Government forced to release Steer report on disabled access and driver only operation

In a major victory for our campaign, the government has just been forced to release the controversial Steer report on driver only operation (DOO) and disabled access. We had been pursuing this report through freedom of information requests to the Department for Transport since the summer, but without success. However, a copy was sent to Lilian Greenwood last month and – in one of her final acts as Chair of the Transport Select Committee – she has now published it on the Committee’s website.

With this decisive action, Lilian has ensured that the Steer report has been revealed before the general election ‘purdah’ period kicks in, which is a victory for campaigners – and an unexpected embarrassment for both the government and the rail industry.

A ‘wholly inadequate’ report – approach with ‘extreme caution’

We knew that the content of the Steer report would be controversial because of this damning letter from the Disabled Person’s Transport Committee (DPTAC), the DfT’s statutory advisors on accessibility. The letter urges ministers to approach the report with ‘extreme caution’, warning that it is ‘wholly inadequate’ in providing mitigations for the ‘toxic combination’ of driver only trains and unstaffed stations. Both the DPTAC letter and an accompanying email question whether the DfT and train operating companies are meeting their legal duties under the Equality Act.

As documents from DPTAC demonstrate, there is an ‘urgent and unmet need for research’ relating to disabled access, staffing levels and modes of operation. And it’s been three years since the Transport Select Committee first requested an equality impact assessment on the issue. The unacceptable delay to research in this area is in our view due to two reasons: 1) the absence of staff cannot be mitigated by any other means except staff – therefore it is logically impossible to create a report showing that DOO can be introduced without regressing disabled access by normalising pre-booking instead of asserting the right to spontaneous travel. 2) The fragmented industry structure and constrained contractual relationships create a toxic mix where research and policy is developed not in the public interest, but dominated by train operating companies (via the Rail Delivery Group) in the interests of profit.

The Steer report is supposed to give clear guidance on the mitigations required to assist and protect disabled passengers when there are no staff on the train or station. However, it drastically fails to meet that objective, and in fact demonstrates that no mitigation is possible – and therefore that a full staffing model is the only solution. The report reads precisely as if it was strung together from a desired conclusion, and its release is undoubtedly highly embarrassing for its authors, the government and the rail industry.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is now treating access to transport as a priority issue and has established a fund to support legal challenges. Equality law firm Fry Law has even been sending out cameras to assist disabled passengers in capturing evidence for the inevitable legal cases to come. In a situation where unstaffed trains are calling at unstaffed stations about 10% of the time (according to DPTAC’s estimate), it can only be a matter of time before we see new legal precedents set in this area.

DOWNLOAD THE STEER REPORT HERE

For the rest of Lilian Greenwood’s correspondence on this topic, click here and here.

Important links on disabled access and destaffing:

2018 DTAC documents

2019 DPTAC documents

DPTAC’s submission to the Williams Rail Review

A history of our exposes on disabled access and driver only operation

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates.

Donate here to support our work.

The fundamental right to travel: DPTAC gives us the ONLY advice we can trust on accessibility

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) are statutory advisors to the Department for Transport on accessibility, making them the best possible source for an expert opinion with a front row seat on policy issues. We have previously published dozens of documents detailing their opposition to driver only operation and station destaffing; in which they cite their concerns about the potential Equality and Human Rights Committee legal action on this issue.

With this in mind, we believe that the Office of Rail and Road’s new ‘Accessible Travel Policy’ contains a regulatory hole around accessibility. Their new guidance to train companies aims to reduce the advance booking period from twenty-four to two hours by 2022, but includes no obligation to spontaneous ‘turn up and go’ travel. The ORR says that staffing issues are not part of its remit, but in view of their own duty under section 149 of the Equality Act, we asked them to comment. Unfortunately, they informed us that they would only be reconsidering this issue if government, the Williams Review or ‘other regulators’ took decisions in this policy area.

But, all is not lost. In the ORR’s July submission to the Williams Review, they place a strong emphasis on the need for a whole system approach to accessibility, based on clear criteria for both funding and staffing. And the ORR has made a very clear recommendation that this ‘whole system approach’ should be led by DPTAC.

Why are the DPTAC documents so important?

DPTAC’s May 2019 submission to the Williams Review provides exactly this outline of a ‘whole system’ approach. With the ORR’s backing, it is now undoubtedly the most important document on accessibility in the entire Williams Review:

DOWNLOAD HERE

quote bubble dptac orgs.PNGDPTAC recommends a ‘paradigm shift’ in which accessibility becomes a ‘fundamental’ part of the industry, rather then just an ‘add on’. Their May submission to the Williams Review includes a damning analysis of rail industry culture and structure; and calls for a ‘whole system’ approach that embeds accessibility ‘into the heart of what the rail industry does’. DPTAC also argues that rail vehicle accessibility legislation (TSI/RVAR) has provided a ‘relatively strong baseline’, and that there is now a strong case for new regulation with compliance deadlines for station accessibility. This would form part of a long-term funding strategy that could see the timeline to ‘full accessibility’ reduce from 100 to 40 years.

DPTAC’s May submission to the Williams Review is an essential report for all transport and disability rights campaigners and we ask for your help to spread it widely. It is important to remember that the government has set Williams’s remit to be ‘fiscally neutral’ – so it will take a great deal of campaigning and/or legal actions to get these demands over the line.

The ONLY quantified overview of rail accessibility?

Overview of UK rail accessibility

The biggest theme emerging from the latest DPTAC documents is the ‘urgent’ and ‘unmet’ need for research, and the ‘dearth of detailed data’ on staffing levels in particular. They make clear that the problem is endemic, with ‘no agreed approach to quantifying the accessibility of the rail network’ and in many areas ‘a lack of quantified data on specific aspects of network accessibility.’ The state of transparency around accessibility research remains a matter of serious concern to us, with the DfT still refusing to publish the ‘wholly inadequate’ Steer report on modes of train operation following our request for an internal review of their FOI decision.

