Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee: Report

HL Deb 10 February 1993 vol 542 cc641-70

3.1 p.m.

Baroness Stedman rose to call attention to the sixth annual report of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should first like to pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) not just for the annual report but for the other specialised and detailed reports which they produce from time to time. They show a deep understanding of the problems of those with every kind of disability as they try to journey around our cities and our countryside.

This document reminds us that it is not just people with physical disabilities who need help to use public transport, but those with other disabilities, such as parents with prams, buggies and young children, the elderly, and those with heavy baggage and shopping. Over 6 million people in the United Kingdom have some disability. They include 2.5 million who have access to a household car, and 3.75 million who do not. Over 4 million people have a serious mobility problem, and 500,000 of them use wheelchairs. The easier the access to public transport, the more those persons will be able to use it, or to increase their use of it.

The Department of Transport Disability Unit report for 1990 said that its research suggested that there was a new market of up to 40 per cent. of disabled persons who could start to use buses and coaches, or use them more often, if those buses and coaches were easier to get on and off. Those extra passengers could amount to some 2.3 million people. Surely that is an incentive to go out and get on with the job.

The report that we are discussing is wide-ranging. Basically it deals with the pedestrian environment, the bus industry and education and training for mobility. The summary begins: Accessibility in the pedestrian environment is fundamental for removing mobility handicaps".

We all know that to be true. We have all experienced uneven footpaths, ill-sited seats and litter bins, cars parking on pavements, cycles strewn around, even being ridden on footpaths, indiscriminate parking at bus stops by cars and vans, no ramps to get up kerbs, and insufficient tactile paving for the blind.

If that kind of obstruction takes place, then mobility handicap is the result, and any effort to make other modes of transport accessible is virtually impossible. It is an interesting statistic that three-quarters of all pedestrians admitted to hospital after accidents have suffered injury by falling on the pavement. What cost is that to the NHS?

On education and training in transport for mobility, I hope for the widest possible publicity for other reports by the same advisory committee—the DPTAC Catechism and the Pilgrim's Progress. I endorse that committee's fervent hope that the next generation of people in charge of public transport will understand the scale and nature of their future markets and how best to serve them.

I want to concentrate most of my time on the bus industry and some serious factual conclusions contained in the report. It says: that because of a combination of adverse conditions in the past, at present and in the all too near future—and in spite of determined efforts by management with all matters in its control—neither the bus operating industry nor the bus manufacturing industry in Britain can now be expected to perform so as to prevent harm to society unless transitional help is provided".

The report goes on to judge that, given transitional help, the two industries could produce positive new advantages to society within a few years and on an increasing scale".

I believe that what comes out of the report is the knowledge that some of the suggested recommendations needed to be acted upon urgently so that the industry can survive in the immediate future, and that there will still be available such forms of economic services which are needed in both urban and rural areas.

So what is happening? The Department of Transport is sponsoring a series of experiments on bus priorities and other measures to encourage people to use public transport. The department is also supporting experiments with low-floored buses. In this House on 19th February 1990, the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, on behalf of the Government, said that four demonstration vehicles had been touring the country for 18 months. That takes us back to 1988. The noble Viscount went on to say that time would be needed to sort out any technical and operational problems.

It is now February 1993. How much more time does the department need? Is the Minister in a position to express an opinion on the result of those experiments? Is he aware that in Germany and Holland, low-floored designs are in wide use and it is accepted that not only people with disabilities but everyone else can use the same bus? Those experiments are good, but five years on and in the light of what is happening in Germany and Holland, will the Minister assure the House that there will be no delay in action taken to consider the bus industry's difficulties?

More accessible vehicles introduced into mainstream transport must surely be to the benefit of all users, and widen the opportunity to use public transport regularly for those who at present cannot get onto a bus. I accept that with deregulation and privatisation it is the bus industry which has to decide the level of its investment. The Bus and Coach Council statistics for 1991–92, using the department's own figures, show that by 1990–91 the average ratio of the industry's pre-tax profit to turnover declined to 1.5 per cent. and returns on capital to 4.2 per cent. That is not a sound base for investment. What powers can local authorities be encouraged to use to provide capital grants to assist in buying buses with the DPTAC specifications?

In his Autumn Statement on 12th November 1992, the Chancellor said: I propose, however, to allow a time-limited relaxation of the rules governing local authorities' use of their future capital receipts. The existing rules allow them to spend only 25 per cent. of their housing receipts and 50 per cent. of their other receipts. With certain exceptions, local authorities will now be entitled to spend all the capital receipts that they realise between tomorrow and the end of December 1993".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/92; col. 997.]

That statement was amplified on the same day by the Secretary of State for Transport who said: The temporary relaxation of the rules about capital receipts would provide extra resources for local authorities to spend, at their discretion, on public transport and roads".

Can the Minister give the House any information as to if and how that money is being spent? What active encouragement has the department given to local authorities to spend some of its capital receipts in this way? If Section 106 grants can be used for disabled, user-friendly buses for subsidised services, as DPTAC proposes, will the Government come out loudly and clearly in support of what people with disabilities need?

I recommend to the House paragraphs 30 to 50 of the report which give detailed statistical evidence on which the conclusions are based. They deal with the reduction in passenger travel, the effects of deregulation, privatisation and intensified competition. They tell of the incidence of fuel duty, of the loss of local bus grants, of reduction in annual support from public funds and of the financial difficulties which face the manufacturers and operators in the bus and coach industries.

We have seen staff reductions and a reduction in operating costs. We have seen a reduction in the size of coaches because smaller ones are more commercially viable than 53-seaters or the double-deckers. However, that only allows the fleet of the larger vehicles to age with a slower rate of replacements, and fewer additions to the fleet. In today's conditions the industry is left with the job of making a profit and showing a return to shareholders. Passenger fares have increased. The competition from the car and the recession means that the number of passenger journeys has fallen. In 1985–86 the National Travel Service suggested that 4 per cent. of the total population, including 11 per cent. of the elderly, had difficulty in walking and if they could reach buses they could not use them in their present form. There is therefore a need for the bus industry to look at the way in which a vehicle is designed and operated.

In June 1988 DPTAC developed its specifications which suggested low cost ways of making buses more readily available and more user friendly, not only to people with mobility handicaps but to all users. Many hundreds of low-floor buses now operate in Europe. The design makes buses easier to board and alight even with a wheelchair, buggy or pram. They are also quicker and easier for everyone else who uses the bus, thus saving time at bus stops. Indeed, operators in Germany and Holland have stated that they can provide the same service with fewer buses, thus helping to relieve congestion on their roads. Why cannot the DPTAC specifications be incorporated into the construction and use standards to which all new vehicles must conform? Cannot that be done by order, or is legislation required?

Another benefit from having an accessible and reliable means of public transport is that the legal restrictions can be made on the use of cars in congested cities if the quality of the vehicle and the standard of the bus service is made more attractive. The bus manufacturing industry has faced similar problems of costs, financial restraints and reduced orders leading to a fall in the purchase of new buses by 31 per cent. in 1991 and a rate of sales of new buses which would not replace the fleet in less than 25 years.

The Bus Industry Monitor indicates that the age of many buses still in service will dictate a significant growth in rebodying and refurbishing in coming years in the absence of major fleet replacements. However, rebodying and refurbishing means retaining the chassis, and it is the floor of the present day chassis which has to be superseded if we are to have low, step-free buses, with their advantage in marketing and operation.

In paragraph 98 of the report, the bus manufacturing industry states: Tell us what you will need and when you will want it and we will produce it".

But, first, those manufacturers will need reasonable assurances that what they then produce will be bought. The report goes on to suggest that government action could prescribe conditions which would effectively provide common ground. For example, as was done with London taxis, they could specify that after a certain date no new buses could operate on local services unless they conformed to DPTAC specifications; and that after another specified time no bus which did not conform would be allowed to continue in service. The same conditions could apply for long distance coaches.

Local authorities could also help by laying down terms of tenders for services they intend to subsidise, including the types of buses to be used. Only help at this time from public funds can assist the bus industry to be ready to act in good time.

