Should Gov be sued over PRM failure?

[AM9]

... As several have pointed out, legal action benefits nobody - except some already wealthy members of the legal profession. ...

That line gets trotted out by several here who seem to misunderstand the intentions and obligations of equality legislation. If accessibility law is flaunted for whatever reason, a section of society is disadvantaged with respect to everybody else. So those that perpetuate the inequality without very good reason must be sanctioned. So saying if trains are withdrawn with no replacements, nobody wins isn't true, it's more a case of those who have PRM aren't further disadvantaged. Taking hefty legal action usually pulls the offenders back into line fairly quickly meaning that everybody benefits.

 

[PG]

I would expect a representative body, the Disability Advisory Committee as part of the Equality and Human Rights Comission would take action on behalf the disadvantaged which would include any defaulting government agency.

So let's say that the DAC goes to court and the judgement goes against the government.

Is the sanction imposed by the court a fine? I assume the government can't be imprisoned or carry out community service?

If a fine is imposed where does it go?; and which part of the government pays it?
If the judgement includes costs then, since the DAC is a non departmental government body, the government will end up with one part of itself paying another part.

If we are to go down the road of court action would it not be preferable that any fine actually meant something and wasn't simply a case of the government moving money within itself?

 

[infobleep]

I'm sure they'd be very worried about being sued. Fighting the case with our money. Paying any fines with our money.

Accountability comes via democracy (ie politicians getting sacked) not the courts.

Politicians being sacked doesn't always lead to change these days, as they just get made a peer in the House of Lords. As Zac Goldsmith found out.

Would a lawyer be able to easily assess whether such a legal case stood a chance or would they take on the case anyway?

 

[tomuk]

Although full compliance has been delayed on some TOCs I'm not aware of any where either the existing stock isn't in the process of being modified or new stock has been ordered.

 

[AM9]

So let's say that the DAC goes to court and the judgement goes against the government.

Is the sanction imposed by the court a fine? I assume the government can't be imprisoned or carry out community service?

If a fine is imposed where does it go?; and which part of the government pays it?
If the judgement includes costs then, since the DAC is a non departmental government body, the government will end up with one part of itself paying another part.

If we are to go down the road of court action would it not be preferable that any fine actually meant something and wasn't simply a case of the government moving money within itself?

It doesn't need a simple result i.e. a sacking. Even with a massive majority, no (UK) government can completely ignore judgements that demonstrate a failure to honour its own legislation. It also motivates those parts of society that suffer from such failings to call out flagrant breaches more often. The accessibility legislation abuse Is prime material for ECHR intervention which the UK is a leading exponent so adverse judgements whilst not bothering individual ministers (Grayling springs to mind here), would certainly embarrass prospective a government at the time of elections.

 

[yorksrob]

That line gets trotted out by several here who seem to misunderstand the intentions and obligations of equality legislation. If accessibility law is flaunted for whatever reason, a section of society is disadvantaged with respect to everybody else. So those that perpetuate the inequality without very good reason must be sanctioned. So saying if trains are withdrawn with no replacements, nobody wins isn't true, it's more a case of those who have PRM aren't further disadvantaged. Taking hefty legal action usually pulls the offenders back into line fairly quickly meaning that everybody benefits.

Which is nonsense, because the very people whom the legislation is supposed to help, are disadvantaged where they otherwise wouldn't have been. With a non compliant train, the majority of persons of reduced mobility will still be able to travel, albeit maybe with assistance.

If on the other hand, the train is reduced with no replacement, these people can no longer travel, which means they're massively disadvantaged.

 

[Tio Terry]

So let's say that the DAC goes to court and the judgement goes against the government.

Is the sanction imposed by the court a fine? I assume the government can't be imprisoned or carry out community service?

If a fine is imposed where does it go?; and which part of the government pays it?
If the judgement includes costs then, since the DAC is a non departmental government body, the government will end up with one part of itself paying another part.

If we are to go down the road of court action would it not be preferable that any fine actually meant something and wasn't simply a case of the government moving money within itself?

Similar, of course, to prosecutions brought under H&S legislation, where one government organisation (say, Network Rail) end up paying another (H&S Executive). But would anybody anticipate that one organisation should not be fined simply because it is a paper transfer?

