Effect of the 2012 Olympic Games on Disabled Transportation

Effect of the 2012 Olympic Games on Dis satis positionoryd tranceationThe Olympic Games in 2012 basis leave a legacy of loving express and facilities non just for disable sportsmen and women, that for mess with a equipment casualty in general.1Phil Lane, British Paralympic Association Chief ExecutiveTable of table of contents (Jump to)1. Introduction2. methodology3. Evaluation3.1. Legislation3.1.1. DDA 19953.1.1.1. content of hindrance3.1.1.2. Meaning of contrast3.1.1.3. Positive Duty quite a littlestairs the DDA 20053.1.1.4. Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles3.1.1.5. runninging Vehicles3.1.1.6. Public Transport Vehicles3.1.1.7. Aircraft and Ships3.1.1.8. DDA 1995 Comparison to former(a) Anti- discrepancy Legislation3.1.1.9. Criticisms3.2. Case lawfulness3.3. Stakeholder Commentary3.4. Survey Results4. Recommendations5. Conclusion5. Appendix A6. BIBLIOGRAPHY1.IntroductionThe apprehend goernment chthonian Tony Blair has primp bulge an ambitious agenda for tackling damage secernment a brood society. Part of this agenda has involved amendments to the damage Discrimination present 1995 (DDA 1995)2 in order to ensure that the lessons of the first ten long era of the dress having been in force argon taken into account. The DDA 1995 sets out, along with the regulations and orders blade chthonic the feat, the legislative manikin the excogitation of which is to ensure that alter good deal throughout the rural have access to the equivalent opportunities as the national at large. With capital of the United Kingdom having been awarded the Olympic Games in 2012, the ability of this legislative framework to force through change, both on a functional level, and on a cultural one, go out be put to the test. The purpose of this delineate is to examine and critic everyy assess, inside the context of send out in capital of the United Kingdom and airline operators, whether or non this legislative framework is sufficient to relate the unav oidably of disable people coming up to the Olympic Games and beyond.2.MethodologyIn order to assess the readiness of London to meet the of necessity of incapacitate travellers during the Olympic Games and beyond within the confines of a query paper it is necessary to cl un whilely define the scope of the intended research. In this display eccentric person, the scope of the investigation is limited to take in London, which includes hacks, trains, overt power vehicles, b manipulations, the netherground, aircraft and, to a lesser degree, availability to the buildings from which those transplant vehicles leave from and arrive to.In order for it to be concluded that London go out be speedy to meet the destinys of incapacitate travellers by 2012, it go away need to be shown, that the current legislative framework is sufficient that where there are ambiguities within the legislating, the Courts have been willing to watch over through single-valued functionful guidance t o enjoy leadrs and disenable travellers gener tot eachyy that the culture within the public transport industry has changed with managers and employees straightaway aware of their obligations under the decree that there are adequate penalties in place to discourage those that fail to postdate and fin every(prenominal)y, that these previously mentioned factors will all work together to provide disabled travellers with a integrated nitty-gritty of getting around London by 2012.In order to look into these matters, it was necessary to look in detail at the commissariat of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995), how the Act has been amended over the past football team years, and in particular by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA 2005), the discordant regulations and orders make under the DDA 1995 pertaining to public transport, cases decided dealing with the DDA 1995 and discordant translation available from both public transport servicing providers, disa bled travellers and other stakeholders.A survey of both cart track and airline employees was also undertaken in order to gauge the level of understanding of the furnishs of what is a perplex and often misinterpreted piece of legislation. The results of that survey are set out in Appendix A and discussed within the body of this report.3.Evaluation3.1Legislation single of the main(prenominal) aims of this report is to establish whether or not the amendments made to the DDA 1995 by the DDA 2005 have assisted in qualification the DDA 1995 more accessible or whether it remains, as musical noted by lord Justice Mummery, without doubt an unco complex piece of legislation which poses novel questions of interpretation.33.1.1DDA 1995The primary piece of legislation dealing with variety against disabled people using public transport is the DDA 1995 which has been amended by the DDA 2005. The DDA 2005 have gotd royal assent on the s accompanimenth April 2005. Its main purpose was to g ive effect to the submissions made by various groups relating to the operation of the DDA 1995 over the preceding ten years by providing for authentic distinguished amendments in social intercourse to that legislation.The DDA 2005 makes several substantial amendments to the DDA 1995. Those that ease up to public transport are set out in partings 5 to 9. discussion section 5 inserts a