Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Interoperable Rail System) Regulations: consultation response summary

Summary of responses

Rail Services for Persons with Reduced Mobility: Consultation on draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2008 ("the Regulations")

Consultation dates

29 February 2008 to 21 April 2008

Scope

United Kingdom (except for those elements which disapply Part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 ("RVAR") from heavy rail vehicles which apply to Great Britain only; separate provision is being made in Northern Ireland by the Department for Regional Development).

Issue

The Technical Specification for Interoperability for Persons with Reduced Mobility ("PRM TSI") is a new European standard  covering the accessibility of heavy rail vehicles and station design on the Trans-European Network (“TEN”), (ie the interoperable rail system), which will come into force on 1 July 2008.  

Great Britain already has standards covering the accessibility of trains to disabled people, the RVAR.  Similar regulations, the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001, apply in Northern Ireland.  These must be amended to reflect the fact that the PRM TSI will take precedence once it comes into force and to avoid duplication of regulatory regimes.

The consultation paper included draft regulations designed to facilitate this through the Government's preferred option of removing all rolling stock which will be subject to RVAR from its scope and from Part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("DDA 1995"). Such vehicles would be brought within scope of the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2006 under which the PRM TSI applies.  Provisions relating to the application of standards consistent with those in the PRM TSI to stations not on the TEN were the subject of a separate consultation exercise.

In addition, the draft regulations maintain the Government’s commitment to a deadline by which time all trains must be accessible (which, for RVAR is required by the DDA 2005 to be no later than 1 January 2020).  By removing heavy rail from the scope of RVAR and Part 5 of the DDA 2005 this deadline, which was to have applied to all UK rail, would fall for heavy rail.  This would be contrary to the Government’s aims regarding the rights of disabled people, so a similar requirement to be accessible by 1 January 2020 (but within the European framework) is included in the Regulations for insertion into the legislation through which the PRM TSI is applied.  An end date of 1 January 2017 was considered as an alternative, although this was not the Government’s preference.

Accessible formats

The consultation paper was produced in large print, audio and easy read formats (at www.dft.gov.uk/162259/165220/338731/easyread).

Responses

42 responses were received, including 15 from train operating companies, owning groups and their representatives, 19 from other organisations with a rail industry interest (including rolling stock leasing companies, trade unions and groups representing passengers) while seven responses were received from groups representing disabled people.

Summary of responses

The consultation paper asked 7 specific questions.  They are reproduced in bold below together with a summary of the responses received.  Four relate specifically to the Regulations (ie question numbers 2, 5, 6, and 7).  The three other questions took soundings on related matters beyond the scope of the Regulations themselves.  The related matters were implementation of optional transitional provisions in the PRM TSI, the implementation of PRM TSI standards when carrying minor refurbishment works and unifying the RVAR enforcement regime for light rail with the interoperability enforcement regime for heavy rail.

Question 1: Do you agree that new vehicles of an existing design ordered before 1 January 2010 should continue to comply with the technical standards to which they were designed (RVAR) rather than the PRM TSI?

Of those who expressed a preference, all respondents agreed that it was sensible for the UK to adopt the optional transitional provisions for the period between 1 July 2008, when the PRM TSI comes into force, and 1 January 2010.  In particular these provisions would enable new trains of an existing design type (compliant with RVAR standards) to be ordered without their needing to comply with the PRM TSI if the purchase contract is signed during this transitional period.

Question 2: Do you agree that Option C provides the most clarity whilst safeguarding current levels of accessibility?

Of those who expressed a preference, there was overall agreement to the principle that RVAR and Part 5 of the DDA 1995 should be disapplied from heavy rail vehicles to avoid dual regulation once the PRM TSI comes into force. 

Option C received the most support from respondents, including all disability organisations and some train operating and rolling stock companies ("ROSCOs"), as it was felt to provide the most clarity, as only one regulatory regime would apply, whilst obliging train operators to maintain their vehicles to the accessibility standards to which they were built.  However, a significant number of other train operators and ROSCOs expressed a preference for Option A.  Although Option A would leave existing heavy rail vehicles unregulated until they underwent refurbishment, it was argued that DfT could use the franchise management process or existing domestic safety requirements to ensure continued compliance with accessibility standards.

There was no support for Option B as respondents indicated that it would be unwieldy and create potential uncertainty. 

Question 3: Do you agree that the applicable standards in the PRM TSI should apply, within the planned scope of refurbishment works, regardless of their scale?

Of those who expressed a preference, train operators and ROSCOs were concerned by the proposals for regulating refurbishments.  They felt that requiring the industry to apply the PRM TSI to all refurbishments (without regard to their scale) would be inconsistent with the application of other TSIs, where a differentiation between major and minor works is made.  Concerns were also expressed that this would discourage operators from carrying out refurbishments owing to increased costs.  Some train operating companies were concerned about the risk of 'scope creep' and sought reassurance that they would not be required to apply accessibility standards during refurbishments to areas that were not being worked on.

Although the Department's 'targeted compliance' approach was generally welcomed, train operators and ROSCOs were keen to have assurance that any minor non-compliances accepted now would not be reopened by Notified Bodies when they were assessing works undertaken in future.