 

[AM9]

Which is nonsense, because the very people whom the legislation is supposed to help, are disadvantaged where they otherwise wouldn't have been. With a non compliant train, the majority of persons of reduced mobility will still be able to travel, albeit maybe with assistance.

If on the other hand, the train is reduced with no replacement, these people can no longer travel, which means they're massively disadvantaged.

But continuing to disadvantage with special travel needs whilst keeping services that they cannot use doesn't help them at all. It is effectively makes their position worse as the fit travellers can ignore their plight with an everlasting 'not our problem' attitude. If there weren't bodies to stick up for the disadvantaged few, the politicianss wouild just pander to the majority's wishes to get their votes. Outside of the railway, we've been here before many times, first it's denial of a problesm, then pretending that fairness is all too difficult/expensive/etc., then those in charge try to weaponise some of the general public's selfishness to shout down the disadvantaged. It seems that there are a few here who think that way.
Penalising those who don't address their legal obligations is the surest way to get some action. Sanctions are unpleasant for the recipient, so the baying mob pretending that everybody should just ignore the law doesn't work for long.
10 years was more than adequate to fix this. Blame those that did nothing for all that time for any delays that catching-up might cause.

 

[PG]

Similar, of course, to prosecutions brought under H&S legislation, where one government organisation (say, Network Rail) end up paying another (H&S Executive). But would anybody anticipate that one organisation should not be fined simply because it is a paper transfer?

I just wonder if a fine would have more of an effect were it to be imposed upon a private entity rather than upon part of Her Majesty's government.

 

[yorksrob]

But continuing to disadvantage with special travel needs whilst keeping services that they cannot use doesn't help them at all. It is effectively makes their position worse as the fit travellers can ignore their plight with an everlasting 'not our problem' attitude. If there weren't bodies to stick up for the disadvantaged few, the politicianss wouild just pander to the majority's wishes to get their votes. Outside of the railway, we've been here before many times, first it's denial of a problesm, then pretending that fairness is all too difficult/expensive/etc., then those in charge try to weaponise some of the general public's selfishness to shout down the disadvantaged. It seems that there are a few here who think that way.
Penalising those who don't address their legal obligations is the surest way to get some action. Sanctions are unpleasant for the recipient, so the baying mob pretending that everybody should just ignore the law doesn't work for long.
10 years was more than adequate to fix this. Blame those that did nothing for all that time for any delays that catching-up might cause.

You don't improve things for people by making them materially worse off to prove a point, which is what you would be doing here.

 

[AM9]

You don't improve things for people by making them materially worse off to prove a point, which is what you would be doing here.

You do persuade organisations to respect the law if they are punished for abusing it. If it is a commercial organisation, they respect punishment when it affects their profit. If they are a department of state, those in control are censured, ion some cases, to a degree that can be career-limiting.
The legislation that stipulates equality of provision for PRM on the railway has clearly been disrespected by both the industry and the agency of the government that is responsible for administering the legislation. If nothing of any substance is done about that behaviour, attitudes will never change and the very people that were meant to benefit from the laws will continue to be disadvantaged.
A short sharp shock of inconvenience for 'normals' will focus their minds on the failures of those who disrespected the law. The courts would ensure that the blame is placed fairly and squarely on the correct shoulders. Of course the selfish who care for nobody but themselves will continue to rant about their inconvenience, but the informed majority will respect a court's action as the only effective remedy. Human rights judgement usually attracts a certain type of criticism, especially from the Daily Mail reader mentality, - but that usually dissipates when nobody takes much notice of them.

 

[yorksrob]

You do persuade organisations to respect the law if they are punished for abusing it. If it is a commercial organisation, they respect punishment when it affects their profit. If they are a department of state, those in control are censured, ion some cases, to a degree that can be career-limiting.
The legislation that stipulates equality of provision for PRM on the railway has clearly been disrespected by both the industry and the agency of the government that is responsible for administering the legislation. If nothing of any substance is done about that behaviour, attitudes will never change and the very people that were meant to benefit from the laws will continue to be disadvantaged.
A short sharp shock of inconvenience for 'normals' will focus their minds on the failures of those who disrespected the law. The courts would ensure that the blame is placed fairly and squarely on the correct shoulders. Of course the selfish who care for nobody but themselves will continue to rant about their inconvenience, but the informed majority will respect a court's action as the only effective remedy. Human rights judgement usually attracts a certain type of criticism, especially from the Daily Mail reader mentality, - but that usually dissipates when nobody takes much notice of them.