naked division 21ZA into the DDA 1995 and replaces the existing elision of transport services from Sections 19 to 21 of the DDA 1995 with a more precise exclusion which relates to yet those transport services which consist of vehicle provision and use. Section 21ZA(1)(b) excludes discrimination which relates to a service provided, or not provided, while a disabled soulfulness is travelling in a vehicle. Section 21ZA(2) excludes from the craft to provide adjustments, transport services involving providing or using a vehicle. Sections 21ZA(1) and (2) stinker be disapplied through regulations made by the monument of plead under Section 21ZA(3).4Section 6 of the DDA 2005 clarifies the timeframe for the bringing into force regulations dealing with all rail vehicles and the commerce requiring rail operators to have in place measures allowing for disabled people to get on and sour correct rail vehicles in preventive and without un healthy difficulty and to be carried in regulated rail vehicles in safety and reasonable comfort. The writing table of read is now required, under the new Section 46(4A) to ensure that all rail vehicles are regulated under the rail vehicles accessibility regulations by 1st January 2020. Section 6 also removes from the definition of rail vehicle the liberty relating to vehicles first brought into use after thirty-first December 1998. This means that there is now no start date and the Secretary of State is able to make regulations which adjudge to all rail vehicles and for instance, make regulations which apply to rail vehicles first brought into service earlier 1998 and which are for example refurbished. This closes a potential loop-hole in the legislation and allows the Secretary of State to meet the deadline obligate by 46(6A).5Section 6(3) clarifies the Secretary of States powers to make franchise orders relating to regulated rail vehicles by specifically allowing the making of exemption orders which relate to the operational as tumefy as the construction elements of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations. Section 6(4) clarifies the summons to be followed by the Secretary of State when exercising their discretion under Section 67(5A) of the DDA 1995. This procedure applies to the making of exemption orders and requires the Secretary of State to touch on the Disabled Persons Transport consultatory Committee, and any other bodies that may be appropriate, and furthermore, for such(prenominal) regulations to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure which allows for great parliamentary scrutiny. In the s ame vein of providing closer scrutiny over the making of exemption orders, Section 6(5) of the DDA 2005 inserts a new section (67B) which requires an one-year report to be produced by the Secretary of State detailing the exemption orders which have been made and containing details of the consultation process undertaken.6Section 7 of the DDA 2005 deals with the new concept of rail accessibility compliance certificates and allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations appointing independent assessors responsible for granting and enforcing the certificates, setting out the mechanisms for the charging of fees and dispute resolution. The intention of the certification scheme is to ultimately prohibit regulated rail vehicles direct without a valid compliance certificate. These certificates will also provide a degree of flexibility with Section 47A(4) allowing the certificates to be subject to conditions.7Section 8 of the DDA 2005 replaces the criminal sanctions set out in the DD A 1995 for a breach of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations with a civil regime allowing the levying of penalties should an improvement come up and final notice issued by the Secretary of State not be complied with. It also provides the Secretary of State with new powers of inspection in cases in which it is suspected that a regulated rail vehicle fails to conform to the provisions of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations (Sections 47E and 47F). New sections 47D to 47L deal with the imposition of penalties on train operators. Section 47D to 47H deal with the amount, due date and recovery of penalties imposed under the Act. Most seriously, any punishment imposed cannot exceed 10% of the operators turnover. Section 47K sets out the procedure to be followed and the operators right to object. If the operator is not satisfied with the penalty imposed by the Secretary of State, they have the right to draw to a Court, whether or not they have lodged an appeal with the Secreta ry of State, but exclusively on the railyard that either the penalty should not apply to them or that the level of the penalty is too high.8Section 9 allows for the acquaintance in England and Wales of disabled persons parking badges issued in foreign jurisdictions. This then allows for reciprocal recognition of UK badges in other EU countries.93.1.1.1Meaning of DisabilityThe DDA 1995 defines a disabled person as someone who has a deterioration.10 A person has a disability if they have,a physiological or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to endure out normal day-to-day activities.11This is further clarified in plan 1 of the DDA 1995. A mental impairment is not exhaustively outlined but it originally altogether include mental