The report accepts some of the side effects of the former new bus grants and suggests that any new grant from public funds should be directed at the bus operating industry rather than the manufacturing industry. It suggests that such a grant towards the acquisition of accessible buses might be payable to operators only as they scrap an equal number of buses of traditional design.

I conclude by referring to Appendix I. It points out that evidence shows that disabled persons able to use public transport means significantly fewer calls on domiciliary services; and that between £30,000 and £40,000 a year per 1,000 disabled people would be saved in that way with potential savings in excess of £200 million a year if all public transport were accessible. Accessible transport can play a very real role in enabling disabled people to continue living in the community rather than in institutional care.

Those are all valid reasons for doing something to improve transport. That would demonstrate that the cost of providing mobility is less than the cost of acquiescing in immobility. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.16 p.m.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for initiating the debate and to congratulate her on the very constructive way in which she did so. I emphasise the need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government in response to the DPTAC report, to which she referred. I, too, warmly congratulate the members on the production of the report. I declare an interest as vice-president of RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—which also welcomes the report, although it has some regrets to which I shall refer as I speak.

One of the advantages of this House is that because of our age structure we are better able to understand the needs of disabled people—many of whom are elderly—than perhaps applies to those in another place, or indeed to the population as a whole. The OPCS survey in 1988 on the prevalence of disability among adults found that 24 per cent. of people in their sixties, 40 per cent. of people in their seventies, and 70 per cent. of people aged 80 or over were affected by disability. That is a factor that we ought to bear in mind. The demographic structure of our population suggests that about 6 million people have mobility disabilities. It is suggested that by 2026 the figure will have increased to 7 million. We therefore have an increasing problem as the age structure of our population increases.

Nearly 50 per cent. of families in Britain have a car in the family. However, many elderly people live alone without a car, or with only one other companion who also is without a car. A substantial proportion of our population is dependent upon the family, some of whom may live far away and some of whom may not be able to provide transport at the time when the person needs it. Inevitably, that person becomes dependent upon public transport, and would find taxis very taxing on income.

The National Travel Survey in 1985–86 shows that 11 per cent. of the elderly population can use buses if they can reach them. That is a big "if" because for many people a bus stop is often at a considerable distance from where they live. That applies especially if those people are in wheelchairs. Nineteen per cent. of the elderly population have difficulties in walking. If they can reach a bus, they cannot use it as it is presently designed. That point was made strongly in the report and by the noble Baroness in introducing the Motion. Thus the design of buses is critical to increasing the mobility of disabled and elderly people. That is a problem which must be tackled as a matter of urgency. It will not be good enough if the Government say, "Well, we're strapped for funds". We are always strapped for funds. It is a matter of deciding on our priorities. As a society we have a debt to pay to disabled and elderly people.

The importance to the disabled person of having buses designed to meet their needs hardly requires emphasis. Perhaps I may refer to paragraph 84 of the DPTAC report which states: Low floor design goes to the heart of the main cause of mobility handicap in using buses by making it easy to board and to alight; and possible to do so from the kerb even in a wheelchair or with a buggy or a pram. But the same feature makes it easy and quick for everyone else to use the bus; and time is saved at bus stops in operating the bus, particularly if off-bus ticketing is used. So much time has been saved in this way that operators in Germany and the Netherlands have found it possible to provide the same services with fewer buses". That point needs to be emphasised, and it is important that we should begin to learn some of the lessons from other countries which are ahead of us. I am thinking of our Community partners who are ahead of us in providing that facility.

Bearing in mind the public anxiety about safety, the need for the reduction of pollution and traffic congestion, the design of new buses is crucially important. I wish also to refer to another of the paragraphs in the report (paragraph 89) which states: For the industry there would be a new marketing opportunity. It would be offering something better for people who are already its customers; something better also for those who could have been its customers but have chosen not to be; something for those who would have had to give up using buses but can continue to use them in their … accessible form; and something for those who have not been using them because they have not been so accessible". To give the necessary boost to a change in the design and construction of buses demands government action. Time is of the essence; and it requires some form of government assistance in funding. The DPTAC report produced a code of practice for bus operators. It includes the provision of handrails on buses; for the handrails to be in bright contrasting colours and to be covered with plastic material which is easier for people to hold. The bell button should be lowered to a height which disabled people can reach from a seated position. The entrances should have split steps with appropriate handrails to enable people with a locomotive disability to get on to the bus more easily. I submit that none of those changes is expensive in any way. They are simply good common sense to enable disabled people to use the vehicles.

However, DPTAC specifically does not provide access for wheelchair users. The Government have announced that they will assist in the funding of some low-floor buses in the United Kingdom during this year. But during the UK presidency of the EC, the Secretary of State for Transport decided not to take forward an EC draft directive which would have required, from a future date, all buses to be accessible. I should like the Minister to answer the question why we did not take this opportunity during our year of presidency. It seems to me to have been another opportunity missed. The report which was published in October quite specifically urged the Government to take an initiative during the six months' period of our presidency. One might have thought that that would in some way have been a redeeming feature of an otherwise disastrous presidency for the United Kingdom.

A final word about pavements. They were mentioned in the report and just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. As she said, the report showed that three-quarters of pedestrians who are admitted to hospital after an accident have suffered injury by falling on the pavements. There is strong evidence, difficult to quantify, that the quality of pavements is decreasing rather than increasing as a result of local authority cuts in pavement repairs. I can vouch for that: in the area where I live in East Finchley, the quality of the footpaths has been so disturbed that for many people they are now dangerous.

It is important that we should not allow standards to slip at a time when needs are increasing. I appeal to the Government to see the urgency contained in the report and the urgency mentioned by the opening speaker in this short debate. The Government will receive full credit if they go forward and take a positive attitude towards the needs of disabled people.

3.26 p.m.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, it is very welcome that my noble friend Lady Stedman was successful in the ballot for a debate. It has given us the opportunity today to discuss the subject. I note that the Disabled Persons Transport and Advisory Committee, other-wise known as "Diptack", has chosen three main aspects of the subject on which to offer recommendations. I am amazed to learn that the National Consumer Council estimates that over half of all pedestrians who had to be kept in hospital for treatment did so as a result of pavement falls. How much more dangerous the uneven pavement must be to the visually handicapped person.

Although quite recently there have been notable improvements in the state of pavements generally, perhaps the most trying are those pavements which are heavily sloped. That must be a particular problem for someone in a wheelchair, not forgetting children in buggies or pushchairs. Pavement crossings—many of which are today well sloped—would perhaps be safer to use if a different coloured kerbstone were used. It would ensure a greater degree of safety.

The design of textured pavements to assist partially-sighted people is good, but they are, I fear, few in number. The sound to attract the attention of the blind or partially sighted is good, but sometimes it hardly gives time for a person to cross. The Royal National Institute for the Blind reports on a new audible signal called the "Bleep and Sweep" because of its distinctive sound. It gives four bleeps followed by a longer, rising tone. It is now available for use at staggered Pelican crossings. The loudness of the signal can be adjusted to enable the partially sighted or blind to hear it above the traffic, but it cannot be heard on the other side of the staggered crossing, which is essential if a partially blind person is to cross in safety.

There is a new form of crossing indicator called the Puffin which can be used instead of the Pelican crossing; it is the pedestrian user-friendly intelligent crossing and is so called because it can spot a person arriving at the crossing, able-bodied people or anyone with any form of disability who needs a longer time to cross. It enables the green man to remain long enough for someone to cross. As I understand it, it can regulate traffic to enable pushchairs or wheelchairs to cross. The Puffin need take only two or three seconds longer when needed and I understand that when no one needs it it can switch off to allow traffic to flow more freely.

The RNIB reports that 50 such Puffins are to be installed and tested. Can the Minister say whether one could be installed at the bottom of Bridge Street and Whitehall where traffic turns left for Westminster Bridge? The present little green man hardly gives time for a person to cross before the green has changed to red. It is a wide crossing, but the dangerous side is the one I have mentioned. Highway authorities have been given all the information they need from the Department of Transport to choose between a Puffin and a Pelican crossing.

One other tactile aid for the partially sighted is a little round knob in addition to the press button on a control box for pedestrians to cross at lights. When the green man shows, the round knob rotates. I do not know how many there are in use, but the Ministry of Transport knows and approves of it; so I hope it will become widely used.