You can throw around all of the accusations you like, but persons of reduced mobility will end up experiencing 'the short sharp shock of inconvenience' much more than 'normals', who are far better able to wedge themselves onto overcrowded trains and dart from platform to platform during disruption. That would be against the spirit of the legislation, which is to ensure that all have access to transport.

 

[Tio Terry]

You can throw around all of the accusations you like, but persons of reduced mobility will end up experiencing 'the short sharp shock of inconvenience' much more than 'normals', who are far better able to wedge themselves onto overcrowded trains and dart from platform to platform during disruption. That would be against the spirit of the legislation, which is to ensure that all have access to transport.

I would argue Equal access to transport.

Perhaps it would be appropriate for TOC’s to provide alternative, compliant, transport for PRM’s such as taxi’s, at their cost, if they run non-compliant rolling stock after the cut off date. Yes, they may well blame the DfT or rolling stock supplier for not providing the right rolling stock on time, but that becomes a legal argument between the TOC and whoever. The travelling public, able bodied and PRM, get what they should and the various organisations can argue the rights and wrongs - and who pays who - in court.

 

[yorksrob]

I would argue Equal access to transport.

Perhaps it would be appropriate for TOC’s to provide alternative, compliant, transport for PRM’s such as taxi’s, at their cost, if they run non-compliant rolling stock after the cut off date. Yes, they may well blame the DfT or rolling stock supplier for not providing the right rolling stock on time, but that becomes a legal argument between the TOC and whoever. The travelling public, able bodied and PRM, get what they should and the various organisations can argue the rights and wrongs - and who pays who - in court.

Yes, something like that would be more sensible, but also providing the assistance to enable people to travel on the trains, and doubling up with compliant units so that capacity is there where necessary.

 

[3141]

Some posters have written about the law being breached. They are overlooking the fact that the regulations in this case made provision for derogations/dispensations where compliant rolling stock wasn't going to be available on 1.1.20. The law isn't being breached, broken, flouted or whatever. I doubt that a court case would get very far.

Some have claimed that nobody did anything for 10 years, or some other figure plucked out of the air. In fact many existing trains have received the necessary modifications, and the ones that haven't are those that were expected to have been replaced by now. ​

So saying if trains are withdrawn with no replacements, nobody wins isn't true, it's more a case of those who have PRM aren't further disadvantaged.

I can't believe you said that. Completely wrong. Those with PRM would go on being disadvantaged but to no greater extent than before (apart from having no train or a more crowded one), and everybody else would be disadvantaged in a way they had not been before.

 

[modernrail]

I doubt any disability group or other party taking action would ask for a remedy that includes taking trains off the rails in the short term. Much more likely would be a request for a series of measures to assist the Government in coming back into compliance with the law, and so...
- better information on which trains are and are not currently compliant to help PRM plan their journey. Good luck with that one Northern and TPE. You don't even know where your staff or trains are, and nor do we.
- censure by the courts of the Government for lack of oversight of something within its control as contractual masters of all franchises. Very important in our system for the relevant civil servants to receive a career limiting slap on the wrist - unless they can point to Ministerial interference/inaction. Grayling at the helm should probably count as a blanket defence for all relevant civil servants. I once had to step over that guys legs as he had a kip on a Virgin West Coast service, across the bloody aisle, on a day Southern was on strike.
- a demand for a much more rigorous plan from the Government to achieve compliance more quickly including regular reports to the court to prove an acceleration of progress.
- if there are to be outlying situations...perhaps EMR being the obvious one, a clearer plan to minimise non-compliance, so for instance the Government making firm committments to the court to bring in ECML HST's or to increase staff numbers to help PRM passengers.

For me, having read the often interesting debate on this thread you can't help but feel the Government just needs pulling up on this one. No one wants to see big fines, trains off the rails in the short term etc. In fact I would argue the opposite, keep the pacers on but coupled to PRM compliant units until the Northern mess is much more stable. I agree with those who say less carriages is worse for PRM. However, the Government and industry just can not be allowed to get away with the sloppy approach they have demonstrated on this one. Once you open the door to standards being allowed to slip on compliance with no consequences, you risk a whole culture of, 'oh don't worry, it will be fine, they will just issue a piece of paper last minute you watch and see.'