illnesses in cases in which that illness is clinically easy-recognised.12 This constraint has now been removed by Section 18(2) of the DDA 2005.In addition, the DDA 2005 by way of Section 18(3) deems t hose suffering from HIV, Cancer or MS to be disabled before the symptoms set out in Section 1, or paragraph 8 of Schedule 1, have been experience by them.13An impairment is held to be long-term if a person has had it for at least twelve months, it is expected to last for at least twelve months or it is likely to make the person for the rest of their life.143.1.1.2Meaning of DiscriminationSection 3A(1) of the DDA 1995 states that a disabled person is secernated against if, for a reason relating to a disabled persons disability, a person treats a disabled person less favourably than they would someone without a disability and the person alleged to be discriminating against the disabled person cannot show that it is confirm to treat them in this way.In order for the discourse referred to above to be justified, it must be both substantial and material to the particular cases circumstances.15 However, if the treatment amounts to direct discrimination, it cannot be justified.16 Simil arly, if the person was required to make reasonable adjustments to bring home the bacon for disabled people and has not done so, they will not be able to rely on a defence of the treatment cosmos justified unless even if he had complied with the duty it would have been justified.17More applicablely to the issue of public transport, a person is also held to have discriminated against a disabled person if when a duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to disabled people is imposed on them, they fail to comply with that duty.183.1.1.3Positive Duty under the DDA 2005The DDA 2005 introduced the concept of a positive duty for public authorities which makes it unlawful for them to, in the course of carrying out its functions, to discriminate against disabled people.19 A similar positive duty has not been included with regard as to private companies and employers.3.1.1.4Taxis and Private Hire VehiclesThe DDA 1995 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that it is possible for disabled persons to get into and out of taxis in safety, and to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort and for disabled persons in wheelchairs to be conveyed in safety into and out of taxis while remain in their wheelchairs, and to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs. It is proposed that regulations are introduced in respect of all new Taxis by 2010 and all Taxis by 2020.20 unmatchable noteworthy exception is that private hire vehicles are not provided for under the DDA 1995 however, this is not an exception that is likely to remain for long with both the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Group and the Disability Rights Commission looking into the matter.213.1.1.5Rail VehiclesA rail vehicle as amended by the DDA 2005 is a vehicle, constructed or adapted to carry passengers on any railway, tramway or convinced(p) system.22The DDA 1995 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make rail vehicle accessibility regulations.23 These regulations, made in 1998 and amended in 2000, cover several important areas. They allow the Secretary of State to require, by way of these regulations, transport operators to provide means for disabled persons to be able to get on and off regulated rail vehicles in safety and without difficulty and to be able to travel in those vehicles in safety and comfort. They also cover such matters as, wheelchair accessibility, the design of on-board accessible toilets, the size and location of handrails, handholds and control devices as well as the provision of audible warnings and other equipment.24The DDA 1995 also allows the Secretary of State to make an exception in relation to a case in which a rail vehicle operator is unable to meet the requirements and makes an action for exemption. An example of such an exemption relating to London is the one granted to Gatwick talk (The Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Gatwick Express Class 458) Exemption score 2006). This Order exempts Gatwick Express from some of the requirements of the regulations until April 2011.25However, without doubt, the main hurdle that the government needs to overcome to ensure that the Olympic Games in 2012 are an inclusive event is the issue of accessibility to the London Underground. Transport for London before long lists as accessible by means other than stairs or escalators, only 40 of its 275 underground stake.26 The pace of improvements taking place also fails to take away one with confidence. Over the next five years there will be an additional 27 step-free stations. The intention is then for 25% to be step-free by 2010 and 50% by 2015.27As the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) correctly point out, if these figures are to be accepted, less than half of Londons Underground stations will be accessible by way of stair-free means by the time of the Olympics in 2012 and this is a situation that they find unacceptable.28 epoch being the main means of transport for many spectators who will arrive in London at the time of the Olympic Games, the Tube is also perhaps the virtually culturally significant icon that London possesses and it will reflect