 stations  

Has received. The first phase was doing the  audit and then gathering all the data. I,   myself, am expecting a presentation as to what  we can do with that data, how it can inform us   to make decisions and then, crucially, how we can  put it in the public domain. That is something I  

Will be looking to do with officials at  the start of next year. I have already   asked for a meeting to go in to do just that. When the data was released to the public last   time we just had the headline figures. Will you  be making sure that all of the data is released,  

So that it can be scrutinised properly? Yes, absolutely. There is no point doing an   exercise like this if we are not going to publish  what it tells us. That is really important. It is  

Important to me, so that I can see it as well. Of  course, there is a lot of published data already   that tells you per station exactly what facilities  are there. I want to see how this can be done  

Better, and in a manner that is straightforward  for everyone to understand. I am really committed   to that because it has been a passion of mine. The  exercise is a great one. I went to Marylebone to  

See it being conducted, but I don’t want it  to be just a written exercise. It has to be   something that is published so that people can  utilise it for the benefit of their travels.  It comes back to the honesty aspect, for the  public to be able to see what is happening.  

Are train station operators clear that they need  to be able to have turn up and go services for   disabled passengers who have not booked  in advance? We heard previously that that   was not the case, and that they didn’t have  the capacity to do that on railway stations. 

For those where they are staffed, all of  the staff should be properly trained up so   that they can cater for needs. Again, that was  under the inclusive transport strategy. That is   an absolute requirement. I will happily take up  matters where that has not passed muster. Again,  

It is the Office of Rail and Road’s responsibility  to take action in the event that the accessible   policy has not been satisfactorily complied  with. It is a rail ombudsman task as well.  You heard from the ORR that there was  only one example where they have ever  

Delivered an enforcement notice. That was  in a rather peculiar situation where there   was a disagreement over whether bike provision  should take precedence over ramp provision. It   is unusual to get to the stage where a notice  is delivered. The ORR and the train operators,  

Or Network Rail, tend to work to provide a  solution. If that is not the case, the fine   can be quite considerable, at 10% of turnover. Can I add one thing? I accept that the main   questions were to Huw, and rightly so because they  are rail matters. There is no point having data  

Unless you actually use it. Lots of data  just gets published and forgotten about,   with no disrespect, across all aspects of  Government. What I hope we would do is take the   data and actually learn from it as a Department  because Ministers and Governments come and go,  

But all of this journey that we are going to be  on will be for a considerable period of time.  The one lesson I hope we would take from  it above all else is that we integrate all   aspects of DFT into the decision making and the  procurement, and then the delivery process. That  

Has not always happened in the past. I cast no  aspersions about individual projects or things,   but we need to make sure that the Department is  thinking about all of these things together and   then procuring and delivering. In that way,  we save money and we get better outcomes.  

That is something we can really learn from. My questions are addressed to all of you.   We know that technology is something  that affects all aspects of our lives,   especially and increasingly in transport. Could  you give your view, as Ministers, on whether the  

Legislative framework to protect passengers  from the advance of technology that affects   them directly is fit for purpose? For example, I  gather that next year we are going to be seeing CT   scanners in airports. Are the public sufficiently  protected by the legislative framework from any  

Effects of the new technologies that are going  to impact on their lives every single day?  That is a very pertinent question. On the  specific of the new security scanners, yes,   they are being introduced next year. I know that  the Department has thought a lot about the impact  

On disabled passengers, who have to go through  security as well. They might need to go through in   a slightly different way. I can write to you with  details of exactly what has been going on there. 

One example of new technology that you have not  asked about yet but is coming down the line is   automated vehicles and self-driving cars.  Legislation has already gone to the House   of Lords and will be coming to the House of  Commons next year. We have been working with  

DPTAC on that in relation to the implications for  disabled passengers. Some of them might be private   vehicles and some might be taxis. They will  have to be able to provide disabled passengers   with a full service. Sometimes human drivers  provide part of the service, helping people  

Get out of the wheelchair and into the car. The Law Commission did a report on automated   vehicles and made 12 different accessibility  outcome recommendations. I can list them all   if you want, but it is basically to make sure  that disabled passengers can have full access to  

The vehicles. In the legislation we will make sure  that there is a legal requirement on the designers   of the vehicles so that they are fully accessible  to a range of different disabilities. That is a   co-design process, where disabled groups will  be working with the designers to make sure that  

Disabled people can use those vehicles. We are looking specifically at access,   but may I come back briefly on the question  relating to cyclists? I chair the all-party   cycling group. We are very concerned about  the effect of automated vehicles. Will that   be included in the legislation? Safety is absolutely paramount.  