The above statistics are taken from pages 2 to 3 of DPTAC’s submission to the Williams Review and are drawn almost entirely from the 2015 report ‘On Track for 2020’. This report is considered by DPTAC to be a ‘unique’ overview – and the most up-to-date source of quantified data on rail accessibility. And yet, this report was withheld until June 2017 by the Rail Delivery Group, when we published a copy and forced its official release.

Another important point to make is that the ORR will have gone forward with the publication of their new Accessible Travel Policy (ATP) based in part on the very same Steer research on ‘modes of train operation’ that DPTAC has stated is ‘wholly inadequate’ and should only be approached with ‘extreme caution’. Earlier this week, campaigner Doug Paulley succeeded in getting the ATP sent back to the ORR for a ‘rethink’ after threatening a judicial review over the accessibility of rail replacement buses – so is there scope to go further in other areas of the guidance too? We think it’s time to question whether the ORR is using the full extent of its regulatory powers – especially in regard to the changing landscape of railway staffing.

Other essential DPTAC documents:

  • DPTAC’s reponse to the DfT’s PAYG consultation goes into further detail about the need for a new staffing model at a time of technological change (April 2019): download here.
  • DPTAC’s initial submission to the Williams Rail Review goes into detail about the ‘urgent’ and ‘unmet’ need for research (January 2019): download here.
  • Read the full story of the Steer report controversy here.
  • Read DPTAC’s letter to Ministers about driver only operation and destaffing here.
  • Read DPTAC’s email chain containing urgent questions to Ministers concerning driver only operation and the Equality Act here.

Write to us at contact@abcommuters.com

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exposed AGAIN! Disabled Access cover up at the Department for Transport

It’s been exactly one year since we published documents from the Disabled Person’s Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), revealing years of cover ups inside the Department for Transport concerning driver only operation (DOO). A month ago, we repeated our FOI request and can reveal that the situation around DOO and disabled access is now at breaking point.

The latest documents show that since April this year, DPTAC has been in open rebellion against the DfT due to a ‘wholly inadequate’ piece of research: ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities’ by the consultants Steer. The very existence of this report has so far been concealed from the Transport Select Committee and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as well as the disability charities involved in the DfT’s ‘Inclusive Transport’ campaign.

The Steer Report – ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities.’

In an outspoken letter sent to ministers on 2nd May this year, DPTAC states: ‘our headline advice is that the results of this work should be used with extreme caution […] our advice is that the research and Guidance Note fall very considerably short of articulating measures that mitigate the potentially very negative consequences of driver-only operation, when combined with unstaffed stations; a toxic combination for many disabled people that excludes them from using the rail network.’

In the letter, DPTAC challenges the legality of the DfT and train operating companies’ plans for DOO, questioning whether the running of unstaffed trains through unstaffed stations is consistent with the Department’s duties under the Equality Act 2010. The full letter to ministers can be viewed here:

After Andrew Jones’ appearance at the Transport Select Committee on 8th May, DPTAC scheduled an urgent meeting with ministers and sent ahead a list of demanding questions, also concerning the legality of plans for DOO:

The emails show that the meeting took place on 18th June 2019, but we have no further knowledge of DPTAC’s discussion with the rail ministers, and the Steer report itself remains held back under FOI (a decision we intend to challenge).

The DPTAC documents prove us right in our ongoing pursuit of a report by the consultants Steer (formerly Steer Davies Gleave). We had previously understood a 2013 Steer report to be the foundation of the entire DOO project, meaning that this new discovery of a piece of 2018 research is part of a six year history that has so far evaded all Parliamentary scrutiny. The following key documents demonstrate that the 2018 Steer report ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities’ is yet a further stage in a process of policy development that’s been going on for years within the closed circle of the DfT, Rail Delivery Group and train operating companies.

Key documents: DPTAC’s Letter to Ministers dated 9th April, sent 2nd May  *  June 2019 emails – DPTAC arrange meeting with Transport Ministers and send urgent questions in advance  *  DPTAC’s second submission to the Williams Review – Working towards a fully accessible railway, 8th May  *  DPTAC’s response to the PAYG consultation, submitted 30th April 2019

Key correspondence: Email chain Dec 2018 to May 2019 – covering delays to Steer report, and delays to DPTAC’s letter to ministers  *  May 2019 – DPTAC discusses dispatch of letter to ministers and second submission to Williams review  *  June 2019 emails – DfT and DPTAC discuss confidentiality re the Steer report

The Steer Report on DOO – Timeline of Events

This blog continues with a timeline of the 2018 Steer report and a full download list of the documents in chronological order. We then provide a fuller background of the history of Steer’s research on DOO, and explain our concerns about the influence of train operating companies on the formation of policy. We conclude with an urgent list of requests to the Transport Select Committee.

Steer Timeline JPEG

The Steer Report on DOO – Timeline of Documents:

July – September 2018: The following documents show DPTAC meeting with Steer on 30th July, shortly after our 2018 exposé. In September, they are given the ‘final’ draft of the Steer report and provide their feedback.

July 2018 – DPTAC emails show a meeting took place with Steer on 30th July   *  DPTAC emails August 2018 – reaction to the ABC expose   *  DPTAC Main Meeting minutes – 20th Sep 2018   *  September 2018 – DPTAC receives a copy of the Steer report on DOO and responds to first version  *  DPTAC’s response to version 1 of the Steer report – 24th September 2018  *  Peter Wilkinson’s letter to DPTAC – 5th October 2018

September 2018 – March 2019: From September, DPTAC provides feedback on at least one further ‘iteration’ of the Steer report (called version 2 in the timeline above). There is then a long delay while the next version of the document is prepared by Steer and the Rail Delivery Group, with involvement from train operating companies.