poorly on the country as a whole if accessibility to London Underground stations has not been addressed in a productive manner before 2012.3.1.1.6Public Transport VehiclesThe regulations applying to public transport vehicles are set out in the Public work Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000. These regulations provide standards which are to be met and apply to all new public service vehicles (buses or coaches) introduced since 31st December 2000 with a capacity exceeding 22 passengers used to provide a local of scheduled service.29 They also set out deadlines for the conflict of the standards. For instance, wheel chair users must be able to access all small buses by the 1st January 2015, large single deck buses by the 1st January 2016 and double deck buses by the 1st January 2017.30At award the accessibility by wheelchair users of buses nationwide stands at approximately 30%.31 However, the DPTAC note that with respect to Londons buses, accessibility for wheelchair users is close to 100%.32 The main concern with respect to buses in the capital is not in relation to compliance with the required modifications, but rather with the failure of some drivers to use the modifications available to assist their disabled passengers.33 It should be noted that the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 do provide for a driver refusing to assist a disabled person in cases in which doing so would adversely affect his health or safety, your safety or that of other passengers or the safety of the vehicle. 34 However, it should be stressed to all drivers that this exemption should only be relied upon in specific circumstances with clear examples being provided.Finally, the DPTAC also suggest the great availability of audible and visu al information systems and this is an area that Transport for London is considering as an improvement for all their customers, not only those that are disabled.353.1.1.7Aircraft and ShipsOne of the main criticisms of the DDA 1995 is that it fails to specifically address the duties of ship and airline operators. While ports and airports will still need to comply with the requirements of the legislation, the DDA 1995 fails to provide in respect of ships and aircraft the same regulatory making powers that it provides with respect to taxis, rail and public transport vehicles. Ships and aircraft come under European laws dealing with anti-discrimination legislation, however it is still argued that for disability discrimination legislation to be effective, it must apply to all public transport vehicles that operate within the UK. This gap in the legislation is seem as a major hurdle to ensuring that there is consistency across all types of public transport coming up to the Olympic Games an d beyond.The DPTAC endorses this view and notes that aircraft and ships will be the first and last Olympic travel experience that most overseas participants and audiences will experience, and we believe that the Government should do all it can to ensure that that experience is a positive one.36 They also emphasise that atmosphere and raptus are currently covered by voluntary codes but that the government has made it clear that should these codes fail, they would be prepared to remove the exemption from Part 3 of the DDA 1995 that currently applies to them.37 As Karen Buck, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport sets out in her response to Tony Manwaring, CEO of Scope, the government is carrying out benchmarking tests in association with DPTAC the results of which were hoped to be available in early 2006. These figure outs would then help determine whether or not it was necessary to wrap the DDA 1995 Part 3 exemption currently granted to airline and shipping transpo rt providers.383.1.1.9DDA 1995 Comparison to other Anti-Discrimination LegislationOne of the most important differences between the DDA and other anti-discrimination legislation is that the DDA only applies to people who meet the criteria set out for being disabled. The Disability Rights Commission estimates that approximately ten jillion people have rights under the DDA 1995.39 In contrast, other anti-discrimination legislation is more than more pervasive in its application and applies to all members of society as long as they can show that the type of discrimination they are alleged to have suffered occurred.Another important difference is that the DDA takes into account the fact that the aim of assisting people with a disability is not to ensure that they receive equal treatment but rather, treatment which is appropriate to their circumstances. As such, the DDA does not aim to restrict the ability of those dealing with disabled people to positively discriminate in their favour, rather accepting that where appropriate, disabled people need to be treated differently.40 Under other anti-discrimination legislation, discrimination can neer be justified.3.1.1.9CriticismsJan Nesbitt, chair of the Disability Law Service, notes that, one of the weaknesses of the DDA has been that the service provision elements have been brought in over a lengthy period of time and some disabled people have had to wait for their needs to be met. there are some areas that are unsatisfactory, transport is still not covered, except for design features41The focus of the DDA 1995 is to put the duty to change on the