With regard to unmanned stations, I note that the committee has expressed concern about the policy of leaving 1,000 railway stations unmanned. I wonder whether the Minister is yet able to say whether British Rail has reviewed the policy and explored the possibility of making greater use of tactile surfaces on platform edges. There are many other questions which concern BR. I do not wish to suggest that it does not have a very good record in relation to disabled people. But there are many trains which require one to press a button to open the carriage door on arrival at a station. I note that in many cases the buttons are obviously too high for a person in a wheelchair. What would happen to a solitary disabled passenger in a wheelchair on a platform at an unmanned station with no ramp to assist in boarding the train? But there are many good stations for disabled users. I wonder how privatisation of BR will affect what on the whole is currently an excellent service for disabled people.

I draw particular attention to a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaking on an Unstarred Question on disabled transport, when he said: However, even if you can understand the actor's voice it is not much help if you are on the wrong train to be told the destination after you have left the station of embarkation. Surely the announcement should be made before the train leaves the station".—[Official Report, 19/2/90; col. 122.] Certainly on the InterCity trains that I use from King's Cross announcements are made of places where the train is to call several minutes before it leaves, and more than once. Similarly, at York the destinations of trains are announced clearly and they are often repeated several times, apart from the display on the electronic visual boards. We must be grateful to the noble Lord for what I am sure must have encouraged British Rail to make this improvement at some, if not all, stations.

There is one very important point made by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the need for visual displays or indicators. Many deaf people who travel regularly have watched in dismay their train empty of other passengers as they obeyed the tannoyed instructions to continue their journey from somewhere else. At the present time, when there are not infrequent alerts for security reasons and orders to clear a station, it is imperative that there should be some form of easy display or indicator for the hard of hearing to read.

London Regional Transport has installed visual displays in 170 of the 274 Underground stations, which the RNID welcomes. The only problem is that they do not display information telling passengers to evacuate a station for security or safety reasons. I hope that London Regional Transport may consider the possibility of doing so.

London Regional Transport provides access for deaf people by means of a 24-hour minicom inquiry service, but many other transport services have overlooked the need for such access. This is Text telephones, which allow deaf people to access the telephone network by typing their conversation on a small keyboard. It is then transmitted down the telephone line to a similar terminal capable of receiving typed script. That is of great help to the hard of hearing, especially in an emergency.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is possible for railway stations and travel centres to be encouraged to aid those who rely on lip-reading by installing non-reflective glass. Ordinary glass shines and makes it almost impossible to lip-read and so to understand what is being said.

With regard to the disabled driver, I ask the Minister whether there are disabled instructors to teach a disabled learner, especially where a car may have entirely hand operated movements. It would perhaps give the learner added confidence if he knew his instructor would understand his difficulties very well from experience.

3.41 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this important debate so eloquently and warmly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I must also congratulate the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on coming up with a frank and lucid sixth report.

The section on the bus industry is accurate and presents a fair assessment of the current situation. It is with that industry that I declare an interest and a long and happy association. The views that I shall express are those of the Bus and Coach Council, which represents the bus operators, and the Passenger Transport Executive Group, which represents the views on transport of the metropolitan authorities.

I hope that the following will not sound offensive, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the matter in her opening remarks. To talk about "the disabled" is inaccurate and imprecise. There is no such single category. There are degrees and types of impairment or reduced mobility, ranging from the wheelchair user to the elderly, the sight-impaired, the young mother with shopping and a child, even the young man with his leg in a plaster cast. To propose a single solution—wheelchair accessibility for a minority—is to overlook the needs of the majority for whom less radical solutions are appropriate. Indeed, such DPTAC solutions have universal benefits even for the fully mobile.

The industry and its members have for many years paid great attention to improving the quality of buses and the facilities provided in order to offer safer and more attractive services. Many of those features have been adopted by DPTAC, whose consolidating work is welcomed by the industry. The bus industry has been in the forefront of initiating the production of vehicles with more convenient access and lower step height—the noble Baroness covered that point—more comfortable and accessible seating, better lighting and smoother and safer acceleration and braking.

However, it should be realised that there are technical and operational limits beyond which vehicles become unreliable and excessively complex and costly. Many of the DPTAC recommendations are now, happily, generally incorporated in specifications for new vehicles and simpler ones widely adopted on a proportion of existing fleets. As vehicle fleets are replaced and updated, the percentage of vehicles including such features will increase. However, that increase is likely to be very slow, as the industry is operating with profit margins which are far too low to provide for adequate replacement or updating of its fleets. Bus operators aim to provide services which can cater for as many passengers as practicable, and in this context the willingness of some local authorities and passenger transport executives to contribute towards the retrofitting of appropriate DPTAC features on existing vehicles undoubtedly speeds up the process.

The industry has demonstrated that it is keen to incorporate DPTAC features, recognising that the benefits accrue to all passengers, not just the elderly and disabled, and it is optimistic that universal adoption of DPTAC specifications and other improvements will eventually be recognised by the public as beneficial. As yet, however, experience with DPTAC modified vehicles has not demonstrated that such provision has generated additional ridership sufficient to offset their cost.

In the absence of adequate profitability, the industry would only be able to incorporate the more extensive DPTAC features by increasing fares. Industry does not consider it reasonable to expect the ordinary passenger to provide financial provisions for a separate class of ridership for which special facilities may be required.

It is accepted that the DPTAC improvements need to be funded by way of a direct Department of Transport grant, or through a grant under Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 at local level, sufficient to allow the full DPTAC specification to be adopted on new buses and retrofitted, as far as practicable, on all those existing vehicles which have at least five years' expectation of service.

The industry will continue to improve the quality of bus services and of its vehicles. But the rate of progress, where expensive and extensive modifications are required, will necessarily he slow. A faster rate, if thought to be socially desirable, can be achieved only with external public support in the manner suggested. Nevertheless, the industry is participating in the trial use of ultra low-floor buses in London and in the North East, and we await the results with interest. Although ideally all buses should be retrofitted to provide wheelchair access, in terms of value for money many more people would be able to travel if all buses were modified to the DPTAC standard rather than a few new buses made fully accessible.

The report does not address the difficulties which transport authorities may have in maintaining the subsidised network if they require buses to be fully accessible, and neither they nor the operators can afford either to purchase new vehicles or to modify existing vehicles. It would not be feasible in many cases to make older vehicles wheelchair accessible and it is unfortunate that the committee has not recommended to the Government that credit approval be made available for upgrading vehicles short of wheelchair access.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it is unfortunate also that the Government did not use the opportunity of the EC presidency to expedite the production of a European directive on the accessibility of transport, both previous draft directives having failed to become law. The question of the nature of governmental action required is posed in the report. Can my noble friend say what is the Government's view?

3.43 p.m.

Lord Rix

My Lords, the most appropriate way of thanking my noble friend Lady Stedman for providing us with this opportunity to debate transport for disabled people is no doubt to target my comments with the same admirable precision as the DPTAC Report to which she called our attention. That report makes the point of general principle that we should not further disable people with disabilities by running transport services that they cannot use and cluttering pavements to the extent that rights of way become obstacle courses. The report also notes that those who staff our transport services can be either aides to the mobility of people with disabilities or human obstacles to their mobility, apart from the obstacles provided by the pavements themselves.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Peter Baldwin and his colleagues for making us think, since lack of thought is so often the main problem. One of MENCAP's trustees is blind —though physically he moves around with an energy which makes me out of breath watching him. He travels a great deal and on a recent visit to a familiar railway station he was thrown by an unexpected change in the arrangements. He inquired how he was supposed to have picked that up. The answer was that there was a notice. He then asked how, as a blind person, he was supposed to know that there was a notice which affected him. "You could ask", the official said helpfully. I will not complete the conversation. Your Lordships will have identified the peculiar logic. I have seen a notice at the taxi stop at Euston Station, which I am sure many of your Lordships have also seen, which advises disabled people on arrival to contact a member of the station staff if they need help. I have never yet seen such a member of the station staff even within hailing distance never mind standing by, ready, willing and able.