DfT and DPTAC Rail Sub-Group Meeting minutes – 12th Oct 2018  *  DfT and DPTAC Main Meeting minutes – 7th Dec 2018  *  DfT and DPTAC Rail Sub-Group Meeting minutes – 12th Feb 2019  *  DPTAC response to the ORR consultation on Improving Assisted Travel – 18th Jan 2019  *  DPTAC’s initial response to the Williams Rail Review – 18th Jan 2019

March – May 2019: DPTAC receives the ‘final’ copy of the report on 6th March and responds by writing a strongly worded letter to ministers on 9th April. The letter is delayed by civil servants until 2nd May, when the Chair of DPTAC sends it directly to Andrew Jones ahead of his Transport Select Committee appearance. In the meantime, DPTAC responds to the DfT’s PAYG consultation, placing a strong emphasis on the need for an adequate staffing model amid the extension of smartcard technologies.

Email chain Dec 2018 to May 2019 – covering delays to Steer report, and delays to DPTAC’s letter to ministers  *  DPTAC’s Letter to Ministers dated 9th April, sent 2nd May  *  April 2019 emails – DPTAC submit their response to the PAYG consultation  *  DPTAC’s response to the PAYG consultation, submitted 30th April 2019

May – June 2019: On 8th May, the day of Andrew Jones’ Transport Select Committee appearance, DPTAC submits a powerful second submission to the Williams Rail Review. Emails over the following month show DPTAC scheduling a meeting with ministers for 18th June, and sending ahead a list of demanding questions concerning the legality of driver only operation.

May 2019 – DPTAC discusses dispatch of letter to ministers and second submission to Williams review  *  DPTAC’s second submission to the Williams Review – Working towards a fully accessible railway, 8th May  *  June 2019 emails – DPTAC arrange meeting with Transport Ministers and send urgent questions in advance  *  June 2019 emails – DfT and DPTAC discuss confidentiality re the Steer report

Background – the 2013 Steer Report

Since August 2017, we have been pursuing a 2013 Steer report known as “Driver only operation – passenger”, which we believe forms the basis of the entire DOO project. We first drew attention to the existence of this report with our publication of a 2014 email from Michael Woods of the Rail Safey and Standards Board (RSSB). However, the Steer report has been held back by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), who are not subject to freedom of information legislation. After we broke the story two years ago, the RDG refused to release the report under FOI, giving the following comment to press:

“In 2011, an independent report into making the railway more efficient recommended that driver only operated trains should be the default option across the network. Following this, a more detailed report was commissioned to investigate the financial implications of different ways of enacting this recommendation. As a public service which spends taxpayers’ money to better connect the country, it is only right that we look at ways to make our services more efficient but it is entirely normal that such analysis remains confidential. Where it is being introduced, careful consideration is being given to ensure that a second member of staff, not necessarily a guard, is available wherever appropriate to assist passengers.”

After three years of industrial action and with a looming legal threat against the government from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, there is little need to emphasise the public interest value of the 2013 Steer report. After FOI requests to the DfT, DPTAC, RSSB and the ORR we have discovered that the document is held only by the Rail Delivery Group. This means that the Association of Train Operating Companies has complete control and ownership over a document that we know has been foundational to policy. The fact that this document has been held back by the Rail Delivery Group for six years also provides the rail industry’s most urgent example of the need for FOI legislation to be extended to private contractors.

To date – the 2018 Steer Report

Our FOI request to DPTAC has revealed the existence of a 2018 Steer report on DOO, ‘Effects of modes of operation on passengers with disabilities’. Although we have been able to publish DPTAC’s damning verdict on its contents, the report itself has been withheld under section 22 (1) of the FOI Act – namely that the report is already ‘planned for publication’ by the Department for Transport.

However, it’s clear in the correspondence that ministers are deciding whether to publish, not when. An email from May 30th, where a DFT civil servant chastises a member of DPTAC for referring to the report at an ORR event, states that: ‘Ministers haven’t yet decided whether to share’ and ‘while some of the TOCs at the meeting today might have been aware when you raised it, the disability groups and EHRC definitely wouldn’t be.’

june confidentiality dft.PNGThe DPTAC email correspondence shows the 2018 Steer Report passing through at least three ‘iterations’, a process managed by the Rail Delivery Group in collaboration with consultants Steer – and in which they have sought feedback from train operating companies ‘to ensure recommendations are feasible’. The following excerpts from February 2018 further demonstrate this unhealthy dynamic:

steer report email feb update.PNG

From DPTAC meeting minutes – 12th Feb 2019:

Steer report feb update.PNG

Our requests to the Transport Select Committee:

(1) At his 8th May update to the Transport Select Committee, the Rail Minister Andrew Jones maintained that driver only operation is ‘not policy’. This is no more than an issue of semantics, relating to a behind-the-scenes legal wrangle over who holds the Public Sector Equality Duty in franchise contracts. The documents we’ve published today show that this legal discussion is already going on behind the scenes at the DfT, who are undoubtedly preparing for a legal challenge from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We call on the Transport Select Committee to seek sight of any legal advice provided to the Department, which could potentially influence changes to legislation following the Williams Review and is therefore in urgent need of oversight.

In particular, please note:

Points 2.6 and 2.7 of the DfT and DPTAC Rail Sub-Group Meeting minutes – 12th Oct 2018:

PSED.PNG

The following paragraph from a DfT civil servant sent to a member of DPTAC on 30th December 2018. You can view the full correspondence here: Email chain Dec 2018 to May 2019 – covering delays to Steer report, and delays to DPTAC’s letter to ministers

dft email to dptac 30 dec 2018

(2) We call on the Transport Select Committee to demand all ‘iterations’ of the Steer report(s) on driver only operation since 2013, and to question the Rail Delivery Group thoroughly on the report’s six year history. We will continue to request the 2018 Steer Report under FOI, but our primary concern is that documents are being withheld from the Transport Select Committee, meaning there can be no proper scrutiny of Departmental policy.

(3) We call on the Transport Select Committee to undertake an investigation into transparency and research standards at the DfT. Railway policy has been developed behind closed doors for up to a decade, and it is outrageous that this ‘research’ process appears to have been dominated by the Rail Delivery Group, the majority of whose members are train operating companies. The economic cost of conducting research in this way (without any parliamentary oversight or passenger/staff consultation) has been enormous, and yet the TSC hasn’t even been allowed to view the business case for DOO (which we also believe to be contained within the 2013 Steer report).