It is the No. 1 thing in the legislation.  Ultimately, the move to automated vehicles,   which is inevitable and coming—we are closer than  most people realise—will, I am confident, reduce   the number of accidents, both for people inside  the vehicles and externally, such as cyclists. 

Fabian, if it helps, I have already attended the  APPG reception. I have already accepted the next   invite from yourself and Selaine. I would be very  happy to come and discuss it as active travel. It   is an issue for us as well. We want to make sure  we work together. Certainly, as a Department,  

We are on it. Thank you.  I know it has come up as to whether the accessible  travel policies that the ORR has in place with   any operator on the railway should be more  prescriptive. Part of the challenge when there  

Is a prescriptive code is that it then does not  take into account new technology. It is one of the   benefits of having a general set of requirements  that, when new technology comes in that can  

Improve, it means that the ORR is in a more nimble  and flexible position to be able to embrace it.  Having said that, we are going through the  iteration of the design standards for accessible   rail stations. That consultation has just ended.  That will also allow us to take into account  

New technologies that would not have existed  the last time the standard was put together.  Can I add one final thing? There are two points.  First of all, I recommend very strongly the   answer, at Question 66, by Alan Benson, who  gave a great example of tech providing the  

Video tour of TransPennine, which is clearly not  that expensive but is tremendously enabling to   a particular passenger. That sort of tech is  not too expensive but tremendously empowering.  One of the challenges for all of us in our  individual portfolios, and collectively as  

A Department, is how we can take everything from  progressive tech to AI learning and apply it to   the individual challenges we have. There are good  examples. We also need to look internationally at   who is doing good stuff in this space. There  is plenty to learn. There is plenty that is  

Of massive assistance, is not too expensive and  can be implemented quite quickly. All suggestions   gratefully received, but I looked at the answer  to the question at the end of the first day and   thought, “That is a fantastic example of  tech really driving forward real change.” 

Thank you for raising that. I can highlight  something very important there. We can learn   from what other countries are doing.  I am glad to hear you say that because   so often we try to reinvent the wheel. Very  appropriate in public transport, of course,  

But it is important that we actually learn  from the very best practices, so well done.  In your inquiry lots of people have mentioned  Canada. My wife is Canadian and, as it happens,   I spend a lot of time there. It is very noticeable  that you see a lot more people around in  

Wheelchairs in Canada than you do in the UK.  That is partly because they have spent more   time over the years designing buildings.  They have a lot more new buildings and we   have a lot of older buildings, but they  really think about accessibility from the  

Outset. You noticeably and visibly see it. One really good example at the moment is   in Doncaster, where you see the whole passenger  information board per train and platform. Often   you get a passenger announcement telling you what  is going on on a platform and whether there have  

Been any changes. Obviously, that does not  work for those who have hearing loss. There   is a video of someone signing on each particular  board. It is a trial in Doncaster. That is the   type of innovation that we like to see, and we  then like to see it rolled out, where it can be. 

Tomorrow, when I get the train back to  Leeds, I will have a look out of the   window when we stop at Donny. Yes, it will be your area.  Can I mention one other technological advance on  the aviation side that the industry is looking  

At? The ideal solution would be for people in  wheelchairs to be able to sit in the plane in   their wheelchair and for it to be fully safe.  That happens a bit, but they are looking at   new types of wheelchair that can lock into the  plane automatically and provide full safety. I  

Know that does not sound overly complicated to  do, but you need to design it and it is a new   form of technology that is not currently used. Before I turn to Gavin, I have a supplementary   question, Mr Browne, on the new scanners that  are coming in at airports. A couple of weeks ago,  

I and colleagues visited Birmingham airport,  which is one of the airports where the new   scanners will be coming in. I should add that I  have an oral question on this tomorrow morning.  I know you do. If you can’t answer now,  

You have 24 hours to come up with one. There is no objection to the new scanners   coming in. It will be a great help. But  there is a concern that requiring every   passenger to go through it straightaway could  lead to problems. On the accessibility angle,  

Would it be worth piloting it first in a couple of  areas so that any unintended consequences can be   examined before the system as a whole switches? We clearly have to be pragmatic about it,   but on the specifics of that I can write to  you and also give you an oral answer tomorrow. 