 

[bnm]

I doubt any disability group or other party taking action would ask for a remedy that includes taking trains off the rails in the short term. Much more likely would be a request for a series of measures to assist the Government in coming back into compliance with the law, and so...
- better information on which trains are and are not currently compliant to help PRM plan their journey. Good luck with that one Northern and TPE. You don't even know where your staff or trains are, and nor do we.
- censure by the courts of the Government for lack of oversight of something within its control as contractual masters of all franchises. Very important in our system for the relevant civil servants to receive a career limiting slap on the wrist - unless they can point to Ministerial interference/inaction. Grayling at the helm should probably count as a blanket defence for all relevant civil servants. I once had to step over that guys legs as he had a kip on a Virgin West Coast service, across the bloody aisle, on a day Southern was on strike.
- a demand for a much more rigorous plan from the Government to achieve compliance more quickly including regular reports to the court to prove an acceleration of progress.
- if there are to be outlying situations...perhaps EMR being the obvious one, a clearer plan to minimise non-compliance, so for instance the Government making firm committments to the court to bring in ECML HST's or to increase staff numbers to help PRM passengers.

For me, having read the often interesting debate on this thread you can't help but feel the Government just needs pulling up on this one. No one wants to see big fines, trains off the rails in the short term etc. In fact I would argue the opposite, keep the pacers on but coupled to PRM compliant units until the Northern mess is much more stable. I agree with those who say less carriages is worse for PRM. However, the Government and industry just can not be allowed to get away with the sloppy approach they have demonstrated on this one. Once you open the door to standards being allowed to slip on compliance with no consequences, you risk a whole culture of, 'oh don't worry, it will be fine, they will just issue a piece of paper last minute you watch and see.'

How exactly do the courts censure the government? Courts rule on the law. No law has been broken. As pointed out in the post just before yours (did you read it?) the legislation as written allows for derogations.

Here's the legislation:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/3066/regulation/45

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would argue Equal access to transport.

Perhaps it would be appropriate for TOC’s to provide alternative, compliant, transport for PRM’s such as taxi’s, at their cost, if they run non-compliant rolling stock after the cut off date. Yes, they may well blame the DfT or rolling stock supplier for not providing the right rolling stock on time, but that becomes a legal argument between the TOC and whoever. The travelling public, able bodied and PRM, get what they should and the various organisations can argue the rights and wrongs - and who pays who - in court.

The question there would be is a taxi equivalent to a train? For a local journey probably so, if you want to go from London to Manchester clearly not as it'd take twice as long.

 

[PG]

Thank you both @bnm and @3141 for the important clarification that derogations are allowed under the legislation as written and passed by parliament.

Maybe we should be questioning whether it was ever the intention of parliament that quite so many derogations would be granted?

 

[Tio Terry]

The question there would be is a taxi equivalent to a train? For a local journey probably so, if you want to go from London to Manchester clearly not as it'd take twice as long.

Pendolino’s are compliant though aren’t they?

 

[Bikeman78]

50% of the population are able to do certain things men cannot... With this comes the issue of being able to adequately access public transport. Ever tried carrying a pushchair onto a train?
How about getting old? 95% of us will live into an elderly age where our balance, strength and endurability all begin to fail. Are you suggesting that we should not make trains accessible to this group of people?

Try as you may, accessibility is not just about those in wheelchairs or those with a disability, it’s about improving access for all.

I've been on a PRM 150 and a 317. The only advantage for people with kids is a bigger toilet in which to change nappies. Getting them on or off the train is exactly the same as before.

 

[3141]

Thank you both @bnm and @3141 for the important clarification that derogations are allowed under the legislation as written and passed by parliament.

Maybe we should be questioning whether it was ever the intention of parliament that quite so many derogations would be granted?

By reading through Hansard you might find out what was said at the time, but it would probably be something like "We expect the number of derogations to be small". It's possible though unlikely that some attempt was made to quantify "small", but I doubt that anyone would have said "And if more than that are requested they'll be refused, the trains will be withdrawn, and services will be cancelled". MPs may have hoped at the time that there would not be many requests for derogation, but no-one can have been certain.

How many derogations have there actually been, and for how long are they expected to last? Someone who's interested (I'm not) could work it out.

