Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Committee Meeting - Minutes and Actions

10 July 2013

DPTAC members:
Dai Powell – Chair / Heather James –Deputy Chair
Helen Dolphin / Olav Ernstzen

John Ballantine

/ Andrew Probert
Alan Norton / Christine Court
Will Bee
DPTACGuests
Neil Priest – DfT Major Network Upgrades / Elena Barcan DfT
Matt Lodge –DfT Cross Rail / Peter Allen
Acting Head of Crossrail Joint Sponsor Team TfL
Chris Fry- Unity Law
DPTAC Secretary
Phil Pool / Elina Kamellard
Apologies
Tomi Jones / Asif Iqbal
Niki Glazier

1.Minutes of previous meeting (15 May 2013) were approved.

1.1Matters arising – Dai had attended the Transport Select Committee’s oral evidence session on 3 June. The session had gone well and the Committee is expected to produce its report in September.

2.Future of DPTAC

2.1Dai noted that it was good news that the Government had announced that DPTAC would be retained. Dai had met with the Minister, Norman Baker, the previous day and discussed briefly views on how DPTAC could be refreshed. The Minister was keen to incorporate DPTAC’s own view on how it can work more effectively. The Minister and Dai had agreed on several key points about DPTAC during the discussion:

• DPTAC’s advice is valued and respected
• DPTAC should act as a conduit for the views of disabled people, and associated organisations, to DfT
• a stronger relationship with industry (PTE’s, LAs etc) and with organisations representing disabled people and with policy leads in DfT will increase its effectiveness and the value it offers.
• DPTAC’s role will be more closely tied to its core functions (as in the Transport Act)
• source of independent expert advice to Government and the transport sector
• part of a scrutiny process – holding DfT to account
• contributing to projects, such as research project panels
• not producing additional information, guidance documents or interpretations of the law
• more workgroup based working

2.2The Minister was clear that these were first thoughts; a quick review process had started within DfT. This would draw up new terms of reference for DPTAC and, on that basis, a recruitment process for new members would start in the Autumn with the intention of new members joining DPTAC in April 2014.

2.3All current members would be invited to continue in post (through a further extension of terms of appointment) from December 2013 to April 2014. A number of existing members would be asked to continue beyond April 2014 for continuity and a group of new members would join at that point. The numbers of new members and the numbers of existing members who would be invited to continue beyond April was not known yet; it would be established during the review process and might not be clear until the Autumn.

2.4DPTAC had been invited to offer its views, quickly, into the process. DfT policy leads had been invited to offer their views [meeting arranged for 17 July) and a letter would be sent seeking views from a selection of external stakeholders.

Key points from the discussion

2.5Costs – DPTAC’s current spend is forecast to be £118k for 2013/14 [this covers the Secretary’s salary, members remuneration, travel and associated costs and refreshments for meetings. The two largest elements, remuneration and salary, together account for about £95k – average remuneration being around £4.5k. The majority of the remainder covers travel and other associated expenses]. It is unlikely that significant additional funds would be available however funding would be assessed in light of the review.

2.6Wales and Scotland – “concordats” exist between DfT and the Scottish and Welsh Governments that specify that a Welsh and Scottish representative will be invited to attend DPTAC. It is not a requirement that the representative be a public appointee and, thereby, that they would be remunerated as if they were a DPTAC member, as is the case now. It is likely that Welsh and Scottish representatives will be invited to attend but not that they will be appointees to DPTAC. However, prior to this decision there will be discussions between DfT and the Welsh and Scottish Governments on covering travel costs and the level/frequency of involvement.

2.7In the discussion, it was noted that if there were to be representatives from Wales and Scotland that DPTAC would expect them to be have appropriate levels of knowledge and experience of transport issues for disabled people.

2.8Observers/other non-member attendees – there was agreement that it is desirable for DPTAC to act as a conduit for the views of disabled people generally; this in accordance with its role as a pan-disability organisation. There was concern however about how to make this happen in practice – many of the larger disability organisations are well funded and are in a position to influence Government through direct lobbying. Their presence at DPTAC on a regular (rather than agenda specific) basis risked undermining DPTAC’s pan-disability role.

2.9It was agreed that the observers from the Mental Health Action Group had added significantly to DPTAC’s awareness of mental health issues and their presence generally had been of great value. There was however a broader question about the “fairness” of inviting observers from one organisation over another – it might perhaps be fairer to invite a selection of organisations to put forward observers and to offer a limited number of spaces at each meeting.