I look forward to it. I want to drill down a bit more   into regulators, which we have been discussing a  fair amount. Before I do so, Minister Opperman,   in a survey that we put out to the public at the  start of this inquiry, of those who complained  

More than once about accessibility barriers  more than 63% never received a satisfactory   response. Of those who complained once, 82%  did not receive a satisfactory response.  Bear in mind that in the survey only 1.7% of  respondents said that they had never experienced  

Any barriers and 43% had never bothered to  complain, presumably because they felt it was   pointless to complain looking at the experience  of everybody else. What we or the DFT think about   accessibility issues means nothing compared to  those who are trying to access transport. While I  

Hear that you are open to the potential of looking  at legislation, do you think it is a legislative   issue or a regulatory and enforcement issue? Their experience is noted, and not acceptable.   We need to make that utterly clear.  The question is what we do to address  

It. I am yet to be persuaded that a new Act of  Parliament is necessarily going to institute the   specific change. If you look at the evidence  late on in the third session, the witnesses   were very clear on that particular point. We need to change attitudes. Sadly, there  

Was some very compelling evidence of some of  the inappropriate comments by, for example,   some bus drivers and some individuals that you  heard. We need to change the implementation,   so that when regulators are in charge they  actually do the job they are meant to do. We  

All heard the evidence first thing this morning,  and you will draw your own conclusions on that.  There is a wider thing. It is quite clear from  the evidence you have heard that getting yourself   heard when something does not go right is  very difficult, in whatever shape or form,  

Whether it is a civil remedy, a criminal remedy or  a regulator stepping in. That is not easy, and in   my humble opinion it has to change. There are ways  that we can do it. Individual Departments—it is a  

Cross-government thing—can look at this, but  I hope that we would look at it, go away and   then come up with realistic solutions to improve  dramatically the experience for those persons.  Let’s look at the experience of the enforcement  action taken by regulators, who all have different  

Powers and levels of power. At the moment, some  regulators do not have power to properly enforce,   as we have heard from many people. Some  do not have the inclination to use the   powers that they actually have. How will  we fix that in terms of the regulators? 

There is the power to take action in a whole  variety of ways across the piece. I am very   happy to look into, and I have started the process  of looking into, whether there are genuine gaps in  

The reporting process and then the action process.  Do I think the EHRC need to do a lot more? Yes,   I do, unquestionably. I don’t think I could  have leant in any further to Karl McCartney’s   question. There is a lot that we can do as  Ministers to hold regulators to account.  

That is what we are trying to do. I am quite sure  that this team is going to do that very robustly.  As I have indicated already, clearly the  different regulators—the ORR and the CAA,   which Minister Browne mentioned earlier,  and I will come back to him on that—have  

Different levels of power. Some are seeking  extra powers to be able to do their job a lot   better. Without overarching legislation, should  there be standardisation of enforcement powers   of the transport regulators across the board? Bear with me, because this is slightly more   complex. Devolution features  very strongly in this. 

I am fine with that. Of course you are,   but here is the serious point.  We, as the Westminster Government,   are devolving an awful lot of power—some  people would say not as much as they would   like. There is a lot more that is going to flow  with the 2024 mayoralty elections. Huge amounts  

Of transport power is going to local Mayors. A  huge change is happening in this country. Lots   of local authorities are therefore in charge  of certain things. Mayors are in charge of   certain things. The direction of travel by  this Government, and all other Governments,  

Particularly anything in Scotland, is very clear. What you are proposing is that the national   Government of the United Kingdom, or Great Britain  and Northern Ireland, however you want to do it,   should take power back and be more in charge of  that. With respect, I do not think that is where  