If you combine the economic impact of the industrial dispute, potential legal action from the EHRC, and the probable inadequacy and quick obsolescence of DOO technology; it is clear that – far from being an abstract concern – standards of research and transparency are a matter requiring urgent Parliamentary oversight.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Women’s Day Protest – Keep The Guard On The Train!

This International Women’s Day, it’s time to demand that the Department for Transport finally listens to passenger concerns about safety, security and access. We’ll be meeting at Great Minster House at midday on Friday 8th March to deliver an 85,000-strong petition to “Keep The Guard On The Train” and we hope that you can join us!

All are welcome, and we are particularly keen to celebrate the women who have done so much to defend against the government-driven attempt to remove guards from trains. Special guests will include; Beth Granter, who began the petition for women’s safety on the railways; Ann Bates OBE, who has campaigned alongside ABC for three years on disabled access; and Michelle Rodgers, the recently elected President of the RMT union and the first woman in its history to hold this position.

Sign up to our Facebook event here or RSVP to contact@abcommuters.com

Why International Women’s Day?

Over the past ten years, sexual offenses on the railways have gone up a staggering 167%, and violent crime has risen by 47%, according to recent figures from the British Transport Police (BTP). In the period 2017-2018, these categories of crime are up 16% and 26% respectively. In the case of sexual offenses, the BTP believes that there are many more crimes of this type that go unreported.

All vulnerable passengers deserve the peace of mind of knowing there will be a safety critical, guaranteed guard on every train, not to mention the deterrent factor in an era of rising crime. In rural areas, including Southern Rail, Northern Rail and South Western Railway, there are long gaps between stops and largely unstaffed stations – so the suggestion to destaff these networks should never have even been up for debate.

Despite this context – and a three-year long industrial dispute on the matter – passengers in England have never been consulted on the issue of driver only trains. During our campaign on the matter, we have dug up multiple documents emphasising concerns around safety and disabled access, but our concerns have been ignored. With the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently stating that they are likely to take action over the roll back of disabled access associated with DOO, we’ll be appealing directly to the DfT and the Williams Rail Review to return to the vision of a fully staffed railway, accessible to all.

Join us to demand a guaranteed and safety critical member of staff on every train – no excuses!

The ORR responds to the stalemate over DOO and disabled access:

We have long called for a staffing guarantee to ensure that disabled and vulnerable passengers are able to get equal access to the rail network. Last month, we published our biggest expose yet on the issue – showing that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee have also been arguing for a guarantee of staffing levels within the Department for Transport since the time of the first RMT strikes in April 2016.

With RMT industrial action continuing on South Western this weekend, and in light of reports that the Equality and Human Rights Commisssion is taking an interest in DOO and potential Equality Act breaches; we asked the Office of Rail and Road to explain their position on the current stalemate over train staffing.

Stephanie Tobyn, Deputy Director for Consumers at the ORR, has regularly engaged with us on the issue since the beginning of the year and has now sent us a response explaining the ORR’s responsibilties and powers in relation to disabled access, as well as their current and upcoming work in this area.

Full statement from Stephanie Tobyn of the ORR:

“Our consumer role and responsibilities originate in the Condition 5 of the passenger and stations licences (the model passenger licence here).  Any intervention that we might make in this area is subject to the specific terms of this licence condition. We consider all issues on their own merits and in common with other regulators we cannot prejudge the circumstances in which we would choose any particular course of action.

Train and station operators are required by these operating licences to establish and comply with a disabled people’s protection policy (DPPP). This sets out the arrangements and assistance that an operator will provide to protect the interests of disabled people using its services and to facilitate such use. We approve these policies and monitor compliance with them.

Where there is evidence to suggest that an operator is not achieving good outcomes for passengers in respect of its DPPP obligations, we will discuss this with the operator concerned. We may then carry out more regular monitoring of that operator. This might include requiring additional information, carrying out an audit, or using our existing power within the licence to require an operator to conduct a review of its DPPP and report its findings, potentially leading to changes to existing DPPPs or practice. Ultimately, if an operator does not comply with its licence obligation, we may then follow our Economic Enforcement Policy which you can find here.

In respect of when ORR can step in could I take this opportunity to clarify that, in accordance with our Economic Enforcement Policy, we will intervene should we identify serious or systemic failings. What constitutes a systemic breach will depend on the nature and seriousness of the failures and on the progress of the licence holder to rectify the situation proactively.

In addition, ORR enforces the requirements of the Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM TSI) and Rail Vehicles Accessibility Regulations (RVAR 2010), which set out the standards to which new trains must comply. You can find out more information about this on our website. Enforcement in this area would follow our Health and Safety Compliance and Enforcement Policy Statement, also on our website here.

As you know we have published a significant amount of research in this area and we are currently reviewing the area of DPPPs. We are expecting to consult further in the Autumn and do not rule out doing further research in this area. DPTAC and DfT have been involved in this work already and we look forward to further input and discussion with them going forward.

In relation to the areas that DPTAC has raised in correspondence, where assistance has been booked in advance we expect that assistance to be delivered by train and station operators. For turn up and go or spontaneous travel the requirement is to provide assistance to disabled passengers who arrive at a station and require assistance to allow them to travel, where reasonably practicable.

Every request for assistance should be based on an assessment of passenger needs, station facilities and staff availability (both train and station) and there is not a one size fits all approach. We expect operators to be able to provide assistance to passengers in a variety of different scenarios. This will require an accurate understanding and assessment of the needs of the passenger, station accessibility, station staffing times, train staffing levels and unexpected accessibility issues such as a lift being out of order.

Therefore, we would expect operators to consider a variety of means to provide passengers with assistance including, for example, the use of alternative accessible transport, such as an accessible taxi (this service being provided free of charge to the passenger) and the ability to use staff flexibly to ensure that assistance can be delivered either by on-board staff, station staff or mobile staff where such working practices are routinely operated or can be accommodated to provide the assistance required.”

