Government’s railways consultation has ‘betrayed’ disabled passengers, campaigners tell minister

Disabled campaigners and allies have accused the government of “betrayal” after it dropped plans to put accessibility at the heart of rail reforms from a hugely important public consultation.

In a letter to transport secretary Heidi Alexander, they warn that current plans for the new Great British Railways (GBR) now risk sacrificing the chance of a “proper equality, human rights, and climate framework for the railway”.

They say the consultation has dropped the key commitment that the introduction of GBR – which will eventually run both Britain’s rail infrastructure and its passenger services – would “maximise social and economic value”.

They have also demanded an extension of the consultation from eight weeks to 12 weeks, and for Alexander to do much more to make the consultation accessible to disabled people.

Representatives of four national campaigning organisations have signed the letter, which tells Alexander of their “shock and concern” at the consultation document’s failure to mention a legal duty that would have ensured GBR puts accessibility “at the core of its strategic decisions”.

Disability News Service reported last week that the consultation document includes only a handful of sentences about disabled passengers and the accessibility of the rail network.

The letter has been signed by Emily Sullivan (née Yates), co-founder of The Association of British Commuters; Paula Peters, member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts; Jan Shortt, general secretary of National Pensioners Convention; and Andrew Hodgson, immediate past president of National Federation of the Blind of the UK.

Last February, in The Plan for Rail (PDF), the Conservative government confirmed earlier pledges that it would introduce a statutory accessibility duty for GBR.

But the letter says that last week’s consultation, issued by the new Labour government, removed the accessibility duty, and a statutory environment duty, from these plans.

It adds: “Disabled people’s rights have been betrayed by this consultation, with most commitments relating to accessibility being dropped, and proposals for regulation noticeably confused.

“There are no questions whatsoever on passenger experience, nor any of the transport policy issues of most concern to the public, for example: fare reductions; ticket office closures; or disabled people’s right to ‘Turn Up And Go’.”

The letter also raises serious concerns about the accessibility of the eight-week consultation process.

It points to the consultation’s “heavy technical jargon and absence of passenger questions”, and it says the Department for Transport (DfT) must extend the consultation to 12 weeks, and publish it in all the necessary accessible formats, provide a helpline, and carry out online and face-to-face seminars, as part of a “systematic and comprehensive engagement strategy”.

The letter also calls on the government to publish equality impact and cost assessments of the reforms.

It adds: “The Department should turn back from this new idea of a stripped down, deregulated GBR, and must not sacrifice the chance to create a proper equality, human rights, and climate framework for the railway.”

A DfT spokesperson said: “Accessibility will be a key focus under Great British Railways and we want to hear the views of disability groups to shape its future.

“These duties are still under consideration, and we will set out more details once the consultation has concluded.”

DfT also claimed the consultation was clear that accessibility would be central to GBR, that GBR’s functions and duties would be informed by responses to the consultation, and that it welcomed views on whether there should be an accessibility duty.

It said it was consulting on whether a passenger watchdog should set minimum standards in areas like passenger accessibility or passenger information, with the ability to refer issues to the regulator for enforcement.

DfT claimed it had ensured the consultation was accessible for disabled people, with accessible formats for those who use assistive technologies and need large print.

It said an equality impact assessment and a broader impact assessment would be published when legislation was introduced.

Picture by Office of Rail and Road

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…