The direction of travel is. I also genuinely feel  that there is a key point that must be taken into   account. If you devolve power, the individual  person in charge is then responsible. They are   also elected. They can have a local manifesto  of delivery on accessibility in a way better  

Way than national Governments can. Individual  problems can be addressed in an individual way.   Things like housing development and all of those  aspects can be addressed locally. With respect,   making it work better from the centre is  important, but making sure that there is  

Proper local accountability is also important. With respect, you have slightly reframed my   question in many ways. It was not a suggestion;  it was merely a question. We are also talking   about devolution of local powers, so I may as  well ask you this. It is a question I was going  

To ask later on the issue of taxis, of which  you may be aware. When taxis are registered   in different areas, where they operate at  times, it makes it impossible to enforce   things, such as drivers who refuse to take  passengers with guide dogs. What steps are  

You taking to address that at the moment? I saw that bit of evidence. I read it,   and I noted it. I have asked for a note. I have  a preliminary view. I just want to double-check   it with lawyers, but my preliminary view is that  an individual local authority can prosecute, even  

When they are not the licensing authority, if it  takes place outside their local authority. I know   the assertion was made that if I am registered in  X county and the offence takes place in Y county,   you cannot necessarily bring action. I don’t think  that is the case. I am going to double-check and  

Get back to you. I will write to the Committee. As the ministerial lead on   this, I propose writing to all local authorities  and ramming home the point that this is not   acceptable and that they need to enforce it.  If it is not being enforced, I would like to  

Know and I would very much like it to be done. Thank you very much. We look forward to you   getting back to us. I will now turn to the poacher  turned gamekeeper on the panel in this inquiry.  Minister Merriman, on the ORR, which has  been brought up a number of times, I will  

Quote Stephanie Tobyn. When she gave evidence  about fines and improvement notices, she said  The thing that I want to make absolutely clear is  that any station operator or rail operator has to   comply with the accessible transport policy, which  is set out and reported on by the regulator. That  

Is the key part. Cost doesn’t come into it. That  has to be complied with and is absolute. I saw   that evidence, but I want to make it absolutely  clear that there is no lean-in from anyone from  

A cost perspective to say, “We can’t afford to  comply.” That is not the case at all. Safety and   improvements for those who need them are paramount  and go on. That is why money is invested to ensure  

That it happens. I want to be absolutely clear  that there is no compromise when it comes to that.  I was interested in your question. We obviously  have the overarching equalities duty under the   Equality Act, which means that there must be  no discrimination for those with protected  

Characteristics, obviously including disabled  people. When it comes to rail, we have specific   powers. We have the powers of the ORR. They  can intervene as the regulator. We also have   contractual powers. The contracts we have in place  with the train operators require them to deliver  

Accessibility performance. If they do not, their  fee is reduced. That is a financial incentive.  We have brought in the rail ombudsman. We have  not touched on this, and it is always a tragedy   when they are involved but, crucially,  we have the Rail Accident Investigation  

Branch. Their work means that all station  platforms will have tactile paving by 2025.  I was almost giving a case for the status quo  there as to why I think it is important that   each transport sector has its own way of doing  things. The overarching thing is the Equality Act,  

And then we go into the bespoke,  which is our own transport sector.  With respect, the position you  have given is the position of the   Government that safety is paramount, and  cost should not be a factor. Obviously,  

The ORR seems to be saying that cost does  come into it when you look at these issues   in terms of fines and enforcement notices.  Given what you said in your previous answer,   is that something that you will be addressing with  the ORR, to ensure that it is not a consideration? 

For example, we are investing new money  into step-free access. The next batch for   control period 7 is £350 million and it cannot be  greater than that because we only have a certain   amount of money. When it comes to compliance with  existing accessible travel policies, those have  

To be complied with. Yes, I will take that up. On aviation, we are particularly keen on talking   about reputational damage as a key driver for  performance in this area. Whether it is rail or   whatever mode of transport, would you say that the  threat of financial penalties works? Hopefully,  

They are not necessary in the end, but would the  threat of a financial penalty ensure that we made   progress quickly, or quickly enough, in this area? Yes. Again, the ORR have powers at 10% of turnover   level. That is a really draconian power that  they can exercise. This, in my experience,  

Is the way that the railway community operates.  The reason I believe that the ORR have not had to   issue more enforcement notices—they have only ever  issued one, as they told you—is that when they   take matters up, those matters are then addressed.  There have been a number of matters that have had  

To be addressed. Therefore, it does not even get  to that level, and does not get to the fine level.  Lastly on rail, you said “when the ORR take  matters up”. Doug Paulley said that the ORR  

Are very good when issues are flagged to them,  and they take those issues up, but they are not   proactive enough themselves as an organisation  when it comes to looking at accessibility.   Is that something you would agree with, or  is it something that they need to work on? 