The DPTAC Report shows how the technical ability to meet the needs of people with disabilities has advanced by leaps and bounds in recent years. There have also been considerable advances in expectations of travel. There was a time when travel was apparently accepted as the prerogative of fit males between the ages of 20 and 40 and women travellers had the curiosity value of Mrs. Trollope, Mary Slessor or Mary Poppins. Women, women with small children, women expecting children, older people and people with disabilities are all now accepted as actual or potential travellers. I am a trustee of a group devoted to providing recorded tapes for disabled visitors to some of our major and minor national tourist attractions. Some of your Lordships may well be the owners of some of those attractions. We recognise that disability does not equate with a desire to vegetate.

Each year MENCAP organises a range of holidays to suit the varied tastes of people with learning disabilities; from adventure holidays to more restful breaks from the sometimes rather limited opportunities of daily life. Community care is a rather empty concept unless people have the opportunity to get out and about in the community and to travel further afield to the same extent as others in the community. There are people whose disabilities, including behaviour problems, are such that special transport is a more realistic option than public transport. But for the majority, the accessibility of public transport is crucial to mobility in the community and with the community. I use the term "public transport" in its traditional sense of transport for the public. I notice that there seems to be some measure of inter-party agreement that who owns it is of less importance than who can use it.

For those people with learning disabilities who also have a physical disability—and that is true for many of the older or more severely disabled among them, including my own daughter who is both physically, mentally and sensorily disabled—the Advisory Committee's recommendations on buses and coaches are exactly in line with their needs. The same is true for those who have problems with balance. I would underline what the committee said about action at the European level. At the moment the situation is quite different in continental Europe—sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. As my noble friend Lady Stedman pointed out, buses may be more accessible on the continent, but pushing a wheelchair around is easier on this side of the Channel than on the other. I would add that getting across the Channel is not as easy with a wheelchair as it should be, though here too there have been substantial improvements.

For the generality of people with learning disabilities, reliable transport is the main requirement with trained staff to compensate when the normally reliable is temporarily unreliable. Trained staff can help to compensate too for the sometimes unhelpful attitude of other travellers who are too single-minded in their determination to get from point A to point B to have time for their fellow citizens with disabilities.

There is a poignant story in a book just published about a rather special man with a learning disability who lived for 14 years in the L'Arche Community in Lambeth until his death at the end of 1991. He paid his fare on the bus and then gave up his seat to a lady. The lady sat impassively while the conductor proposed putting the disabled gentleman off the bus because standing was not allowed. Mention of conductors indicates that that little scene took place a few years ago. But it well illustrates how bus design, crew training and public attitudes need to be tackled to ensure that people with learning disabilities do not look back to the hospital crocodile—to the special hospital transport —as a safer guarantee of mobility than we offer them in both our community and theirs.

3.48 p.m.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, I share with other noble Lords my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing the debate and also congratulate Sir Peter Baldwin and his committee colleagues for what is an extremely comprehensive report on an acute subject. We must now await what I hope will be an equally comprehensive reply from the Government. The point I wish to make to the Government is that this is a responsibility which they now have and cannot avoid; and those who are operating buses and those involved in their manufacture, are entitled to some firm leadership from the Government.

My approach is slightly different from that of other noble Lords who have spoken. I had some six or seven years with the bus industry and I had some four to five years as president of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers. It is therefore a subject of which I have some knowledge. The National Bus Company was a large and successful commercial operation. We had some 16,000 vehicles. We were in a position to be able to buy each year on an orderly basis some 500 to 600 new buses. We were able to deal with what was then called the ageing fleet. We were therefore able to co-operate with the manufacturing industry over the types of vehicles that were required commercially and for the customers whom we served.

We can take pride in that we put the first of the "kneeling" buses, based on the Leyland National, into operation. We put it into Hastings where, according to our statistics, there were more elderly and disabled people than perhaps in other towns. Those buses were well received and were successful. But the nature of the Leyland National and the cost of maintenance of the rather complicated machinery necessary to form it into a "kneeling" bus led me and many of my colleagues in the National Bus Company to the view that we should look to a low deck bus.

Prior to privatisation we had already put aside a very considerable sum of money to carry out our own research into developing that type of vehicle. I was also persuaded, because of our duties under the nationalisation Act, to appoint a consultant. We were privileged to appoint Mrs. Claudia Flanders as our consultant on the disabled as ordinary passengers. I learnt from that how much could be done at relatively little cost. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to covers on handrails. One had never really thought about that, but our attention was drawn to it and we were able to do it quickly and relatively cheaply.

The most significant result was that the drivers and the general work force of the company were able to understand the needs of the disabled right across the board—the blind, the partially sighted and those who were in chairs. They had a better attitude in dealing with those types of passenger. That new attitude flowed into their treatment of the general bus passenger. We were able to do many things because we were a large and profitable company.

We now have a different situation. We have deregulation and we have had privatisation into many fragmented and some very small companies. Those companies, even at the best of times, will have had difficulty in providing the type of contribution which a large organisation can make. But they have operated in a period of great adversity. They have had falling passenger ridership. Although they have been able to increase their revenue by increasing their fares by some 50 per cent., costs and revenue have meant that they are in a very parlous financial state. None of those companies has the financial capability, despite the quality and even the aspirations of their management, to provide orders to the bus manufacturing industry for the provision of a new generation of vehicles. It is beyond their competence and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do it.

The bus manufacturing industry—the body builders and the engine and chassis workers—has experienced a calamitous collapse of orders since privatisation. That has had a grave effect on its ability to participate in export markets. The industry is incapable of undertaking new initiatives to meet new demands. It is a situation which the Government, and only the Government, can reach. It is perfectly true that local authorities have powers, but the local authorities are themselves strapped for cash and I do not believe that they will be able to exercise those powers. So it is to the Government that we must look. If the Government were willing to find ways and means by which we could develop a new generation of low floor buses, with all the benefits that those would bring to the disabled and to the general public who use buses, we could get an increased ridership because they would be more acceptable than they now are. It could also have an effect on our ability to sell overseas, which has always been essential to the bus manufacturing industry.

The proposals for government support which are set out in the report are reasonable and sensible. Bus operators need aid and support so that they can buy the vehicles that they need. There is another way. One could form a leasing arrangement by which a leasing company could buy vehicles in advance in order to get the benefits of size and scale. Those buses could then be leased to the operator. That would be helpful in terms of their capital requirements.

I thought that the Government gave great hope during 1992, particularly through the speech of Mr. Freeman on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State wished it to be known that he wanted to pursue urgently an initiative in order to improve accessibility to places of employment. But, as we know, the directive to which he referred went into abeyance. A new directive has now come forward. It is a matter for dismay that this aspect is attached to an appendix to the directive. Instead of being mandatory or a line of purpose it has been put into an appendix in an optional way. The Government should say what part they played in that decision in producing the new directive. Was it a case of subsidiarity, or was it the case that they themselves recognised that the industry was unable to find the sums required?

Despite the dismay and anxiety of all those who participate in this field I hope that the Government will come forward now with a clear determination to encourage the two sides of the industry so that this critical objective can be achieved in a reasonable period—shall we say, by the year 2000?

3.58 p.m.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, perhaps I may in one breath apologise to my noble friend Lady Stedman for not being in the Chamber for her opening speech and also thank her very much indeed for this opportunity to look at the excellent report and valuable work done by Sir Peter Baldwin and his team at DPTAC.

Three years ago, in the debate on transport for disabled people, I concentrated on the orange badge scheme—the new proposals; the four inner London boroughs and local authorities issuing their own badges—so I thought it would be interesting to see what progress had been made. The revised scheme was introduced in March 1992. There were just over 1.4 million badges then. About one-third of those are now of a new design. Although the criteria for issue were not tightened as originally proposed, they are more strictly applied and enforcement against abuse is made much easier by the new badge with the concealed photo.

I turn to the inner London boroughs. Here a remarkable success story lies behind the brief mention in Appendix XI of meetings about disabled persons' parking in central London. The late Neville Rees of the Department of Transport, brought together a group consisting of his divisional colleagues, representatives of the councils, the police, DPTAC and the Traffic Director for London, and Ann Frye, head of the DoT's Disability Unit. The police were very helpful because they do not like the differing entitlements under the boroughs' respective badge schemes.