2.10Other suggestions might be to have a wider circulation list of non-appointee members to act as a sounding board, whose views could be shared with members as consider particular issues. It may also be possible to set up social media pages and to run (annual) stakeholder events.

2.11Scope of workgroups – there was a good deal of discussion about the nature of workgroups and how these might function. Dai noted that the earlier structures of DPTAC had been established around workgroups but that these had far more administrative support than would be possible now.

2.12Options for workgroups could incorporate a range of interest areas grouped as follows:

• General policy – consideration of the rights and expectations of disabled people

• Scrutiny – monitoring the performance of DfT and operators in delivering improved services – holding DfT to account for delivery of its action plans and for leading improvements.

• Data/evidence – pressing for more effective identification of evidence showing, for example, increased use of transport by disabled people, the economic value of increases in use, satisfaction with service etc.

• Modal issues – rail, bus/taxi/community transport, maritime, aviation. This might also include scooters, aids, equipment, national standards and so on.

• Functions – concessions, blue-badge, fares and ticketing, information, new technology, training and conduct.

• Whole journey – physical and functional gaps between services, common standards.

2.13Some these matters might be covered within groups or by the “main” committee.

2.14It was felt that the workgroups would need to link closely to the work DfT was taking forward from the Accessibility Action Plan (+ aviation and shipping).

2.15DPTAC would want to influence the future content of the AAP by bringing to the Department’s attention new areas of work. The workgroups could involve relevant stakeholder participants and perhaps be led jointly by an appointed DPTAC member and the policy leads. It was agreed that there is value in developing good, constructive, positive working arrangements with policy leads (whether or not DPTAC ultimately agreed with DfT’s eventual position).

Broader points on DPTAC’s role

2.16DPTAC had stepped out of its intended role in the past by developing its own guidance documents. There was no longer resource available for this sort of activity. DPTAC was perhaps of greatest value when it could support (and challenge) the development of policy at an early stage on the basis that access improvements built in from the start will be more effective and economical.

2.17A working “concordat” between DfT and DPTAC should be established to provide for DPTAC to be involved early in discussions (rather than at the time of formal consultation). This would also consider how DPTAC’s role as an independent advisory body will be supported within DfT’s management structures – this will require consideration of the roles of the Secretary, the “sponsor” within DfT and for additional support, such as the provision of independent legal advice.

2.18Action – the Secretary to send an early note of the discussion to members and to see if a closed meeting of members could be set up to allow for a DPTAC view of the proposals to be sent to Norman Baker before the end of July. [note – a draft of this section of the minutes was sent to members on 18 11 July and a meeting was arranged for 22 July 2013.]

3.Crossrail – discussion on accessibility of stations –

Matt Lodge - Deputy Director Crossrail - DfT

Peter Allen- Head of the Crossrail Joint Sponsor Team

3.1Matt circulated slides (attached to these minutes) covering the key features of Crossrail including background, current progress, timescales for opening, costs and information on those stations which will not be fully accessible.

3.2Key points from the discussion – Matt explained that all the new stations on the route and the core central London stations would be accessible from street to train.

3.3He further explained that the 5 stations that would not be accessible (and two that are partially accessible) are existing national rail stations that would be served by Crossrail rather than newly built stations.

3.4The majority of the stations on the route would be accessible (30 out of 37). This would rise to 31/38 if the proposed station at Woolwich is agreed.

3.5However, decisions had been taken in 2008 at the time that the Bill was considered by Parliament that it would not be possible to make all stations accessible from the available Crossrail budget.. Decisions on which individual stations would see improvements had been made using a number of criteria including footfall, cost and how close an inaccessible station would be to a fully accessible station.

3.6It was noted that at many of the existing stations that would be served by Crossrail the improvement works to be delivered were limited (they are not all being completely rebuilt for example).

3.7It was also noted that it was TfL’s intention to staff the Crossrail stations that their operator would manage the stations from the start to the end of the service.

3.8A very cautious estimate of the cost of the necessary works is around £30m – it was made clear that there were many factors involved in costing the work and the figure might be significantly different.

3.9The overall cost of the Crossrail is projected to be about £14.5bn. The Crossrail project was appraisedusing a 60 year life, but it was expected that the lifespan of the project would be considerably longer.

3.10Matt further explained that funding for the Crossrail project remains tight – and that despite a significant contingency allowance, the project was only 40% complete and that a significant amount of work remained to be done so the contingency was required to cover the project risks. As a result it would not be appropriate to use this contingency allowance at this stage to increase the scope of what the project might deliver. The use of any remaining contingency at the end of the project would be a matter for the Ministers and Mayor of the day.