 

[philthetube]

no need.
franchises typically last 7-10 years.
upon awarding the next franchise it should be clearly stipulated:

"the train operator shall use stock that is compliant with DDA 2010"
THAT MEANS ROSCO's basically have no way out but to comply.
if they do not do so,for whatever reaason ie emergency /short term lease, then the stock is available temporarily at fire-sale prices.

personally I wouldnt have a problem with lease charges being public domain information.

Totally impractical unless the franchise system is changed, the franchise would have to be awarded years in advance in order for the winner to specify the stock required, the rosco could not be expected to order loads and then hope the new incumbent would want it.

It is unreasonable to blame either the tocs or the rosco's as the stock was not available to be removed from service in order to be upgraded

Basically it all boils down to,

Sue the TOC and they decide not to run non compliant trains
Sue the Rosco and they don't lease non compliant trains
Sue the Government and we all pay.

 

[3141]

How about getting old? 95% of us will live into an elderly age where our balance, strength and endurability all begin to fail. Are you suggesting that we should not make trains accessible to this group of people?

Try as you may, accessibility is not just about those in wheelchairs or those with a disability, it’s about improving access for all.

When London buses introduced low-floor single deckers on route 101 in East London about 25 years ago, they had vinyls saying "Easier for Everyone". But while that's literally true, it's irrelevant for a large proportion of the population who have no trouble going up a few steps.

However, I take your point about access being not just about those in wheelchairs or with a disability, but benefitting the elderly as well (as an example). At the age of 80 I can walk up a hundred steps if necessary, but of course I don't know if I'll still be able to do that in five years' time, or six months, or even tomorrow. I may be really glad there are low floor buses. On the other hand, if I reach the stage where my "balance, strength and endurability all begin to fail" I'll probably be asking myself whether I should do a journey at all. My situation will be different from those who are strong and fit but need a wheelchair because their legs don't work, or large-print information screens and colour differentiation because their eyesight is very weak. I think accessibility for those people is more important.

But then....

I've been on a PRM 150 and a 317. The only advantage for people with kids is a bigger toilet in which to change nappies. Getting them on or off the train is exactly the same as before.

....which does put this issue in perspective. People with mobility problems, and the elderly, will still need assistance of some kind to get into a train that meets the PRM requirements. The principal thing that's missing from the trains needing a derogation is an accessible toilet. It's probably only a very small proportion of would-be passengers who cannot undertake a journey if such a facility isn't available, and it will probably be on only a small proportion of the train journeys that take place and just for a few months. I don't think the "remedies" being proposed on this thread are necessary or justifiable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pendolino’s are compliant though aren’t they?

Yes, but that wasn't really my point.

 

[PG]

By reading through Hansard you might find out what was said at the time, but it would probably be something like "We expect the number of derogations to be small". It's possible though unlikely that some attempt was made to quantify "small", but I doubt that anyone would have said "And if more than that are requested they'll be refused, the trains will be withdrawn, and services will be cancelled". MPs may have hoped at the time that there would not be many requests for derogation, but no-one can have been certain.

How many derogations have there actually been, and for how long are they expected to last? Someone who's interested (I'm not) could work it out.

I too shall pass the baton on if anyone wishes to peruse Hansard or research the amount and duration of any derogations granted.

 

[ClnRe]

Pendolino’s are compliant though aren’t they?

Can anyone provide a list of rolling stock which does not meet PRM requirements for which dispensation has been issued?

 

[ComUtoR]

Can anyone provide a list of rolling stock which does not meet PRM requirements for which dispensation has been issued?

TOC : Southeastern
Unit : Networkers - Class 466 (2-Cars)
Issue : Toilet non compliant
Derogation : Unit must run in multiple at all times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TOC : Southeastern
Unit : Networkers - Class 466 (2-Cars)
Issue : Toilet non compliant
Derogation : Unit must run in multiple at all times.

Surprised they didn't just remove it.

 

[ComUtoR]

You have 2 cars worth of capacity. it would be wasted to remove it. Not forgetting that you need a 2 car to make a 10 car formation. Making more 10s or 6s seems t be the logical choice.

This is where derogation's can be important. The choice is to lose the capacity or just ensure its attached to a compliant unit. It still allows disability/mobility access and also keeps capacity.

I'm not 100% sure but I think the toilet must be locked out because the legislation allows for no toilet or an accessible one. Seems silly to lock out a working toilet.