DPTAC pressed for more designated bays, longer free periods at metered bays for orange badge holders and for mutual recognition of the boroughs' respective badge schemes—each as a step towards full acceptance of the badge scheme. The four authorities have consequently come forward with a series of proposals which should improve the concessions offered to disabled drivers and passengers. The City of London has very much taken the lead in this matter. It published a leaflet which lists the locations of 140 designated bays for orange badge holders. Camden has agreed to extend the orange badge scheme to a large and important area south of the Euston Road. Last October Kensington and Chelsea provided 78 bays. Westminster hopes that 100 additional bays will be in place by the summer.

I have gone into some detail because it really is terrific progress, as anyone who has followed this saga over the past 20 years will appreciate. I very much congratulate not only the DoT and DPTAC, but also the boroughs in particular for having come up with these proposals.

All four boroughs have now been asked to consider allowing holders of the new orange badge to occupy metered bays without charge. That would be limited, progressive and easy to police. Therefore, it is hoped that within a few years the local schemes would then become unnecessary and the orange badge scheme would effectively apply to all people living, and/or working or visiting in any of the four boroughs which is what the scheme was originally intended to do. It would be the best possible tribute to Neville Rees who, despite his illness, pursued this outcome courageously but firmly and with resolute determination.

I now turn to the problem of the growing number of local authorities issuing their own badges which offer varying concessions and which use varying eligibility criteria. Some of them are instead of, some are additional to, the orange badge scheme. In fact, I am tempted to call this hotchpotch the "not the orange badge scheme". It does have certain farcical elements. For instance, I have a wonderful letter from the access officer of my local town stating that the eligibility criteria is, difficulty in walking 50 yards and since my application shows that I cannot walk, I am ineligible for the scheme.

It is actually a serious problem. It means that disabled people living elsewhere do not know whether they can park in a town which they plan to visit. Under the local town's often somewhat bizarre criteria they may well be eligible, but they do not know and so they cannot visit. The "not the orange badge scheme" has been discouraged by DPTAC, RADAR and the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People. The DoT stated that it was undesirable in a leaflet issued on the introduction of the new orange badge.

I shall quote briefly extracts from four pieces of correspondence between Peter Large, the chairman of the JCMD, of which I am a member, and Ministers, because it is the quickest way of summarising the current state of play. Peter Large wrote to Roger Freeman, Minister of State for Public Transport, on 20th July 1992: Your Department has made excellent progress in encouraging the inner London boroughs to recognise the problems of Orange Badge holders … and we wonder whether some similar initiative could be made in respect of the special local badge schemes. That would start dismantling existing special badge schemes. We would also welcome some action to prevent new schemes being set up. Frankly, we would like to see them made illegal". The Minister for roads and traffic, Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, replied on 12th August: While we understand the difficulties that local authorities face in areas where parking demand is high, we agree that such schemes cause unnecessary and inconvenient restrictions on the mobility and freedom of travel otherwise enjoyed by people with Orange Badges. As you say, we have asked local authorities to review the position of these schemes in the light of the new arrangements for the Orange Badge Scheme and are hopeful that the new Scheme will reduce the demand for such schemes. However, I should very much like to see how the new Scheme beds in and the effect this has on local schemes before committing ourselves to any of the actions you have proposed". Peter Large wrote again to Kenneth Carlisle on 10th October saying, We know that you appreciate that many Orange Badge holders are finding life very difficult in the areas where local badge schemes operate. We trust therefore that information about local schemes and their future will be actively sought by the Department so that any action that may be required along the lines we suggest can be taken in good time". Kenneth Carlisle replied on 17th November, once again in the same vein, On the introduction of local concessionary parking schemes for disabled people, I can only repeat that we will continue to monitor the position". We are now a third of the way into the new-style badge scheme so I believe that it must be beginning to settle in a little. When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, comes to reply can he say what conclusions have been drawn so far from their monitoring? Has there been any reduction in the demand for new schemes? Has there been any dismantling of existing schemes? Has the DoT had any correspondence with local authorities? What, in short, has been happening?

I look forward very much to the Minister's reply. I am sure that he agrees wholeheartedly that the revised orange badge scheme must be allowed to work. The four inner London boroughs have given the lead and if they who have resisted the orange badge scheme for over 20 years can do it, surely the other local authorities who hitherto adhered to the scheme can follow suit and ensure that the new-style orange badge enables all holders to get around and to conduct their lives as effectively as possible.

4.6 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it is very difficult to wind up a debate like this when one is surrounded by so much expertise. Nevertheless, I believe that it is very good for those of us who speak for our parties on transport in this House to be able to listen to such a debate of enormously high quality, containing a great deal of knowledge, and so excellently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.

Perhaps I may spend a minute or two speaking about the pedestrian environment described in the excellent report because I believe that those of us who are not disabled in any way do not entirely realise the problems that are caused by minor obstructions on the pavements of the towns and cities of this country. I had an experience about 18 months ago when I tore a leg muscle. I was on crutches for the first time in my life, which was a very revealing experience. It happened at our party conference in Bournemouth where there is a most excellent new conference hall with ramps, lifts and also fire doors. I found that I could not get into the building. I could get up the ramps all right, but the big heavy fire doors stopped me from going into the building unless there was someone there to assist me.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, someone might have wanted it that way.

Lord Tordoff

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggests that that might have been thought a good thing by the rest of the party. That is for him to judge.

When I returned home I went for physiotherapy to my local hospital. I was unable to get into the physiotherapy department, again because of fire doors. I said to staff at the hospital "This is curious. You are dealing all the time with people with various disabilities". They said "Yes, but you see, it is the fire regulations". I said, "You mean that it does not matter whether people can get in or out. You prefer that they burn to death if they are left inside than to be able to get out if they are on crutches". There did not seem to be an answer to that.

I give that example by way of illustration. It comes as an enormous shock to people who do not normally suffer from disabilities to be faced with that kind of experience and to realise what many people go through every day of their lives. I was astonished to realise the level of injuries caused by broken pavements. I believe that RoSPA suggests that about 3 million people are hospitalised each year because of pavement injuries and 200 people die from them. Those are the kinds of statistics that one does not normally hear in debates on traffic and transport in your Lordships' House, but clearly they are extremely significant. Therefore, one welcomes the suggestion in the report that there should be proper monitoring of pavements. Those of us who have been accused in the past of conducting pavement politics perhaps feel less bad about it than we sometimes have done. It is an important factor in people's lives. Of course, parking on pavements is a real problem and a real cause of a lot of the damage done to our pavements.

I gather that since the repeal of Section 7 of the 1974 Act it is no longer illegal to park on pavements. I wonder where we go from here, and what legislation is going to be introduced to put back that provision. I may be misinformed, but I should be glad if the Minister could tell us where we stand, because it is a serious matter. First, where there is obstruction from cars people who are partially sighted bump into them and damage themselves, and perhaps people with wheelchairs cannot get their wheelchair past the obstruction. In addition, the parking of heavy lorries on pavements causes much damage to pavements.

Often we underestimate the problems from which partially sighted people in this country suffer. When one thinks of disability one thinks of the more severe physical handicaps, and people who are partially sighted are often forgotten in our considerations. There are other people who are not normally categorised as being disabled; for instance, people with arthritis, which has been described as the hidden disability. They find it difficult to walk about our streets. Another category suggested to me of people who can suffer badly is people with hip replacements.

The analysis of the situation on the buses has already been dealt with, and it is extremely well dealt with in the report. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. He is right that there are many recommendations in this report that are admirable, but it is doubtful whether the bus industry as it stands today, particularly in its more fragmented state after privatisation and deregulation, is capable of generating the capital to replace buses at the rate they ought to be replaced or of the quality that is necessary to take account of the disabled. The Government must look at the whole question to see how they themselves can assist, or indeed assist the local authorities.

It is easy to say that there should be buses fitted with lifts, or there should be "kneeling" buses, or low-level buses, but if the capital is not there to provide these admirable vehicles we shall go rambling on for years without proper provision for disabled people. As has already been said, these buses would speed up our transport system. Again as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and another noble Lord mentioned, off-bus ticketing has not been seriously tackled in this country, and I do not understand why. It works perfectly well in many countries on the Continent but somehow nobody seems to have tackled here.