I noted that. You put that to the ORR. I think  their response was, “We have 100 inspectors   that go across the railway.” That is from an  accessibility and health and safety perspective.   They look there and do their surveying. They can  see where the journeys are because we can see  

Where a disabled persons railcard is being looked  at. In a way, that makes the case for the national   rail accessibility strategy and why we need to be  a little more uniform across the piece, working  

With the ORR, so that we can put something above  that. That is what we intend to do next year.  I am conscious of the time, so I will come  to aviation with Minister Browne. I was   quite pleased to hear your opening remarks  about the CAA and what powers you would  

Like it to have. You spoke about the airport  accessibility framework and your desire to   see a similar framework for the airlines.  How and when are you going to ensure that   the CAA has the appropriate powers and that the  airline accessibility framework is put in place? 

It requires primary legislation for  the CAA to get appropriate powers. It   is when we have parliamentary time to  do it. I don’t know when that will be.  I somehow thought that might be your answer. Unfortunately, it requires primary legislation,  

So if you can tell me when we have parliamentary  time to do it, I will push for that. Obviously,   we have the parliamentary legislation set  up to the election, so it will have to be   after the election. Which is when? 

You tell me; I have no idea. On the CAA having  an airline accessibility performance framework as   it has for airports, my understanding is that it  has the powers to bring that in. It has certainly   consulted on it, and we have supported it. I  can write to you precisely on the timing and  

The mechanism for doing that. Thank you very much.  I have a quick supplementary on one  of the points that Gavin made, on the   proactiveness of the regulators to intervene  with operators. We have touched on the ORR,  

But across the piece do you think there is a  problem? Yes, they will act when issues are   brought to their attention, but do they need to  do more in proactively looking at how operators   are performing and take action where necessary? In my view, probably yes. I think there is a  

Definite issue as to the mechanism by which  information is brought to the regulators in a   particular way. It is not for me to create policy  on the hoof, but it has struck me very much that   there is an information deficit, in the sense  that there are lots of occurrences and incidents  

Happening all the time, but trying to bring that  together into a comprehensible and available   piece of information is very difficult. Trying to  find a portal by which that is done is difficult.  I hesitate to say that Northumberland can lead  the way, but there are examples up and down the  

Country with tech. Quite simply, several local  authorities would do this, for example. If you   see a particular pothole, you take a photograph  of it, upload it to your council’s website and   they will respond within seven days as to  how it is being dealt with. It is called  

FixMyStreet and several local authorities do it. It strikes me that in terms of accessibility in   particular, if there was the capacity to  upload such information when there was a   difficulty or a problem, and then take that to  an accessible portal—it can be mapped as well;  

It is perfectly capable of being done and  local authorities do that up and down the   country—individual regulators could then be  notified and/or action individual things. One   has to accept that not all cases would be genuine.  We would have to have some degree of assessment,  

Without getting into the nuts and bolts. That  would, it seems to me, be an obvious and simple   way of using tech to try to drive forward  accessibility, of information in this case,   with better outcomes. That is me making policy  on the hoof as I go along on day 30. I have read  

The evidence, like everybody else, and it is quite  clear that it is very difficult for individuals to   get all the information they would like in front  of regulators. That is not acceptable, in my view.  Chair, with regard to the Office of Rail  and Road—I think it was in Mr Newlands’s  

Questioning—they took the point that because  they have only issued one enforcement notice,   because they have not had to go to that  level, they could perhaps publish work   that they have done in conjunction with the  operator to make improvements, and do that  

Better. I would certainly welcome the Committee’s  recommendations on how, within the railway sphere,   we can be more transparent and provide more  information about what is being done. That gives   more confidence to those who have disabilities  that they can use the railway, and that it will  

Work for them. Tying that up with the station  audit that we are doing—on Ms Britcliffe’s point   about getting that published—I want to find a  way of publishing the data and demonstrating that   things have been done and action has been taken,  so that it is out there in the public domain. 