3.11The project is jointly funded with TfL (TfL are contributing much of the funding) and any decisions on increasing the scope of works and hence the cost of the project would need to be agreed jointly. The majority of any necessary accessibility works would involve installation of lifts.

3.12DPTAC noted its significant concern that it expected all new routes to be fully accessible – indeed Crossrail had been promoted as such. Disabled people expect the same access to transport as anyone else. Given the overall cost of the project against the estimate to make all of the stations accessible, on a route that would continue to be of significant value for at least 60 years, not making all stations accessible is unacceptable. DPTAC noted that is likely that it will be significantly more costly to make these stations accessible at a later date.

3.13Additionally, it was noted that there was a suggestion that funding for the necessary access works might be cut from the Access for All programme. DPTAC was concerned that this should not be the case – the Crossrail scheme should be fully funded as a completely accessible route and making it so should not be at the expense of much needed improvements elsewhere on the network.

3.14As trains serving the route will not have toilets DPTAC sought assurance that sufficient toilets would be available at stations and that these would be accessible.

3.15On the basis of the discussion it was agreed that DPTAC would write to Ministers setting out their expectation that all of the stations on the route be made fully accessible. [[noted that a letter jointly to Ministers and to TfL/London Mayor might be appropriate]].

3.16Actions – Matt to send detail breakdowns of the costs as these are firmed up and of the necessary works to make the stations accessible, and; to provide information about the provision of station toilets.

3.17The Chair to write to DfT Ministers [[and others as above]].

4.Access All update (AfA) – Neil Priest

4.1Neil gave a quick update of the programme – some of the headlines were:

• £370m over 10 years
• 153 stations – around 5% of the network – included in the Main programme
• Stations selected based on footfall, weighted by the incidence of disability in the area with around a third chosen to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country
• Over and above access improvements being delivered as part of other projects
• Mostly lifts, some ramps

4.2104 of the 153 stations complete – of the reminder the majority will be complete by March 2014. Programme now going really well.

4.3A further £100m has been identified for AfA. Hope to have nominations for £3-5m type projects, so about 35-45 stations – with work starting in the next Control Period (April 2014 – March 2019).

Further points from the discussion

4.4By 2015 it is estimated that about 75% of journeys will start or end at a step free station. Promotion is via press releases and items on local news – Ministers attend wherever possible – however there is no formal budget for communications.

4.5Members asked for an estimate of the difference in cost of designing in accessibility improvements at the start of a major project rather than revisiting the site later to add lifts or ramps. Neil, said that clearly it would be cheaper to do this but an accurate estimate of the savings would be very difficult. However, he agreed to speak to Network Rail to get estimates for the most obvious savings such as design work, asset protection agreements and railway possession costs.

4.6Neil also agreed to let DPTAC know the number and proportion of accessible stations over all, with comparisons before and after the AfA works.

4.7Dai stated that DPTAC were extremely pleased with progress – work on the rail side to deliver improvements and the clear evidence of effective partnership working was impressive.

4.8Actions – Neil to provide ball-park cost differences between making a station accessible from the start and for adding in features, such as lifts later on. Also, to provide an estimate of the number and proportion of accessible stations overall, with comparisons before and after the AfA works.

5.Arriva North East – Natalie Black – case implications, Chris Fry, Unity Law

5.1Dai reminded members of the case and noted the judge’s criticisms of DPTAC’s role in amending one of its documents prior to the case being heard. Dai noted that it was unfortunate that the guidance had been issued as it had and that the misrepresentation of DPTAC’s clear views on the issue of use of the priority spaces on buses had not been spotted earlier. Equally, it was clear that DPTAC had lacked sufficient access to legal advice prior to deciding to amend the document.

5.2Given that the document did misrepresent DPTAC’s view it would have been unacceptable to leave the document as it was. However, DPTAC would have been wise to have made the amendments without the involvement of Unity Law as, however well intentioned, this had given the mistaken impression that DPTAC was being influenced to make the changes. It was not the case however that DPTAC had not considered the changes inappropriately, a draft of the amended text was sent to members for comments, these were received, incorporated and the document re-published. The changes were simply to correct errors and no wider consultation was necessary. However, it was agreed that DPTAC would set out in its terms of reference (as these are revised) how it will deal with changes to publications in future.

5.3Lessons had been learned and, in discussion with Norman Baker the previous day, Dai had confirmed that it was, in any case, inappropriate for DPTAC to produce guidance of this sort – DPTAC’s role is not to offer interpretations of the law.