I fear that if we come to the deregulation of the London bus system—heaven forbid that we ever do, but it is threatened—many of these problems will be put on to the back burner again. The whole question of through-ticketing is a problem that affects disabled people, and I fear that the privatisation of British Rail is another situation where through-ticketing is going to be under threat. Bear in mind that disabled people are not among the richest members of the community. They will experience difficulties if their concessions are eroded. Many of them find it necessary to have a travel companion and are therefore responsible for two fares on each journey they make. Those matters must be borne in mind. We cannot allow through-ticketing on both buses and rail to be eroded.

There are one or two items that are only marginally referred to in the report, and one or two that have already been referred to today. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about notices. I was reminded of a notice allegedly in a Welsh village which said, "When this notice is covered with water, the valley is flooded". Similarly, I thought the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, about visible announcements for people who are deaf is an important facet that is not adequately covered.

I noticed that when the Heathrow Express mock-up vehicles were shown at Paddington about 18 months ago they included dot-matrix signs in each compartment, so that there is an announcement on a dot matrix as well as by sound of the station you are approaching. That is a good development that I hope can be incorporated in the rest of the underground system, and preferably in buses as well, because there is a great problem for people who have severe hearing problems.

I have received, as some other noble Lords no doubt have, representations in relation to this debate from London black cab operators. Although slightly wide of the mark it is an aspect that noble Lords ought to take into account. Their worry is the thought of licensing minicabs. On the whole, I approve of licensing to improve the standards of minicabs, particularly where women travel alone and want some kind of security. In those areas where it is not possible to get a black cab they ought to have security in minicabs as well. I can understand the dilemma that arises by black cabs having to reach a certain standard to deal with wheelchairs where minicabs do not, and probably cannot, have that requirement. There is a genuine dilemma there.

We usually manage to bring bicycles into transport debates from these Benches. I think they are not referred to in the report. There is a particular problem with bicycles in that nobody ever seems to have a bell any more, probably because bicycle bells are pinched. I gather that there is no longer a requirement—and I should be glad to be corrected—for bicycles to have bells. People who are partially sighted can be put at grave danger by irresponsible cyclists rushing past them and causing them great distress.

Finally I want to say a word about the department's disability unit because it has been slightly left out of this debate. Although the Opposition Benches tend to castigate the Department of Transport from time to time, I think that the disability unit does an excellent job. It is clearly a listening department. Appendix 9 of the report gives some of the things that are being done. There is quite a list, including tactile services for blind pedestrians which we have touched on previously in your Lordships' House, particularly when someone was foolish enough to remove the one from outside St. Stephen's Entrance. There was an explosion in your Lordships' House and it was rapidly put back.

There is a whole series of questions, including that of pedestrian interface with light rapid transport systems. While we are talking about low level access to buses we also should be thinking of making regulations to the effect that all these new light rapid transport systems being introduced in the conurbations of this country are required to have proper low level access, or access for wheelchairs, and, indeed, tactile signing and all the rest of it. There is a long way to go, but the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has so well brought before us today points the way. I hope that we shall not take our eye off this important subject and that the Government will respond to all the suggestions in the report.

4.19 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, not only for taking the opportunity to introduce the debate on the report, but also for the eloquence and significance of her remarks in so doing. This has been an outstandingly good debate. I have certainly learnt a great deal as, so he said, has the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.

Two salient principles seem to emerge from the report. The first is that although there have been considerable advances in the technical means for helping those with disabilities whatever the form of their disability—it may be a question of a mother trying to wheel her child's pushchair on to a vehicle of one kind or another—public transport by and large does not cope adequately with mobility impairments.

The second point was well put by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who illustrated how the reductions in services which have emerged as one of the consequences of, as he put it, the deregulation, privatisation and fragmentation of the industry into small companies do not auger well for the kind of investment that is required. That is a point the Government must address.

We are not talking only about reductions in services in terms of helping those who suffer from some form of physical impairment; it is also a question of reaching the outlying or peripheral areas of our towns and cities which may not be profitable areas to which to run a service. There is also the question of the impact of all this on the bus manufacturing industry which is facing, as my noble friend put it, acutely difficult times. It needs help. It is an important industry not only for domestic purposes, but also because of the potential that it offers in terms of overseas markets.

I should like to advert briefly to the question of the pedestrian environment, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He referred to the number of accidents that occur as a result of uneven, slippery and neglected pavements. Such accidents account for something like three-quarters of the pedestrians who are admitted to hospital after suffering accidents. That is an astonishing percentage. There is often difficulty in obtaining legal aid in order to mount the smaller class of claim. That is compounded in times of difficulty for local authorities by the local authorities taking a stringent view about the liability and quantum that may be involved in the knowledge that it is extremely unlikely that the litigant will be able to afford to go to court.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also referred to the representations that had been made regarding the black cabs in London. I hope that the Minister will deal with that. I understand that out of about 16,000 black cabs in London only 4,000 (or something of that order) are wheelchair-accessible. Admittedly, as the new cabs come on line, that proportion will increase.

Noble Lords have been reminiscing and providing personal anecdotes of situations, so perhaps I may tell your Lordships about taking a taxi to the House yesterday. It was a lovely taxi—a J-registration. I asked the taxi driver how the cab coped with people who were handicapped in some way or another. He said, "It is all there—all in the taxi". I said, "When I get to the House of Lords, would it be possible for you to demonstrate it to me?" He said that he would try to do that but that he was not very well equipped to do so. I said, "What do you mean—you are not very well equipped?" He said, "I have to read the handbook". It is all very well for one to have the necessary facilities to help people who are in wheelchairs and so on, but it is incumbent on the taxi driver to take the trouble to read the handbook. However, he was a very nice chap, and promised me that he would do so in future.

There are scarcely any lifts for disabled people using the Underground. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, disabled people have to be accompanied everywhere by an able-bodied person. I understand that wheelchairs have been banned altogether on the Glasgow Underground. That seems a remarkable state of affairs.

I should like to devote the rest of my remarks primarily to the issue of the bus and coach industry. I understand that out of the whole National Express fleet of 800 coaches, only nine are accessible to wheelchairs. That is an extraordinary statistic. There should be legislation to ensure that buses are made much more accessible to wheelchairs, and that that needs to be done far more quickly than at present.

The report recognises the adverse operating and manufacturing conditions in the bus industry and the need for transitional help. Therefore, the question that I put to the Government, as other noble Lords have done, is: how are the Government proposing to address that issue? The fact is that the quality of buses has deteriorated to such an alarming extent that many people regard them as a third-class form of transport. Frankly, I believe that the amount of transitional help that would be needed is simply enormous. Indeed, it will take a considerable period of time to see real progress.

In relation to the bus manufacturing industry, the report quotes from paragraph 91 of the Bus Industry Monitor, 1992, which states: Purchase of new buses fell by 31 per cent in 1991, following less serious reductions of 13 and 3 per cent. in the preceding two years. Total sales volume at 2,804, is now the lowest experienced since the current form of record-keeping began". The report continues: This is a rate of sales which would not replace the fleet in less than 25 years". That is a fact of life with which the Government must deal.

The report suggests that a period of public financing to re-equip the bus industry with fully accessible buses is required. However, with respect to those who wrote the report, it is somewhat naive to think that the local transport authorities are able to fund the expenditure by using Section 106 grants. That fails to recognise the way in which the transport authorities are cash-starved by central government and are unable to take on a role of that kind. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has alluded to that.

The report demonstrates that the potential bus market will continue to decline so that by the year 2001 people with disabilities will account for something like 50 per cent. of the potential market. It asserts that the industry is currently inaccessible to a high proportion of that market of people with disabilities.

One of the ways in which public attention is being focused on the role of buses in combating the kind of difficulties to which noble Lords have referred and in combating pollution and congestion has been highlighted by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I am the president, in running a "Year of the Bus" and instituting annual good practice awards. Some of those awards have gone to those who have led the way in terms of help for the disabled.