This is slightly off topic, but it relates to  basic training for staff at stations through the   train operating companies. I say this from  a personal experience at Euston last week,   which as we all know is a very busy station. There were three visually impaired people. There  

Was no help, when they had booked assistance,  to get off the train. I then created a kind   of chain link. I am the first to admit that I am  quite small. I don’t have upper body strength. I  

Was also trying to push my suitcase at the same  time. Every staff member I walked up to saying,   “Look, these people require assistance  to get off the train and to be taken to   the tube station,” rather than saying, “Don’t  worry, we will take them to where they need to  

Be,” passed me on to the next person before I  got them to the place where they needed to be.   What basic training do staff on stations  have to help people in those positions?   We know that at Euston not everybody is willing  to help others to get to where they need to be. 

All staff working in stations and working with  customers are required to have training to be   able to deliver the accessible policy that the  operators have to sign up to. We will happily take   away that particular matter and look at it. I am  sorry to hear of it. Staff training is provided.  

It is essential when we update our policies. The  inclusive transport strategy has training as a   requirement. We are looking to make sure that  all characteristics are taken into account as   we learn more. We will certainly take that away.  Liz, is there anything you want to add to that? 

Can I add something? We are happy to write  to you. The answer, quite simply, not just   in rail but in all aspects of transport is staff  training. The question is, does that sink in and   is it implemented? The proof is in the pudding.  It goes back to the fundamental of attitude. 

One of your witnesses spoke glowingly of the  existence of what goes on in Japan, where they   have a “can do” attitude to such problems  and there isn’t the game of pass the parcel   that quite obviously you experienced. That does  happen in this country, and it needs to change. 

We have done a survey on this Committee  that shows that passengers are deeply   dissatisfied with the complaints processes when  operators get something wrong. Do you think that   the Department for Transport should consider  establishing an ombudsman, or a similar system,   to oversee complaints about transport  accessibility? It is really not good enough,  

Is it, if we have that many people complaining  about the way their complaints have been handled?  I will take that first, and then individual  Ministers can come in. Obviously,   there is already a rail ombudsman. This is specifically for access. 

I understand the point. My personal view is  that the case is not yet made, but it is very   early days. I believe, though, that there is  transparency and availability of information,   and then action on that information. We need a  considerable piece of work. I refer you to the  

Answer I gave to the Chair just now. I think  that can be done. What we are interested in   is outcomes rather than a better process, in my  humble opinion. I do not feel that there is the   case made for an ombudsman as yet. What  I personally would like to do is to run  

The system better and have better outcomes. Surely, if the process is failing, a better   process is the key to better outcomes, isn’t it? Basically, we have to have a change of attitude,   a greater degree of transparency and the ability  for the individual to record their complaint,  

In whatever shape or form, and for it to be  actioned quickly. As we all know, because as   MPs we deal with ombudsmen all the time, they  are a very slow process. They take many years   to action. It is not necessarily the panacea.  It was an invention by the Labour Government,  

Which I applaud. For example, the health ombudsman  does good work, but it is only good as far as the   role it is doing. It is a slow process. It  does not get the relatively speedy outcome   that we are all seeking, I respectfully say. On the rail ombudsman side, it was an introduction  

In 2018. The rail ombudsman will take up  matters if it supports them. Ultimately,   if a resolution cannot be found, it can enforce  its decision. We have the rail ombudsman as well   as the powers that the rail regulator has to  take action. I believe that we have that added  

Strength. It is certainly the case that the  ORR is looking at the five lower performers   in delivery of the two-hour turn up and go. I  expect that work to lead to some improvements.  In the light of what Minister Opperman has just  said, and I accept the points that he makes,  

Do you think that the current rail ombudsman deals  sufficiently well with accessibility complaints?   Does the ombudsman even receive those complaints? When complaints are made by individuals, yes,   of course they will then take action. The  challenge for me is that we have various  

Different bodies that can act and take up their  powers. We also have Transport Focus which acts   on behalf of passengers. It is how interconnected  they are. That is something that will certainly   be in my mind, from the work of this Committee,  when I ask them if there is more that they can do. 