Question 4: Do you agree that a single enforcement regime is the best way forward if this proves legally possible?

Of those who expressed a preference, there was broad agreement that a single enforcement regime was desirable.  However, respondents expressed mixed views over the form this should take.  There was some agreement that it would be logical for the Office of Rail Regulation to take on a single enforcement role across both heavy and light rail vehicles, provided it was properly resourced to do so.  However, many train operators felt that compliance could be enforced via existing safety management legislation. 

Light rail and heritage operators expressed concerns over the potential use of criminal enforcement powers in the Health & Safety at Work Act and would prefer HM Railway Inspectorate to act as the enforcement body for RVAR using the civil powers provided for this purpose in the DDA 2005 instead.

Disability stakeholders were keen that any enforcement regime should include a clear and workable complaints procedure.

Question 5: Do you agree that there should be an obligation to remain compliant once heavy rail vehicles are removed from the scope of RVAR?

Of those who expressed a preference, there was overall agreement that there should be a requirement for those vehicles taken out of the scope of RVAR to be maintained to the accessibility standards described in RVAR.

However, many responses from train operators queried the proposed mechanism for achieving this ie "deeming" existing vehicles to be authorised for the purposes of interoperability thereby triggering the duty to maintain vehicles to the standards to which they were built.  They suggested that they were already obliged, through the safety regime under the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems Regulations 2006, to maintain vehicles to the standards to which they were built.   

Question 6: Do you agree that an end date of 1 January 2020 represents the best balance between the legitimate aspirations of persons with reduced mobility and the operating realities of the industry?

While disability groups and trade unions would have liked an earlier end date, there was a broad acceptance by them that 2020 was a reasonable compromise.  It was noted that the rail industry had been aware of, and was already required to work towards 2020 as an end date under RVAR for some time.  The option of a 1 January 2017 end date therefore attracted little support from these groups.  More emphasis was placed by them on the need to manage the refurbishment process to ensure that a large number of non-complaint vehicles did not remain at the end of 2019.  

Many of the train operating companies expressed a view that an end date was artificial and should be abandoned in favour of addressing accessibility on a rolling basis via the franchising process and the introduction of new trains.  Concern was raised that setting an end date could create a stock shortage if this caused older vehicles to be withdrawn from service.  Operators also argued that setting an end date would limit potential for the use of European rolling stock in the UK.  Some expressed scepticism as to the validity of the legal mechanism proposed to achieve the deadline.

Operators also queried why vehicles were subject to an end date when no such date was proposed for station accessibility. 

Question 7: Do you agree that this impact assessment presents a realistic representation of the costs and benefits of the Regulations?

Of those who expressed a view, there were some concerns from train operating companies that the PRM TSI encompassed a wider scope than RVAR and could therefore have greater cost implications. 

Disability organisations in particular believed that the Impact Assessment did not reflect in monetary terms the benefits to the economy of an accessible railway network, particularly in terms of increased social inclusion and set against the context of an aging population.  They also argued that there were wider benefits to operators from improved dwell times.

Others agreed that the impact assessment represented a realistic interpretation of the costs and benefits of the Regulations.

Miscellaneous comments

Various miscellaneous comments were received.  For example, it was suggested by one respondent that funding could be made available for vehicle accessibility improvements through a competition, in a manner similar to the Department's "Access for All" fund for improving the accessibility of railway stations.

Disability groups felt it was important for the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC, the Department's statutory advisers on the public passenger transport needs of disabled people) to have a continuing role in considering rail accessibility matters.

Some respondents used the exercise to comment on broader issues

concerning rail accessibility which were outside the direct scope of the consultation.  These included suggestions for changes to some of the specific provisions in RVAR and the PRM TSI, such as floor slopes, control buttons and recognition of gender issues.

Outcomes

No strong objections were received to the principle of removing all heavy rail vehicles which will be subject to PRM TSI from the scope of RVAR and Part 5 of the DDA 1995, or that operators should be obliged to continue operating them to accessibility standards.  

Arguments were again presented for reversing the Government’s policy regarding an end date by which time all rail vehicles must be accessible, the principle of which received Parliament’s support in the DDA 2005. The Government has been committed since 2001 to setting such a deadline and it forms a key part of its broader strategy to ensure that disabled people are able to fully participate in society.  Indeed, the Department is already working with the rail industry to ensure delivery of accessibility in the most effective manner.

Next steps

As a result of some of the comments, there is a need to further develop:

• proposals for the regulation of smaller refurbishments; and
• the potential for vehicle accessibility on light rail to be enforced in a manner consistent with that on heavy rail in the future.

The Department intends to work with key stakeholders to progress these issues over the coming months and will undertake further consultation as appropriate.

However, since these issues do not arise directly from the provisions of the Regulations, Ministers have decided to proceed towards its implementation. 

To facilitate this, the Regulations were laid (in draft) in Parliament on 21 May.  They will now be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and, subject to its agreement, will come into force as soon as possible (and preferably by 1 July 2008 when the PRM TSI comes into force).