Angry response from campaigners as rail minister seeks to reassure MPs about government’s access plans

Disabled activists have delivered an angry and dismissive response to a government minister who has tried to justify dropping plans to put accessibility at the heart of rail reforms from a critically-important public consultation.

In a letter to the Commons transport committee, Lord [Peter] Hendy appeared to dismiss evidenced concerns about the consultation that had been raised by accessible transport campaigners.

In February, the Association of British Commuters (ABC) spotted that a consultation on the government’s plans for rail reform failed to include any mention of a statutory accessibility duty or an environment duty.

And they realised it had dropped a key commitment that the introduction of Great British Railways (GBR) – which will eventually run both Britain’s rail infrastructure and its passenger services – would “maximise social and economic value”.

The Department for Transport also allowed only eight weeks for responses to the consultation, which closes on Tuesday (15 April).

But in his letter to the transport committee, Lord Hendy claimed the government was not “downgrading” its commitment to accessibility and the environment, and that it was “consulting openly on the new regulatory framework” and that the consultation document was “clear that accessibility will be central to GBR”.

He added: “Given the need to strike the right balance between getting the views of interested stakeholders and delivering improvements at pace, we feel that eight weeks is the appropriate length of time for this consultation.”

Emily Sullivan (née Yates), a disabled researcher in equality and human rights, and ABC’s co-founder, described the letter as “manipulative” and evasive.

She said it avoids any mention of the “all-important” socio-economic duty, which would have made public interest values the “primary factor” in decision-making by GBR and the Office of Rail and Road regulator.

This, she said, would have been the “best legislative route possible to both rights-based regulation and national investment plans for full infrastructure accessibility”.

She emphasised the difference between including the public interest duties in primary legislation, and the “only tangible commitment” now mentioned in Lord Hendy’s letter – that the details of the GBR license will eventually be subject to a separate consultation.

She said: “These commitments were supposed to be at the level of primary legislation.

“But this letter says that any such requirements will now drop down to the level of the GBR license. That’s leagues below what was originally promised.”

Sullivan said she and other campaigners now expect the government to “rush through the draft bill straight after this consultation”, which would mean “downgrading of accessibility in the best-case scenario, and deregulation and removal of duties in the worst”.

She said: “It needs to be said as loudly as possible: the government has pre-decided on a deregulated model of GBR and in removing all other options from the consultation has already manipulated the end result.”

Accessible transport activist Sam Jennings, who runs the campaigning website Disabled By the Railway, said the Department for Transport (DfT) appeared to have “returned to its obsession with deregulation”.

She said the duties must be “settled as essential core rights at the centre of the new railway model” through primary legislation and “not some deferred promise”.

She said: “We can’t let them start the GBR legislative process without these duties being consulted on – this is now a huge danger.

“I am also appalled to see Peter Hendy apparently controlling the GBR process, an unelected and unaccountable former Network Rail chair parachuted in as rail minister.

“Where was the actual transport secretary Heidi Alexander when disabled people were getting sold out by this consultation?

“Continuing in this way also means the government is brazenly ignoring the recent intervention of the transport select committee – the ‘Access Denied’ report.

“If we let them get away with stripping down GBR in this way, we can say goodbye to putting the right to ‘turn up and go’ at the centre of law and regulation.”

Doug Paulley, another influential accessible transport campaigner, said Lord Hendy’s “assurances are not a replacement for firm written commitments to accessibility set out in writing.

“His claim about the consultation being shortened to eight weeks for alacrity in achieving the change is ridiculous, given how long it has and is taking.

“As long as he has responsibility for the transition, accessibility will never be a genuine priority.”

Andrew Hodgson, an executive council member of National Federation of the Blind of the UK, said his organisation was “appalled to see such a complex consultation limited to just eight weeks” at a time when primary legislation is “being sped through for both rail and buses”.

He said: “The truth is the DfT is just not interested in our views, which is why all accessibility questions were cut out of this consultation in the first place.

“The lack of public interest questions and focus on a deregulated model shows they want GBR to go forward without such duties laid down in law.

“In other words, they are saying ‘trust us, we know better than you’, but how can we possibly trust them seeing the onslaught against disabled people in all areas of policy right now?

“This response to the transport committee will be a real test to see how much the committee is willing to challenge the government on its excuses.

“We hope the committee writes back to Lord Hendy explaining his justifications are not acceptable and demanding that all passenger and access issues be consulted on properly before the draft legislation.

“Otherwise, Great British Railways cannot be considered fit for purpose.

“It is imperative that outreach events are organised online and in person so disabled people get the opportunity to properly understand, question and feedback on this consultation.

“If that means starting it again, then so be it.”

Paula Peters, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, also said an eight-week consultation was “not acceptable”.

She said it showed “blatant disregard and contempt for disabled people” at a time when “ticket office opening times on various rail networks are being reduced, impacting on disabled people’s access needs and right to travel and taking away disabled people’s right to turn up and go”.

Picture: (From left to right) Andrew Hodgson, Sam Jennings and Doug Paulley

A note from the editor:

Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations.

Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009.

Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS…