Official Report 563KB pdf
Welcome to the first meeting in 2011 of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. I wish everyone a happy new year. I hope that you have had a decent break. I remind members and everybody else who is present that all mobile electronic devices should be switched off, and not simply set to silent mode.
Thank you for your wishes for the new year, which I reciprocate on behalf of MACS.
Leaving aside your comments about decisions that have yet to be taken, can you tell us in general how the Scottish Government has acted on advice that MACS has provided during 2009-10?
Many of the recommendations in our report are not directed towards the Scottish Government. A lot of them focus on the way in which local authorities work with the Scottish Government. We made recommendations about such things as Transport Scotland’s “Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads”, which includes material on training for operators; the ferries review; and shared surfaces. Those are issues in relation to which we need the co-operation and good will of Transport Scotland—although, of course, we are part of Transport Scotland now—and local authorities as much as we need the help of the Scottish Government. However, the biggest problem that we face involves securing the co-operation of local authorities.
Would you care to speculate on the reasons for that?
I would rather explain what the problems are.
Has MACS had discussions with the local authorities that have not taken up that offer, to explore their reasons?
No, but the staff member in Transport Scotland who deals with standards is trying to encourage them to take up the training. I hope that this committee will be able, through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or some other such organisation, to encourage them to do so, too. We really welcomed Transport Scotland’s guide—frankly, it is one of the best good practice guides that we have seen.
So local authorities are being actively approached, as things stand.
Yes, they are.
We will have a couple of questions later in the meeting specifically on shared surfaces, so we will explore your reasoning on that a little further.
My question is about the implementation of particular things.
We will come back to that. Marlyn Glen has a question on a separate issue.
It goes back to the first question. I invite Anne MacLean to name the four local authorities that have taken up the offer of training. If there is good practice, people should be named so that they can be praised and other people can see how it is done.
I completely agree, but unfortunately I do not have that information with me. I can find out tomorrow and let the committee know.
That would be appreciated.
Transport Scotland has done a very good job in relation to MACS. Now that we are part of Transport Scotland, rather than being a non-departmental public body under the transport directorate of the Scottish Government, things are becoming even easier. We have a very good relationship with the officer concerned with standards, and we are getting involved in the roads for all forum, for example, which works very well and is a model that we would like to spread among other operators. MACS has participated in roads for all conferences and a MACS member sits on the forum.
In general, has transport provision for disabled people improved during 2009-10?
There is a difference between Transport Scotland, and how it deals with roads, bus stops and so on, and transport providers.
Given the importance of staff attitudes, I am sure that you would always say that there is room for improvement. Has there been improvement during the most recent year?
That is difficult to answer. Training is given to staff, but people move on. Turnover of staff among train, bus and ferry operators is probably as good or bad as it is across the workplace as a whole. It is about keeping up the momentum. Operators must not think that because they have provided training once, that is it; there must be a continuous process of keeping staff trained in disability awareness issues. We could give you examples of excellent assistance; we could also give you examples of experiences at the other end of the scale, perhaps at the hands of the same operator.
You talked about access to buses and the need for staff awareness and you mentioned infrastructure. There is an issue to do with buses that are not accessible. Sometimes people with disabilities have to wait for an hour rather than 15 minutes or half an hour, because they cannot get on the bus that arrives. Are you picking up on those issues? How do we change the situation?
Unfortunately, the legislation regarding accessible buses and coaches is still a good few years ahead. I mentioned the pilot scheme for accessible bus stops. They are fine, and everything can be done to make a bus stop the best that it can be, but that is no good if people cannot actually get on the bus because there are no low-level buses. There are areas with very good bus services. There are low-level buses in East Lothian, for example, whereas we would be lucky to find even one or two such buses in the Highlands. Unfortunately, that is covered by UK legislation. It would be nice if all buses were accessible, but the trouble lies with the legislation, which—I look to my colleagues to confirm this—will come in in 2018.
The goalposts have been moved on that.
Elsewhere in our report we discussed community transport and demand-responsive transport, and concerns arose about studies that were done on that. Andrew Holmes is perhaps better placed to discuss our concerns over the latest study on community transport and DRT, which seems to be going nowhere.
One of my colleagues will explore the whole issue around community transport, so I will not go down that route.
On future budget cuts, I was the MACS representative on the national transport strategy stakeholder group, which was going to do a refresh programme. In the initial discussions on that, I was very keen to get it across that the one thing that I did not want to be attacked if transport budgets were to be cut—for ferries, trains, buses or whatever—was disabled access and disability training: in other words, everything that makes it easier for disabled people to use public transport. People might have viewed such provision as being at the bottom of the heap.
How does MACS ensure that its work programme complements the work of related organisations? What scope is there for MACS to set its own agenda?
As you know, MACS is not a campaigning group but an advisory committee to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. I know that the committee wants to talk about community transport and demand-responsive transport—I spoke to the then Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in September, and he made a speech to the Community Transport Association, in which he recognised that DRT and community transport could provide access to transport for a range of people, not just disabled people, which could fill in gaps where bus providers have no longer been able to run a service.
Is there scope for MACS to set its own agenda? You are flagging up issues, but can you set the agenda or does Transport Scotland do that?
That is why we want to concentrate on looking at good practice on community transport and DRT. You said that another member wants to ask about that, but that is where we think that MACS can be of some help.
How does MACS monitor the effectiveness of its work?
That is difficult. We can monitor the effectiveness of our work through things such as the roads for all forum and the Scottish rail accessibility forum. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent body for buses, ferries or aeroplanes. This is not in our annual report, but when we met the minister we suggested that a forum similar to the roads for all forum should be set up that covers all forms of public transport. The minister was considering that.
What were the key highlights for the work of MACS and its working committees during 2009-10?
I do not like to sound depressed, but one of our highlights was that local authorities wanted to take up the training from Transport Scotland, but that ended up not being a highlight at all, as it happens.
That is positive.
It is horrendous. For disabled people, the issue is getting to the bus stop or train station or other public transport. As Marlyn Glen knows, I come from the Highlands, where there have been problems, but I am sure that the situation has not been much better in other places. Although roads may be cleared, pavements are not. I do not blame the local authorities for all of that. If people, in clearing their paths, pile the snow on the pavement because they just want to get their car out, I am sorry, but that problem is up to individuals. The only thing that I could ask of local authorities is to please tell people not to do that. When people behave in that way in clearing their drive, even if there are vehicles that clear pavements, they cannot do so because there is a great heap of frozen snow blocking the pavement. Sorry, but I have a bee in my bonnet about that subject.
So the issue is with pavements in particular.
Yes, because disabled people who cannot drive and who want to access public transport have to reach it. I do not care whether the distance to be walked is only 5yd or 50yd; the fact is that a lot of people cannot use the pavements. You see a lot of fit pedestrians walking on the road. Many disabled people would be very reluctant to walk on the road and they would certainly not want to take a wheelchair on the road. I would not want to go on the road with a guide dog. The same is true of people who are slow. We are not talking just about people who have what one might consider to be a severe disability; even just people who are slow, because they use a stick or cannot move very quickly, are affected.
The other aspect is the need for good information, particularly when services are disrupted. Having good information is even more important for a disabled person.
That is true.
Thank you for that.
Yes, we did.
How will you do that now? How will MACS have input on issues relating to the transport needs of disabled people at a UK level? Is there another way of doing that?
The UK Government says that it is consulting on DPTAC replacement. That is as much as I know. There are serious concerns because there are many issues, such as ferry design and taxi design, for which responsibility is not devolved. We had feed-in on such matters through DPTAC. At the moment, we have no idea how that will be accommodated in the future.
Okay. That is worrying.
Yes, it is—very worrying.
Finally, what is your view on the current level of funding and secretariat support for MACS? Is it adequate?
I think that I said earlier that we do not have our own budget any more, as you probably know. The other members of MACS are paid for up to a day a month and I am paid for up to two days a month. We have about a third of three people. I would like to pay tribute to the MACS secretariat because, within those constraints, I do not think that we could get a better service than the one that the three staff—Bill Brash, Jean Goldie and Linda Craik—and their predecessors have provided.
Thank you very much.
Hello. It is nice to see you here this afternoon.
As I said, we did not intend to write our own guide, as DPTAC had produced a very good one. The problem is that DPTAC’s training guidance is based on research that was done in England. The secretariat is looking at that to see whether we can use it or whether we ought to be talking to other parts of the Scottish Government that have budgets and which might do some research for us so that we know what to base our good practice training guidance on.
It would not be the first time that experience from south of the border has been used for Scotland. That has happened with evidence on walking, cycling and many other issues.
That is absolutely right. We are being cautious because it is equally easy for people to say, “Oh, that’s England.”
Indeed—possibly. It is interesting that that could be a barrier to progress.
We have not got that far on the training for operators. We are still at the stage of looking at the guidance that DPTAC produced. When DPTAC was still in existence and not about to be wound up, we had to get its agreement to use the guidance. That was easily forthcoming; there is no point in reinventing the wheel. Once we have looked at the guidance carefully and adapted it—there are bits that have to be changed because some things are different in Scotland—we will use whatever means we can to ensure that training is provided. We are talking about not so much local authorities, but operators. Although some local authorities operate bus services, there are a great many bus companies in Scotland, so if we want to train staff we must get to the bus operators, as well as the train and ferry operators, rather than the local authorities or RTPs, albeit that they can help.
The majority of public transport services of one form or another across Scotland are the subject of contracts, franchises or whatever. If we can get in place a standardised training manual, the contracting authorities can include it as part of the conditions of the contract, franchise or whatever. If authorities then take it upon themselves to monitor whether the training is taking place, we will be there.
That is valuable as work in progress. Indeed, with franchises coming up for railways and so forth, it is a live issue for this committee in terms of our input.
Andrew chairs the working group.
Some initial work has been done inside the Scottish Government. It is yet to appear on the Government website, but the previous Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change endorsed it. The work stops at a particular point in terms of an assessment of the situation.
The situation in Highland is that local government and the national health service board will take on particular responsibilities—in the case of the NHS, for adult services. That must make it important that you speak to them about the way in which they will interact with you.
That is another example, but again it is an example of somebody doing their own thing. It is not that that is not the right way to approach it, but there are issues like that across Scotland, particularly in terms of hospital transport—patient and visitor transport—and a wider view is needed. Perhaps that will come out of the Audit Scotland work; of course, the Scottish Ambulance Service is no longer a participant in that.
Indeed. Circumstances suggest to me that a range of officers from different departments need to be involved with MACS and that that is possibly a way forward in this particular case—
Cathy Peattie has a supplementary question on community transport.
Andrew Holmes talked about people getting together to look at good community transport. I wonder whether MACS is hearing what I hear, which is that the good community transport that is operating at the moment is facing budget cuts. I know from experience that it is not easy to set up a community transport project and to keep vehicles on the road. I know that MACS cannot change that, but what information is coming to MACS and how is that going forward to Transport Scotland and, ultimately, to the minister? I am concerned that we will lose good organisations and that no one will do anything until it is too late.
That goes back to the dissemination of good practice. Ultimately, it is about local funding decisions. There is also an issue that it would perhaps be useful for Audit Scotland to shine its spotlight on, which is the variety of transport being used by different elements of the community within the same geographical area, but not necessarily with any co-ordination. For example, schools own transport that is used for pupils, and there are community-based schemes that, depending on the area, have historically received subsidies from the local authority. It goes back to what I said earlier about there being a postcode and resource lottery. I think that everybody we have talked to recognises that it is not satisfactory not to know the variety of resources that could be brought to bear in a single geographical area and the potential efficiencies that might come out of that. Again, that is something for central Government guidance and perhaps one or two best-practice pieces of work.
There is another aspect to this. I live in an area where a transport company has won a number of awards. I know that what it finds useful is not just how it can get more money out of the local authority from whichever budget, but where else it can go to get funds. It is about information regarding, for example, what can be got from LEADER, the Big Lottery Fund Scotland or from various charitable organisations that are interested in disability, young people, transport and so on. If you are sitting down and you have nothing, the question is: where do you start? There is a fund of information out there. It is about pulling it together and allowing people to see what best suits them.