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the next update.

If you have experienced access failures and need support, we recommend contacting Transport for All.

 

 

 

 

Exposed: Disabled access cover up at the Department for Transport

Our latest set of FOI requests to the DfT has exposed years of controversy within the Department itself. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) has been protesting the roll out of driver only operation since April 2016, calling DOO policies ‘toxic’ and ‘illegal’.

Earlier today, the Department for Transport published their new “Inclusive Transport Strategy” – the outcome of the Accessibility Action Plan consultation that began in August 2017. The timing of this publication, on the day before the RMT strike on South Western Railway, speaks volumes about their intention to deflect from their own role in removing the guaranteed guard from the train; especially at a time when the disabled access argument has already been won in the eyes of the public.

But we’ve got news for the DfT – they’re not going to get away with it this time. After campaigning on this issue for two years, and releasing a number of leaked documents concerning disabled access cover ups around DOO, we finally have all we need to show that they have been willing to turn back the clock on disabled access in order to break the RMT union on the issue of the ‘Guard Guarantee’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’.

New documents prove that DPTAC has been protesting DOO since April 2016

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) advises the government on transport legislation, regulations and guidance and on the transport needs of disabled people, ensuring disabled people have the same access to transport as everyone else.

We are now able to share copies of the advice they have been giving to the DfT including: strong opposition to the use of DOO across muliple rail franchises; a warning letter about ‘toxic’ and ‘illegal’ DOO policies sent to Peter Wilkinson in April 2016; DPTAC’s real thoughts about the AAP consultation; and the minutes of a meeting with Rail Minister Nusrat Ghani in May 2018, where she defends the government’s position on DOO.

Download the key documents relating to DOO and disabled access here:

  1. DPTAC’s response to the Accessibility Action Plan consultation
  2. DPTAC’s warning letter to Peter Wilkinson, April 2016
  3. DPTAC’s response to the SE Franchise consultation, May 2017
  4. DPTAC’s response to the GW Franchise consultation, Feb 2018
  5. DPTAC May 2018 meeting with Nus Ghani, Rail Minister
  6. Letter to ABC from Keith Richards Chair of DPTAC

We also include the minutes of all DPTAC meetings since 2016, which cover a wide range of discussion on accessibility issues:

DPTAC January 2016 meeting DPTAC July 2016 meeting DPTAC November 2016 meeting DPTAC February 2017 meeting DPTAC May 2017 meeting DPTAC November 2017 Induction Event DPTAC January 2018 meeting DPTAC May 2018 meeting

  1. DPTAC’s criticism of the draft Accessibility Action Plan (AAP)

The AAP formed the basis of today’s DfT “Inclusive Transport Strategy“, which omits any discussion of driver only operation and therefore has clearly ignored DPTAC’s advice on this issue. DPTAC’s response to the Accessibility Action Plan consultation protests the omission of driver only operation in relation to franchise contracts, while the minutes of the DPTAC January 2018 meeting establish that the consultation had generated 288 responses on the issue of DOO out of a total of 1000 (pg.7).  Despite expert advice and strong passenger sentiment, this topic is absent from the DfT’s strategy document today.

DPTAC’s response to the AAP

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

Although the Ministerial introduction states: “This draft action plan sets out our proposed strategy to address the gaps in existing provision of transport services which serve as a barrier to people with disabilities”, the plan does not clearly set out a robust strategy for the short, medium and long term, nor does it articulate an appropriately structured and detailed gap analysis” (pg.2)

“One key issue that is missing from the AAP consultation concerns the level of staffing on the rail network and the role of the franchising (DfT) and licensing (ORR) processes in that….Our advice is that, trains without a member of customer service staff, combined with unstaffed stations make it impossible to reduce the need to pre-book, and create a ‘toxic’ combination for many disabled people that excludes them from using rail.” (pg.17)

2. DPTAC’s warning letter to Peter Wilkinson, April 2016

In the month that RMT industrial action began on Southern Rail, DPTAC wrote to Peter Wilkinson to warn him that any policy involving the running of unstaffed trains to unstaffed stations would be “illegal”:

“We question how older and disabled people, and particularly those who suffer from acute anxiety and mental health issues, can travel when there are effectively no customer service staff on the train or on the station. On this point we know that the toxic combination of driver-only operated trains and unstaffed stations fails to deliver a service that meets the needs of many disabled passengers. As a result DPTAC is seeking a guarantee that such policies cannot undermine the fundamental principle of accessibility – which would in any event be illegal.” (pg.2)

3. DPTAC’s response to the SE Franchise consultation, May 2017

“DPTAC believes that the franchise process can and must be used to ensure that the right level of staffing is provided by the train operator for all passengers, particularly for those who may need assistance. It is not sufficient for the process to ‘encourage bidders to suggest ways to increase the availability of staff’.  Accessibility can only be improved for users and non-users if the franchise agreement stipulates that adequate staff at station, and on train are available to meet customers’ needs at all points of the journey and at all times that the service is operating.

It is the combination of driver only trains (with no other on-board staff) and unstaffed stations that leads to an inconsistent and poor service to many disabled people, and serves to exclude many disabled people who do not currently uses rail services as they do not have the confidence to do so under the perception that their needs will fail to be met.

While it is well understood that it is a legal as well as social responsibility of Government and the train operator to deliver accessible services, it is unfortunate that under the important heading of ‘Social Responsibility’ the emphasis is on delivering ‘safe, secure and sustainable transport’ with no mention of accessibility and inclusion. Safety and accessibility are, in many respects one and the same, and both are underpinned by legal requirements that both requirements will be fulfilled. This franchise process should therefore require steps to be taken to deliver accessible services and not serve to legitimise the operation of services that combine trains with no staff available to assist passengers during a journey, and address the issue of how disabled customers’ needs will be addressed at unstaffed stations.” (pg.4)

4. DPTAC’s response to the GW Franchise consultation, Feb 2018

“In terms of journey times more generally, we caution against the excessive reduction of station dwell times, and would like to see sufficient time allowed for passengers to board and alight, including assisted passengers. For example, the Committed Obligation included in the recent South Western Franchise Agreement to reduce dwell times to 30 seconds at most stations would seem to work against extending journey opportunities for disabled passengers. This is not sufficient for the deployment of a platform-train ramp, and may not be sufficient for those passengers needing other assistance or who simply need a little more time – likely to become increasingly an issue due to an ageing population.” (pg. 4 – 5)

“We do not believe it is sufficient solely to expect the franchisee to develop proposals for improving accessibility at stations, given the substantial barriers to access for disabled passengers known to exist on this franchise. We would encourage DfT to specify within the Invitation to Tender and Franchise Agreement significant improvements to train and station services.