The report goes on to refer on the one hand to the financial constraints facing local authorities; but on the other hand, it recommends that local authorities should exercise their powers under Section 106 of the 1985 Transport Act to make grants for the purchase of low-floor or wheelchair-lift-equipped buses. Frankly, I do not see how local authorities can do it. I do not think that they have the financial capability to do so at present. Indeed, many PTAs are having to curtail concessionary fare schemes or are having to introduce new or higher charges. There is no alternative but for the Government to intervene much more directly or indeed for them to seek additional powers if necessary. Unless more money is made available to local government then none of the improvements envisaged in the report will come about. It is pie in the sky.

I support the recommendation of paragraph (xvi) (d) of the summary to the effect that the Government should provide credit approvals for local authorities' capital expenditure on accessible buses to run on subsidised services. What we need is a firm commitment from Government for such schemes. Is that likely to come about? The Department of Transport arranged an experiment along these lines, which resulted in 68 buses available in London, but only £200,000 was made available for the rest of the country. But above all there has been no commitment forthcoming about any expansion of the scheme in the future, and I should like to know what the Minister has to say about that.

I now come to the DPTAC specification. The report deals with this but I think it rather overemphasises its impact. The number of new buses being built with or without DPTAC features is very small. It represents only a tiny proportion of the fleet as a whole. Part of the specification can be retro-fitted to older buses but the extreme old age of a large proportion of the fleet means that the benefits from this are likely to be very small. One of the concerns about the standard is that it is not specific enough. Many local authorities believe that the revised standard should be more prescriptive in its requirements than its predecessor.

The report refers to the need for European Community legislation: a point which was taken up by my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Shepherd and by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. There was a very clear understanding that United Kingdom Ministers would be giving a lead on this issue, particularly during the time when we held the presidency of the Commission. There seems to be no evidence—although the Minister may be able to refute this and I shall be interested to hear what he says—that Ministers of this Government made any attempt to promote legislation on this issue. Indeed it is very unlikely that it will be brought forward until the German presidency during the second half of 1994.

I end by asking one or two other questions which I think are relevant. Is there not a very strong case, based on the report, for a review of bus legislation? Also, could the Minister indicate when the consultation paper on the fine tuning of the Transport Act 1985—promised by Mr. Roger Freeman last year —is to appear? Would he accept that Section 106 grants should be awarded locally and that the expenditure implications for local government should be acknowledged by central government? Also, could the noble Earl explain how the Government envisage that the introduction of low-floor buses will be financed in the medium to long term and could he explain the Government's attitude, as has been demanded by a number of speakers already, to progress at European Community level and how the necessary actions are to be taken?

4.33 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the recommendations of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee's Sixth Annual Report. The debate has ranged widely across the breadth of the report: not only that, but it has gone completely outside what the report had to say and has dealt with disabled transport in general. We will obviously consider what your Lordships have said with great care, and I can assure your Lordships that I shall draw what has been said to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends.

I should say from the outset that we greatly value the advice and support which the members of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee have provided over the last six years. I should like to pay a particular tribute to Sir Peter Baldwin, who has chaired the committee since its inception in 1986. His personal contribution to the development of transport policy in this area, both as chairman of the committee and earlier as a permanent secretary at my department, has been immense. Your Lordships might know that Sir Peter will be retiring as chairman later this year and I should like to take this opportunity to wish him well with his future endeavours. I am sure that your Lordships will support me on that.

The committee's sixth annual report begins by focusing on the pedestrian environment, which is of course the key to mobility for all of us. We all begin and end every journey as a pedestrian, even if it is only between home and the car. It is therefore vital to ensure that the pedestrian environment is designed and built and, just as importantly, maintained in a manner which meets the needs of all its users. Several years ago my department commissioned Leeds University to look at the ergonomics of the pedestrian environment, to identify the problems encountered by people with disabilities in going about their everyday business and to make recommendations on how the situation could be improved. In conjunction with my department, the Institution of Highways and Transportation then drew on the results of the Leeds work in revising their guidelines on providing for people with mobility difficulties. The revised guidance Reducing Mobility Handicap—Towards a Barrier-Free Environment was published in 1990 and is perhaps the most comprehensive source of advice on how to combat many of the problems which have been identified.

My department has also issued advice on other related topics. The Disability Unit Circular 1/91, The Use of Dropped Kerbs and Tactile Surfaces at Pedestrian Crossing Points, provides guidance to local authorities on how to reconcile the needs of two groups of disabled people: wheelchair users, who need gentle gradients and flush dropped kerbs at crossing points, and visually-impaired pedestrians, who need to be given advance warning where the kerb definition has been lost. The blistered tactile surface now used at dropped kerbs across the country will be familiar to many of your Lordships. Indeed, it is used at a crossing point outside this House.

Of course, it is not only the planners who can create problems: inconsiderate drivers can turn the most accessible environment into a "no-go" area for pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that pavement parking and indeed parking at bus stops are not only antisocial but they can be positively dangerous for disabled and elderly pedestrians. The National Federation of the Blind's campaign, called "Get Streetwise", is helping to raise awareness of these problems. My department is drawing up guidance for highway authorities which sets out best practices and engineering measures which can be used to deter vehicles from pavement parking. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that at the same time we will be looking for an opportunity to introduce legislation which will provide for local authorities to make orders specifically prohibiting pavement parking in places where it is a particular problem.

We have also tried to shame those drivers who park at bus stops, and 27 million motorists have now received a leaflet with their road tax reminders which warns them of their anti-social behaviour and the danger it can be to bus users. We also encourage local authorities to take steps at local level to highlight this problem. Local publicity and other campaigns can be an effective way of raising public awareness. Parking at bus stops makes access much more difficult for elderly and disabled people. It also undermines many of the improvements which have been made in recent years to the design of buses, to make them easier to use for ambulant disabled and elderly people, as well as those with small children, shopping or luggage.

Perhaps the best known DPTAC initiative is the Recommended Specification for Buses Used to Operate Local Services. There can be no doubt that the specification has brought about something of a revolution of bus design. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be interested to know that we now estimate that 90 per cent. of new buses have at least some of the features recommended in the specification, such as textured and colour-contrasted handrails, step-edge markings, "bus-stopping" signs which are particularly helpful to those with impaired hearing and bell pushes which can be reached from a seated position. We also know that some bus operators have retro-fitted some of these low-cost features to their existing fleet. For example, here in London, London Transport has carried out a programme of retro-fitting elements of the specification to 2,500 older vehicles. I agree with my noble friend Lord Teviot that it is right to compliment the bus industry on its work—work to which he rightly drew attention.

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, drew attention to an important point. He said that physical improvements may be totally undermined if drivers are unaware of the needs of their passengers. DPTAC has also produced a leaflet for bus drivers which gives some basic disability awareness guidance; for example, how to communicate with a deaf passenger and to allow passengers to sit down before driving off. It also gives commonsense advice which can greatly enhance the confidence and safety of elderly and disabled bus passengers. As regards common sense advice, consideration for others is something which cyclists might well bear in mind. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will be happy to disseminate that piece of advice to his fellow cyclists.

The next stage in bus design must be to develop vehicles which can provide full access not only to wheelchair users but also to people with prams and pushchairs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, rightly pointed out, low-floor buses are already in use in parts of Germany and the Netherlands. However, the operating conditions in those countries are quite different from those experienced here. We must ensure that such vehicles can provide an effective and sustainable transport service in the UK. We do not want to introduce a concept which is "here today, gone tomorrow". That would obviously have a detrimental effect not only on the confidence of the users but also on the operators.

The noble Baroness asked what assessment has been made of bus priorities and other measures to promote bus use, including experiments in low-floor buses. As regards bus priorities, the Government have been able to increase the allocation of resources to local authorities in 1993–94 from a prospective £6 million to £15.5 million. That is in addition to the £4 million allocated in 1992–93. The Department of Transport is to monitor five schemes with before and after evaluations.

With regard to low-floor buses, we certainly believe that such vehicles will have advantages for all users, and not only those who are elderly or disabled. But it must be for those in the bus industry to decide the appropriate level of investment in renewing their fleets and also the type of vehicle they believe to be most appropriate for their operations. I am sure that if low-floor buses offer advantages over conventional buses the industry will adopt them in large numbers. But more work needs to be done to assess the costs and benefits of such vehicles. That is why we are supporting two experiments with low-floor buses. One involves 68 low-floor single deck buses on three routes in north and west London. The other uses five buses on a route in North Tyneside operated by Go Ahead Northern (Coastline), which the Minister for Public Transport announced on 4th February.