Have you picked up any frustration with regard to the fact that people who can get to the accessible bus stops that you mentioned can travel free on buses while those who are stuck in their house and need special community transport cannot? Should there be some other way of funding community transport organisations? Why should they be the poor relation?
That is a very interesting question. For example, there is a good community transport scheme in my area that runs cars as well as a bus, but you have to pay for it. However, in one of the bits of this particular ward, there is a DRT bus on which you can use your card. I have not been able to find out why that is the case. It is bizarre, and it shows that the situation is even more complicated than you have indicated.
Thank you for your response, but I have to say that it seems to me to be discrimination.
I did not say that I did not agree with you—I simply said that we have not discussed the issue.
We touched on shared surfaces earlier. Your report recommended that
Only to stress their urgency. Since the publication of “Designing Streets”, the feeling that shared surfaces are a good idea has spread to the development not just of town centres but of new housing schemes and so on. MACS’s view is that it is not a good idea but, if it is going to be implemented, those involved in such schemes need to talk to the people who will be affected worst—who are, I have to say, people with disabilities. Do not misunderstand me—other people will also be affected—but people with disabilities are at greatest risk from shared surfaces.
With regard to your earlier question on the effect of budget cuts, I should say that the whole point of using an access consultant is to get things right first time. After all, it is much more expensive to go back and try to remedy something. To get the most out of any budget, you should try to get things right first time.
I am pleased that some work is happening on shared surfaces, albeit that it is slow. Have you picked up any frustration from people on mobility scooters, for example, or those who have to walk slowly, about not being able to use accessible pavements because they have big vans on them? Although there is shared space, are people finding that they cannot use pavements because of vehicles in the road?
Because of vehicles in the road?
I am sorry—I meant vehicles parking on the pavement.
Ah, now. I come back to Transport Scotland’s “Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads”, which covers not just vehicles parking on pavements but all aspects of the issue. Incidentally, until only recently, I had thought that it was illegal to park on the pavement, but I have since discovered that London is the only place where that is the case.
It must be some local government byelaw.
Indeed. To be quite blunt, I would like it to be illegal for selfish people to park on the pavement, as such a move would help not just the disabled, but a whole range of others.
That illustrates an issue that has come before successive Scottish Governments. There is a legislative gap in this regard. It is clear in legislation that sandwich boards may not be put on pavements without consent, but it is possible to park a car on a pavement without any risk of prosecution, as that is not, in itself, an offence. In the view of many organisations, that requires to be changed, whatever element of parliamentary time is necessary to do that and to get the message across.
I wish to explore the general issue a bit further. I agree strongly with some of the comments that have been made about street furniture. In Glasgow, the positioning of bus shelters sometimes makes it impossible for anybody, disability or no disability, to walk past them or to move a buggy or trolley along the adjacent pavement.
You have also visited Inverness, clearly.
It might be a widespread issue. There seems to be an opportunity, if the design process is handled correctly and if it is inclusive and participative, for the general approach to shared surfaces to increase the accessibility of the built environment for everybody. Whether or not a pedestrian has a disability, if some drivers simply do not recognise pedestrians as legitimate road users or if the built environment encourages drivers not to behave in that way, everybody’s accessibility is reduced. If we get the design right, everybody’s shared use of the built environment, however they are getting about—whether they are driving, walking or in a wheelchair—could be enhanced. Is it the general approach of MACS that the process needs to be right? Is there a deeper concern with the general concept of shared surfaces in principle?
The process has got to be right. It is a problem that there is currently no concept of what a clear delineator might be if it is not a kerb. That is important for people who use a long cane, who might use the kerb as a guide. Some people might say that they could use the wall. I am sorry, but for someone who is walking against pedestrians coming the other way, that is not the answer.
Okay.
I am not saying that we are totally opposed to shared surfaces, but we must have delineators for those people who have disabilities or those who have memory issues—a whole range of people, as I said. When all this started, it was seen as an issue solely for the visually impaired. I know that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association held an evening in the Scottish Parliament and a lot of MSPs came along to it. I talked to someone who was there in a wheelchair and someone said to him that the issue was just about people with visual impairment. The gentleman said to him, “I will tell you something. You come down to my height in my wheelchair and try to make eye contact with a man who is driving a white van.” He was making a point.