In particular, we suggest that it is made a Franchise Committed Obligation to provide staff either on stations, or on-board trains (but never neither) – to provide information, reassurance and assistance to passengers, including the provision of boarding and alighting assistance. We welcome the proposals to provide additional staff at 15 stations, but this does not address fully our concerns regarding staff availability.

At present, there are 29 GWR unstaffed / part-staffed stations which are nevertheless served by Driver Only Operated (DOO) trains with no regular on-board staff available. These include e.g.: Bedwyn, Henley-on-Thames, and Hungerford – all well-used stations with step-free access to all platforms, but no means for assisted passengers to board and alight unless a member of staff is sent to the station (which requires advance notice, and sufficient spare staff which may not be the case). This practice results arguably in substantial disadvantage for disabled passengers (as defined in the Equality Act 2020), and is wholly inconsistent with the proposed Franchise Objective of ‘an excellent and continually improving service for all passengers’. Without the capability to travel on a spontaneous basis, and on the same terms as other passengers, disabled people, and wider society, cannot benefit fully from the multi-billion pound investment currently being made across the franchise. Given the size of the investment, and the e.g. external health and employment benefits of an inclusive service, for some disabled people it may seem as if the ship is being sunk for a ha’penny worth of tar.

It is also relevant that the Elizabeth Line will be offering a ‘turn-up-and-go’ assistance service at all times trains are running. This will bring the inadequacy of GWR’s assistance capability sharply into focus, especially at e.g. Thames Valley branch lines feeding directly into the Elizabeth Line.

Going forward DPTAC would caution against any proposals to reduce the guaranteed presence of existing on-train staff – which may have a significant impact on the ability and confidence of disabled people to use GWR services.” (pg.6 – 7)

5. DPTAC May 2018 meeting with Nus Ghani, Rail Minister

“Matthew Smith asked (staffing on rail) “On the issue of Driver Only trains, operators cannot provide a reliable Assisted Travel service, or otherwise support many of the needs of disabled people, when running unstaffed trains to unstaffed stations. This is also relevant to many other passengers not within DPTAC’s remit, for example unaccompanied children. DPTAC’s concerns are part of wider passenger concerns about the availability of staff.

The ongoing staffing changes are being implemented by train operators in order to fulfil DfT Franchise Agreements which permit, encourage or mandate the extension of Driver Only operation. The origin of this is the McNulty report from 2011 (‘Realising the potential of rail in Great Britain’) which argued that the ‘default position’ should be DOO, and a second member of on-train staff should only be provided where there is a ‘commercial, technical or other imperative‘.

Does the Minister agree that the accessibility of the rail network to disabled people is that ‘other imperative‘, and that DfT should ensure that Franchise Agreements require on-train staff to be provided wherever trains run to unstaffed or part-staffed stations?

In response the Minister said –

  • DOO/DCO were not new and have operated without significant impact since the 1980s. She did not consider that DOO on more of the network, alongside other measures to improve access more generally, would have a significant impact.
  • The Minister noted DPTAC’s advice and its concerns and that this is an issue at which the Department’s view does not follow that of DPTAC’s concerns.

DPTAC noted that the impact of the combination of DOO and unstaffed stations has not been properly considered and that its advice to the Department is that such an evaluation is needed urgently.” (pg.3 – 4)

6. Letter to ABC from Keith Richards Chair of DPTAC

In response to our FOI requests on the issues of DOO, dwell times and staffing, the Chair of DPTAC sent a covering letter explaining DPTAC’s position on these matters:

“By way of a summary of DPTAC’s advice to the Department on these issues, it is that we are very concerned that the ability of train operating companies to provide assisted travel to disabled passengers is primarily influenced by staffing levels on board trains and on stations. We believe that the combination of driver-only operated trains and unstaffed stations fails to deliver a service that meets the needs of an increasing number of disabled passengers. As a result DPTAC has advised the DfT to urgently research this area to gather evidence of whether the way franchise holders operate their franchised services are delivering accessible rail services, or are delivering a lower level of service than other rail users receive, are excluding disabled people completely.”

Please donate to our fighting fund if you can.

Follow us on Twitter for more news and exposes on the DfT, GTR, Rail Plan 2020 and driver only operation.

 

First Class Controversy on GTR – a Boon for the DfT?

A First Class controversy involving Mark Boon (GTR’s Head of Network Operations) went viral on Wednesday and has since found its way into every national newspaper.

As ever, we encourage people not to get caught up in the personal stuff but to actively call the media’s attention to the far bigger scandal underneath – GTR’s management contract with the DfT. The reason that Mark Boon’s attitude hit home for so many is because its the perfect metaphor for a company that functions as a proxy to the Department, and with complete impunity:

Dh00VmpW0AA4FZs.jpg large.jpg

So, if we’re talking farce (while also trying to make a serious political point) there is nowhere better to go next than the story behind the First Class declassification last month….

Alistair Burt’s Announcement – A Comedy of Errors

The #RailPlan2020 timetable collapsed on May 20th, and passengers on the GTR network have suffered a ‘turn up and hope’ timetable ever since. Conditions have been overcrowded, unpredictable, dangerous and hot – the effect this has had on those with disabilities and health conditions cannot be overstated.

And yet, despite this unprecedented rail crisis, and the clear health, safety and equality issues for passengers, it took over five weeks for First Class declassification to be agreed.