Both experiments are just getting under way and therefore we are not able to express an opinion about their effectiveness. We shall be conducting monitoring exercises for both projects designed to provide an indication of the costs and benefits of introducing such vehicles. The results, which are expected in 1994–95, will be made available to all bus operators and local authorities so that they can take the results of the research into account in planning future bus purchases.

Powers are available to local authorities to provide capital grants to bus operators to assist in the purchase of buses with special specifications. Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 gives a power to local authorities to make grants towards expenditure on a vehicle, equipment or other facilities, provided wholly or mainly for … members of the public who are disabled; or … any equipment or other facilities … incorporated in any vehicle … not provided wholly or mainly for that purpose". In providing such grant, however, local authorities must have regard to their duty not to inhibit competition.

Steps have been taken to draw the attention of local authorities to the powers available under Section 106. Paragraph 30 of the Transport Policies and Programmes Circular, inviting local authorities to put forward their bids for grant and capital approvals, states: The Department wishes to encourage the use of public transport". It goes on to list a number of measures, including, grants to improve travel facilities for disabled people under Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985". In addition, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has itself drawn to the attention of local authorities and bus operators the powers available under Section 106.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, does the Minister believe that, strapped as they are for cash—that was the expression used by my noble friend Lord Shepherd —local authorities can really undertake that kind of obligation? They simply do not have the money.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me as I was about to draw his attention to another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. It was the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. That allows local authorities to spend all of the capital receipts they realise up to the end of December 1993. Of course, we in the Department of Transport hope that some of this money will be devoted to improving public transport and, in particular, transport facilities for disabled people. But we have to recognise that it is for local authorities to take decisions on their own priorities.

I have already mentioned the increase in funds for local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in the special position that he holds with the AMA, will draw that particular opportunity to its attention. I look forward to seeing some positive results as a consequence of what the noble Lord can do.

The noble Baroness drew attention to the report's conclusions about the low profitability of the bus industry and the effect that that is having on fleet renewal. That point was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I agree that it is true that the industry is going through tough times, but then so are many others. But the remarkable thing is that the majority of operators have managed to stay in business and many believe that the tide is beginning to turn on profitability. The fact is that we still have more operators running more bus miles than before deregulation. We acknowledge that patronage continues to fall, but that is part of a long-term trend brought about, as the DPTAC report acknowledges, largely by the increasing use of the private car. The recession has also played its part in reducing orders for new buses—part of a worldwide phenomenon affecting all classes of new vehicle.

But recently there have been welcome large orders for new buses, including the 68 low-floor vehicles for the London experiment. I hope that that trend continues. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders statistics of bus and coach registrations in 1992 show an increase of 10 per cent. during the previous year and I hope that low interest rates and better trading conditions will see a continuation of that upward trend. Therefore, I hope that the gloomy picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be transformed into a better picture and that the next time he speaks on the subject it will have a rosier hue.

I turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, about laying down minimum specifications for vehicles. The DPTAC report acknowledges that in view of the international nature of the market that could be done only through EC construction and use regulations. A proposal for a draft directive has been put forward by the European Commission dealing with technical standards for bus and coach construction. Detailed discussion on the draft will not begin until later this month. But our initial reaction to the proposal is disappointment that it appears to deal with the issue of accessibility in a very inadequate way. In some areas the standards proposed appear to us even to represent a retrograde step rather than progress.

We would certainly hope to work with other member states to reach agreement that the features specified by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee for accessibility to buses should be incorporated as far as possible in the directive. Beyond that, we hope also to be able to make progress towards full accessibility. It is too early in the discussions yet to say how far we will succeed in this aim, but our intention is quite clear.

I must also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it is our intention to give more prominence in the final document to the point which he made about access features. The document is a Commission document and it is now up to us to try to to change it.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, is the document now with the Council of Ministers or has it been referred back to the Commission?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I understand that it is with the Council of Ministers. We are discussing it at official level and we shall try to make progress on the points that I have mentioned.

But, as the report indicates, powers are available to local authorities, both through their tender specifications for subsidised services and through the use of Section 106 of the 1985 Act, which I have already described, to encourage operators to introduce more low-floor buses as well as other features to assist travel on public transport for elderly or disabled people.

I have described the action that the Government are taking to encourage the use of the bus both in terms of bus priority measures as well as specific support for low-floor bus experiments and we shall take stock of the situation when the results of those experiments are known.

We support the DPTAC initiative to incorporate disability training in course syllabuses for the planners, engineers and transport managers of tomorrow. With the knowledge that they gain during their training, we should find that the needs of disabled people are taken into account from the outset —in other words, providing access becomes a fundamental element in their thinking.

My department is working with the committee in pursuit of this aim. We have already had encouraging responses from many professional bodies, including the Royal Society of Arts, the Chartered Institute of Transport and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. We hope eventually that training will be provided across the range of qualifications, from national vocational qualifications to degree level.

But, as your Lordships will be aware, it is not just the training of the professional groups involved in the areas of public transport and the pedestrian environment that we are hoping to influence. We are also trying to raise awareness of the personal mobility needs of people with disabilities. My department's Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service— MAVIS—is working with the College of Occupational Therapists to see how its syllabus could be tailored to focus on this particular area. The aim is to ensure that disabled people are made aware of the opportunities fir independent personal mobility at the earliest stage of their rehabilitation.

Personal mobility undoubtedly gives the greatest level of independence for anyone with a disability. But for many disabled people, the process of learning to drive and getting themselves a car is a great deal more complex and difficult than most of us have had to face. With this in mind, in 1983 the department set up the first of what has become a biennial series of Mobility Roadshows. Those shows bring together all the major vehicle manufacturers, each with a fleet of their latest standard production cars equipped with a range of hand controls and adaptations. Disabled people are invited not just to look at the cars but also to test drive them on the private road system down at the department's Transport Research Laboratory. Even those who have only a provisional licence can test drive cars under the watchful eye of the department's driving examiners. The last Mobility Roadshow in 1991 attracted more than 200 exhibitors and over 30,000 disabled visitors. The next show, which will be on June 11th to 13th, will, we hope, offer a wider opportunity still.

The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about disabled driving instructors. A Private Member's Bill, which has full government support, is currently being discussed in another place and, if passed, it will make it possible for the first time for physically disabled people to apply to become approved driving instructors.

The noble Lady asked also about tactile surfaces on platform edges and other facilities at unmanned stations. We are jointly funding a project with British Rail to look at practical solutions to access problems of elderly and disabled people at unmanned stations. Tactile surfaces will be one of a number of initiatives to be tested. Perhaps the noble Lady will allow me to write to her on the other points she raised because I do not have time to mention them all.

I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the number he gave for taxis which have wheelchair accessibility in London was not correct because over 7,000 now have that accessibility. Every new taxi has full access. From 1st January 2000 all taxis in London must be fully accessible. We have also produced a training video for taxis called "Call a Cab" which is widely available to the taxi fraternity. If the noble Lord finds another taxi driver who does not know what to do, perhaps he will indicate to him that there is a video available to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked about minicabs. As he will know, we are currently considering that issue. Questions about it have been tabled in the House. We hope to be in a position to put forward proposals shortly.

The mobility needs of people with disabilities, like those of everyone else, cover a wide spectrum. We are grateful to the work of DPTAC in helping us to develop clear and effective policies in this area which are aimed at breaking down the barriers that exist and creating an environment in which fully independent mobility is possible.

Baroness Stedman

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, which has been useful. I am sorry that we did not have more positive answers from the Minister as to how the department is likely to help and encourage. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned that local authorities are strapped for cash. However willing they may be to use Section 106, the funds may not be available for them to do so. I hope that the Minister will take to heart the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the possibility of leasing back buses. That will encourage the fleet to be replaced by buses which the physically handicapped, those who are handicapped in varying degrees and the able bodied can all use. I hope that something can be done in less than the 25 years which is suggested at present.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I wish that he had been a little more positive. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.