Or with anyone in any vehicle on a sunny day.
That is absolutely right. That is why delineators are so important.
I just wanted to explore the general approach to the issue.
I have a couple of questions on projects in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I notice that you have made a couple of recommendations for the trams in Edinburgh. You said that it is necessary for the Scottish ministers to encourage Transport Initiatives Edinburgh to consult disabled persons organisations and stakeholders. Why is that still necessary at such a late stage, ironically enough, in the design of the trams project, if not its implementation?
I do not think that we have a problem with the tram design. Our problem is with where the tram stops are.
I meant the design of the network and how it will be implemented. Your problem is with the tram stops in particular. My concern is that such issues are still having to be raised. We are a long way into the process from when TIE started the project. I see from your annual report that TIE gave a presentation earlier this year—I am not sure whether that was in 2010 or 2009—and I am concerned that that came quite late. Was that the first time that MACS had heard from TIE or had it been more involved than is hinted at?
TIE was probably discussing issues with the Edinburgh Access Panel and other local organisations for the disabled. We got a presentation from TIE about the design. I am looking at my colleagues here for confirmation that it was in 2010.
It was in early 2010.
Our main problem is with where the stops are. As I understand it, there is an explanation for why there cannot be a stop near Waverley station. That leads to the question why Haymarket is to be the hub. Trains from the south and east come into Edinburgh at Waverley, which has bookshops, food outlets, cafes and whatever. Haymarket has nothing—I exaggerate for effect, but it has very little—and it does not have good access. Waverley station will eventually get its lift up to Princes Street, so we do not understand why there cannot be a tram stop close by. That people might have to get off the train at Waverley and travel to Haymarket to pick up the tram seems to be absolutely bizarre.
Has TIE responded to that? Is the issue closed as far as TIE is concerned? I would be surprised if it is still considering where to put tram stops. Has TIE left you with any openings for developments or improvements, or is the issue closed?
I think that we will pass on that. Could we come back to you, please?
It would be interesting to know whether TIE is at least being frank about whether the issue is done and dusted—whether you have had it and it is too late to make improvements. It would be interesting to know how open TIE is being with you.
Convener, is it all right if we come back to the committee on that?
That would be helpful—thank you.
That would be appreciated.
We have passed that matter to the Glasgow Access Panel. If the Glasgow airport rail link had gone ahead, parking at Glasgow Central would have been a major issue for us. However, as GARL is not to proceed, the issue is not for MACS, so we have passed it to the Glasgow Access Panel.
One issue that has been hinted at but which we have not got to is the Commonwealth games. I give you the opportunity to express your concerns, which we have not explored in detail.
Grahame Lawson will tell you all about our concerns in relation to the Commonwealth games and transport.
That depends how long we have.
That is a concern. Why has that situation arisen? What are the barriers to achieving a solution?
That goes back to an earlier question, which was on training, and relates to a lack of awareness. In general, people are not aware of disabled people’s needs. People perhaps think of a wheelchair user, but that is the tip of the iceberg—disabled people include people with learning difficulties, visual impairments and hearing impairments. A range of people’s needs, which are all different, must be considered. There is a general lack of awareness and of training.
The Government’s ferries review has been mentioned. On disabled people’s travel needs, MACS responded to five of the 33 questions that were posed for the review. Would you like to expand on that?
Because what MACS does is comment on the needs of the disabled traveller, we restricted our response to the seven points—A to G—about disabled access that are set out in chapter 6, paragraph 9 of the Scottish ferries review consultation document. I will not read them all out.
You said in your annual report that MACS and other disability organisations should be consulted before the ferries plan is finalised. Will that be sufficient?
Yes. In the letter from David Middleton we have been told that we can be part of the process from now on—I am sorry, but because I have difficulty reading I am not sure that I can find that bit in the letter.
The lead-up to that would involve MACS expressing concern about the language that has been used—
Yes. Then we will start working with Transport Scotland. That is what the head of Transport Scotland has offered us.
If members have no further questions, do the panel members want to raise issues that have not come up in questions?
No thank you, convener. We think that we have covered everything that we wanted to cover. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for yours, too. I appreciate your joining us to answer our questions.
Previous
Attendance