A new Transport Committee report uncovers the harsh daily reality experienced by disabled people when using transport services, and calls for an overhaul of the regulatory system that should ensure they are supported and protected from discrimination.
From accounts of wheelchair users left on planes for hours, to taxi drivers refusing lifts to people because they have an assistance dog, and street clutter causing obstructions, MPs received shocking evidence of widespread failure by providers, across all transport modes, to uphold the rights of people with access needs.
The cross-party Committee’s report also finds that progress with addressing disparities between disabled and non-disabled people’s access to services has in some cases gone into reverse since the Covid pandemic, despite policy aspirations to close the gap.
In evidence heard by the previous Committee, before the 2024 general election, people with access needs – including non-visible disabilities such as autism, dementia, severe anxiety and learning disabilities – told the Committee that the stresses caused by poor reliability and a lack of assistance discourage them from trying to travel at all.
A survey conducted by the Committee, which received 825 responses, found that 67% of disabled people, or those who assist them, encounter problems using transport either “always” or “most of the time”. Just 1.7% said they never experienced challenges when travelling. A further 50.8% said that at least one a month they would decide against making a journey because they expected to face difficulties whilst travelling.
The report’s key recommendations:
Across the transport system, accessibility for disabled people must be recognised as a human right rather than a ‘nice to have’. Failures should be seen as discrimination, not merely as a customer service issue. A change of mindset is needed at all levels among providers, regulators and enforcers.
Disabled people who experience inadequate services shoulder too great a burden when making complaints, seeking redress or taking legal action against transport providers big or small. This comes at the expense of their own time, energy and cost. The Committee heard that even successful complaints rarely lead to lasting change. A unified, user-friendly complaints service should be established within 12 months to cover all transport modes.
The landscape of regulations, legal duties and enforcement bodies is far too fragmented and complex. The law should work in theory but reality is very different. A review of all relevant legislation and the powers and resources of enforcement bodies is needed so that no transport mode is left uncovered. This review should assess whether a single enforcement body would be more effective at asserting disabled people’s rights. Until then, the Transport Secretary should direct all existing enforcement bodies to take a proactive approach to enforcement.
Within 12 months the Government must produce new, long-term, fully costed inclusive transport strategy to make both radical improvements across the transport network and closes the gap between rights and reality.
As part of the new inclusive transport strategy, the Government must produce a road map with concrete timescales for achieving independent accessibility across the rail network. This new policy should inform upgrades to rolling stock, station and network enhancements. MPs heard international comparisons such as Vienna’s U-Bahn has a long-term plan to make all of its stations accessible. New York City has a plan to make 95% of its stations accessible by 2055, while the Netherlands aims to improve its entire rail network by 2030.
The new inclusive transport strategy should include steps to make policy and decision-making processes more responsive to accessibility, particularly when decisions are made around staffing levels and staff training. The strategy should also set out practical measures to embed the principle that every instance of not meeting accessibility obligations constitutes a serious failure, for which service providers will be held accountable. This must include measures to collect comprehensive data on such failures.