The news was announced by Alistair Burt MP at 6:30 pm on the 28th June:

alistair burt announcement

Unfortunately for Alistair, his moment of triumphant announcement was overshadowed by the fact that this came as a complete surprise to GTR’s social media team. Here they are on the first day of declassification, still unaware:

GTR morning 29 june.PNG

GTR afternoon 29 june.PNG

And here’s GTR’s social media report from the morning of the 29th, the day that First Class declassification should have begun:

sm reprt 29.PNG

Who makes the call on First Class?

As with most things GTR, this was a DfT decision – note this extract from Jo Johnson’s announcement letter on the 28th June, linked below:

JJ extract.PNG

First Class announcement letter from Jo Johnson 28.06.18.

Questions for the Department for Transport:

  • Why take over five weeks to declassify? This meant inflicting an unnecessary level of overcrowding on passengers, in the context of an unprecedented timetable collapse and a UK heatwave.
  • Why has the Department failed to prioritise the health, safety and equality aspects of the overcrowding on GTR – this excludes passengers with a wide range of disabilities and health conditions from rail travel.
  • Last year, Chris Grayling stated his ‘absolute commitment’ to ending First Class on overcrowded commuter routes. Can this commitment be sincere when there has been such delay and resistance to declassifying even at the time of an emergency?
  • We are expecting to see a reduction in off-peak services in the new ‘interim’ timetable. Why can’t First Class declassification apply all day, and across all ‘train brands’ – all of which belong to the same company?
  • Why is First Class declassification ending on 15th July rather than staying in place until things have fully stabilised and passengers can travel without excessive overcrowding?

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for more #RailPlan2020 updates

 

 

 

 

 

London Bridge tonight: DPAC and ABC protest GTR disabled access policies

We’ll be joining Disabled People Against the Cuts for a ‘People’s Picket’ at London Bridge station (Shard entrance) from 5 – 6pm tonight. RSVP here.

The controversial staff training guide released on Friday has sent a shockwave through our communities. It has never been more important to stand in solidarity with disabled people and everyone who will be affected either now or in the future by this insitutionalised breach of the Equality Act.

We have now been granted permission by the BTP, and hope that we will be welcoming several MPs at the protest. Please join us tonight and stand in solidarity with all passengers affected by #Rail2020.

#KeepTheGuardOnTheTrain

The GTR staff training guide that the RMT released on Friday was even more shocking than we feared. It also showed that the company has now begun a ‘call ahead’ policy when boarding passengers, which has led to members of our groups being refused boarding even though the train was sitting right in front of them at the station.

The removal of a guaranteed guard from the train creates a loophole that we believe will only lead to further, institutionalised breaches of the Equality Act. With the ‘call ahead’ policy, it is now clear that this will have an equivalent effect on pre-booked and ‘turn up and go’ passengers, so the myth that pre-booking will be a solution under DOO is disproven.

Removing a wheelchair user from their chosen form of transport because of the company’s inability to staff the network adequately is blatant discrimination. We do not consider taxis a reasonable adjustment, especially with the extended waiting times at unstaffed/rural stations. It is only a matter of time before this Equality Act breach is confronted in court – and that’s not our opinion, but the verdict of a 2-year buried Rail Delivery Group report on the matter.

We believe the current industrial dispute could be solved easily with the simple guarantee of a second member of staff. This is clearly the precedent on which all future staffing plans will be based, and the easiest way to ensure the principles of the Equality Act are met. There can be no justification for an endless taxpayer-funded dispute that aims to break a trade union at the expense of disabled people’s rights.

We have little faith in current consultations involving the DfT and the RDG, who have already shown themselves to be deliberately evading this issue. There is no sense in professing to take disabled access seriously when on the other hand, you are trying to remove an important staffing precedent from workers and passengers alike.

 

For more info, email us: contact@abcommuters.com

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: full copy of GTR’s staff training document, which discriminates against disabled passengers

Further to the RMT’s announcement this morning about GTR’s latest disabled access policy, we are now able to provide a copy of the full document: Pit Stop GTR

Having studied the ‘Pit Stop’ staff training document in full, we would like to emphasise that Southern Rail’s public comments today on the issue have been extremely misleading. Here’s what they have said on Twitter so far:

southern out of context 2.PNGsouthern out of context.PNG

We strongly object to their claim that the staff training document has been ‘taken out of context’, and now present the three main areas where it discriminates against, humiliates, and even potentially endangers passengers.

Pit Stop: Key principles for managing station dwell times

Pit Stop GTR applies to all four brands of Govia Thameslink Railway and focuses on cutting down dwell times at stations. From the very first page, the document clearly spells out the ‘key principles and priorities’ of dispatch: Safety, Speed, Efficiency and Professionalism. Nowhere is the principle of equality of access even referred to in what is clearly a core training document for staff.

Pages 3 – 5 on ‘Right Time Start’ and the 20, 30, 40 dispatch process are nothing new – these kind of management initiatives have been around for at least 20 years. To be clear: there is nothing wrong with the rail industry working on improving dwell times – but there is everything wrong with a policy that priorities this to the exclusion of basic human rights – and completely ignores the context of destaffing and the removal of the onboard staff guarantee. This document shows a ruthless disregard for the welfare of a wide range of vulnerable passengers, solely for the sake of efficiency.

Now more than ever, we urge all disability rights campaigners to demand the full and transparent publication of all research on dwell times. This call should be made urgently to the Department for Transport and include the lobbying of the Rail Delivery Group for the immediate release of the #SDGreport.

Pit Stop: a GTR staff training document proving the rollback of disabled access

This document proves the argument we have been making for two years: that the removal of a guaranteed guard from the train creates a loophole that will inevitably lead to institutionalised breaches of the Equality Act. With the ‘call ahead’ policy described below, it also shows that this will have an equal effect on pre-booked or ‘turn up and go’ passengers. Indeed, there is no mention of booking or turn up and go on this document: so the myth that pre-booking will ensure successful journeys under DOO is dispelled.