I have a general observation about ombudsmen. In  my previous career in banking, I dealt a lot with   the financial ombudsman. I know it very well. I am  not making comments about any particular ombudsman   apart from the financial ombudsman. There is  an advantage to having a single ombudsman who  

Is quite powerful and professionalised and has  scale and efficiency. In financial services,   instead of having a banking ombudsman, an  insurance ombudsman and so on and so forth, you   have one financial ombudsman. From the public’s  point of view, it has the advantage of visibility.  

They know it. If you have lots of little  ombudsmen with different responsibilities,   they do not know them. If you have lots of  little ombudsmen, they do not professionalise in   the same way. They do not get the same quality of  staff. There is a definite read-across of skills,  

Being an ombudsman in one sector, to a related  sector, and bringing them together under one roof.   In financial services it definitely had beneficial  impacts from the consumer’s point of view.  In aviation, which is my specific ministerial  responsibility, I mentioned that at the moment  

There is no ombudsman. There are alternative  dispute resolution mechanisms. Membership   of those is voluntary by airlines and  airports. We want to make that mandatory.  I have an observation on the back of that. A  common thread through the issues that have been  

Raised with us by passengers is that it is such  a complex area for them to try to get redress   when there are problems. In the rail system  there is a very good scheme when delays happen,  

Delay Repay. The passenger knows where to go. They  do not have to worry whether it was a Network Rail   problem or a train operating problem. It is all  sorted out behind the scenes. I don’t want to   prejudge what our recommendations will be, but  there could be a scheme like that which is very  

Visible and accessible to passengers. They could  go to that when there is a problem and then the   system kicks in. I leave that with you. We are coming to the end of the session,   you will be relieved to hear. I just have a  couple of final, specific questions. First,  

With regard to buses and coaches, many are exempt  from the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility   Regulations and are unlikely to meet the required  standard when the exemptions expire in 2026. What   is going to happen then? Will there be support  available to operators to upgrade their vehicles? 

I have done Select Committees for eight years  and I have never been able to announce stuff   at a Select Committee. Now is your moment.  Exactly. On day one of my Select Committee career  in Transport, I am pleased to say that there will  

Be £4.6 million in grant funding for smaller  operators to mitigate the cost of complying   with the Public Service Vehicles (Accessible  Information) Regulations 2023. There is a process,   on which I am going to write to the Committee,  which will start in January 2024 to address some  

Of those problems. The Department would clearly  like me to make the point that 99% are compliant,   but there is more to do on the smaller operators. That is excellent news. We look forward   to seeing the detail. Here is the piece of  

Paper, as someone previously once said. Thank you for that. Finally, I want to   touch on how the needs of people with disabilities  are factored into the design of streetscapes. It   often seems to be done as an afterthought. I  think this comes into your attitude point. It  

Is there in the process anyway. What measures do  you envisage putting in place to help with that?  I massively want to lean into a whole host of  organisations, particularly housing and the   way that new estates are designed. It makes  total sense to do that, both from an active  

Travel point of view and an accessibility point  of view. I note the point on what are called   floating bus stops, which are a problem. I have very strong personal views,   which I probably should not express as  robustly as some have done, about e-scooters,  

Which someone described as “e-litter”. I find it  astonishing that in 2023 we allow obstructions   on the street in the way we are doing. If I  was to stay in post and we were able to do  

This, we need to have legislation whereby they are  docked in the usual way. It seems to me utterly   unacceptable that we are creating obstructions on  an ongoing basis. I get that there is a trial. The  

Department is very keen for me to make the point  that there is a trial, and that individual local   authorities are looking at this. My personal view  is that there needs to be a docking system ASAP.  Thank you very much. That concludes our  questioning this morning. Thank you all  

Very much indeed for your time. It has been  a very informative session. We hope to bring   forward our recommendations and conclusions in  good time, and that you will be able to take   up what we recommend. For now, thank  you again for your time this morning.