Removing a wheelchair user from their chosen form of transport because of the company’s inability to staff the network adequately is blatant discrimination. We do not consider taxis a reasonable adjustment, especially with the extended waiting times at unstaffed rural stations. It is only a matter of time before this Equality Act breach is confronted in court – and that’s not our opinion, but the verdict of the 2-year buried Rail Delivery Group report on the matter.

Here are the three main points that we believe discrimate against, humiliate, and potentially endanger vulnerable passengers:

1. The document proves that GTR has begun a ‘call ahead’ policy

Two months ago, we went to the press over a number of incidents where wheelchair users were refused boarding, despite having booked ahead. Despite our co-founder’s protestations, GTR denied there was any such policy:

Today, we can say definitively that what we claimed to be a new policy from GTR is indeed the case. The process of contacting the destination station to ensure staff are available is spelt out in detail on page 8:

call ahead policy page 8.PNG

This can only be the result of the removal of the guaranteed second staff member from GTR trains; the central argument of the RMT industrial dispute. It is no longer the case that a guaranteed guard will stay with the train and thus be primarily responsible for the disabled person’s boarding and alighting. This again proves the main point of the buried Rail Delivery Group report: ‘the Conductor is the best line of assistance for older and disabled people’.

2. GTR guidance sacrifices equality for dwell times

The issue of dwell times is something that we have been able to find little information on, and we are still pursuing the buried #SDGreport, in the suspicion that it focuses on passenger behaviour around this issue. Page 7 is the perhaps the most damning page in the ‘Pit Stop’ document, as it implies that equality of access is not even a consideration to GTR:

Assisting station to train.PNG

It is also troubling that the presence of an ‘onboard supervisor’ is not assumed here, and the process seems to refer only to station staff’s role in the process.

assisting train to station.PNG

3. GTR’s policy on moving sick passengers could humiliate them and even endanger their health

Particularly cruel is the language around passengers taken ill on trains. Anyone with First Aid training will see immediately that GTR’s miniscule list of contraindications to moving passengers is insensitive and potentially dangerous.  To remove someone who has just suffered a grand mal seizure and possibly soiled themselves onto a freezing platform when they are disorientated, with no medical presence or advice, would be unforgivable.

Abnormal situations.PNG

For a full history of our campaign against GTR’s rollback of disabled access, see this resource.

For further information about disabled access: contact@abcommuters.com

We also recommend contacting Transport for All on this issue, especially if you have been affected.

 

 

 

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: New documents revealed suggesting further cover-ups around nationwide plans for DOO

Today, we reveal email correspondence raising serious questions about the impartiality of the RSSB. The emails demonstrate the intention to move staff away from disabled access and towards a ‘mobile’ revenue protection role. They also lead us to the discovery of an unheard-of report on DOO that has been buried for four years – where is the #SDGreport?

In June, we published a controversial Rail Delivery Group report on access that had been buried for two years. Though we received a lot of media interest upon our publication of this report, nobody outside certain sections of the rail press went forward with the story. This is despite the fact that Peter Rayner, one of the report’s co-authors, had broken ranks with the rail industry months earlier and spoken publicly of his concerns that GTR is now normalising a permanent breach of the Equality Act in its plans for DOO.

Today we publish further documents:

We now reveal further documents relating to the issues in the buried access report, which was quietly published on the Rail Delivery Group website a few days after we brought it to the public domain.

The following email correspondence takes place in June 2014 and begins with an email from Peter Rayner, a co-author of the buried RDG report and Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport’s Accessibility and Inclusion Forum.

In the following correspondence you will see that Peter Rayner wrote of his concerns to CILT’s Head of Policy, Daniel Parker-Klein; who then forwarded the email to Michael Woods, Head of Operations and Management Research at the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB).

As he describes in his email response, Michael Woods was responsible for a major piece of research into DOO at that time. He is referring to the RSSB report on DOO, which was itself hidden from the RSSB website when the issue of DOO became controversial. You might remember us providing a link to the document in November 2016, after the report was exposed in Private Eye.

The correspondence ends with an outraged email from Ann Frye, another co-author of the buried RDG report and Vice-Chairperson of CILT’s Accessibility and Inclusion Forum.

The email from Michael Woods portrays a shocking attitude to Peter Rayner’s concerns, and a great deal can be learned from it about what has been going on behind the scenes regarding plans for DOO. We point out two points in particular here and include the full correspondence below:

1. Michael Woods comments on the controversial RSSB report, the independence of which has long been denied by the rail unions:

“I am responsible for a major piece of research, complementing a previous study by a well known consultancy Steer Davies Gleave (you know the owner), into how to significantly extend the coverage of Driver Only Operation for Passenger Services (DOO(P)) to much more of the network, on behalf of RDG and ultimately DfT.

The Steer Davies Gleave report on DOO has never been mentioned publicly until now. We have tracked down the only reference – it appears as a footnote in the RSSB report:

SDG report.PNG

Given that so many buried and controversial documents are now coming to light – it is essential that we raise a call for the publication in full of the Steer Davies Gleave report, and ask why – as a foundational document to DOO – it has been buried for the past four years. We will be using the hashtag #SDGreport, and hope that you will join us in raising the attention of MPs and press to this issue.

2. Michael Woods comments on the rationale for DOO, confirming allegations that it is part of a project to move staff over to revenue protection duties:

“Having mobile teams of customer service staff able to check that customers have authority to travel (we are coming to the end of paper or card tickets, which will disappear in the next five or so years) and provide other assistance, but not one-per-train, is the way forward.”

A close reading of Michael Woods’ email will show that the RSSB considers the pre-booking of travel sufficient for those with access needs, and suggests that this forms part of their long-term solution for disabled people in regard to DOO: “PRM [Persons of Reduced Mobility] customers will still have access to the ATOC managed booking system to ensure they are met and aided…”

Read the full correspondence below:

Peter Rayner email 1.jpg

Peter Rayner email 2.jpg

Peter Rayner email 3.jpg

Peter Rayner email 4.jpg

Peter Rayner email 5