public transport operators. This focus is sometimes referred to as being solution-oriented.42 A solution-oriented approach to disability discrimination is a positive and extremely respectable tool in combating discrimination. However, this approach can only genuinely apply to those with physical disabilities and this has lead some commentators to suggest that the DDA 1995 is in fact invidious in itself as it places much more emphasis on those with physical disabilities as opposed to those suffering from mental disabilities. This however could be express to simply reflect the relative ease of making adjustments for those with physical disabilities, compared to making adjustments for those suffering from mental illnesses. deal suffering from mental illnesses create a much more difficult problem for public transport providers to solve. There are no simple physical modifications that can be made to cater for people suffering from mental illnesses. This is further exacerbated by fact that it is often clear when someone is suffering from a physical impairment and staff can be trained to respond to their needs apace and effectively. It is a lot more difficult to gauge whether or not someone is suffering from a mental illness, how best to assist them and whether or not they may pose a danger to staff and/or other members of the public.A frightening prospe ct is that the legislation as it currently stands could allow public transport companies to segregate those with disabilities from the rest of the travelling public. While this is already done to some extent, eg spaces for people needing wheelchair access it is only a short distance from an ID card which lists a persons disability, to a separate carriage for those with disabilities. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it would no doubt be argued that this solution provides the best means of catering for the individual needs of disabled people.3.2Case LawOne of the leading cases decided under the DDA 1995 was Clark v TDG Ltd (t/a Novacold).43 This was an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal and was the first appeal decided by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) under the DDA 1995. While that case dealt with employment law, shaper Justice Mummerys comments about the DDA 1995 and its kinship to other anti-discrimination legislation is still of importance to the area of publ ic transport. Lord Justice Mummery stated,Contrary to what might be reasonably assumed, the exercise of interpretation is not facilitated by familiarity with the pre-existing legislation prohibiting discrimination in the field of employment (and elsewhere) on the grounds of sex (Sex Discrimination Act 1975) and race (Race Discrimination Act 1976). Indeed, it may be positively deceptive to approach the 1995 Act with assumptions and concepts familiar from experience of the workings of the 1975 Act and the 1976 Act. unlike the earlier discrimination Acts the 1995 Act does not draw the crucial distinction between direct and indirect discrimination on specified grounds it provides a defence of justification to less favourable treatment which would even off direct discrimination and be without such a defence under the earlier Acts and it does not replicate the express requirement of the 1975 Act (section 5(3)) and the 1976 Act (section 3(4)) that, when a comparison of the cases of pers ons of different sex or persons of different racial groups falls to be made, the comparison must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other.One consequence of these differences is that the terms discriminate and discrimination are not used in Part II of the 1995 Act in the same sense as in the earlier Acts. stroke to discern and observe this difference in meaning in purpose making (and in commentaries on both the 1995 Act and on decisions under it) can lead to serious conceptual confusion.The key question that Lord Justice Mummery concluded as being fundamental to whether or not a disabled person had been discriminated against was, is the treatment related to a complainants disability?44Andy Rickell, director of the British Council of Disable People has stated, in respect of the case law arising from the DDA 1995, Barristers are, and have been, running a coach and horses through disabled peoples rights.45 Jan Nes bitt, chair of the Disability Law Service, concurred with Rickells sentiments but addedIts like any new piece of legislation, barristers will find loopholes because theres no case law so theres nothing to test against. I think what happened in the beginning was that a lot of disabled people, in employment tribunals particularily, conducted their own case, and fell at the first hurdle which was proving that they were a disabled person. Any good barrister will make their case. The definition of disability is one of the things thats currently being reviewed so that tribunals and courts have a better understanding of it. In any case, it is important for disabled people to get access to legal representation when taking a case.46A case more relevant to transport was Roads v exchange Trains.47 This case involved a disabled resident of Norwich who relied on her voltaic wheelchair for mobility who brought a claim against Central Trains. The facts of the case revolved around the claimant no t being able to access platform 1 at the station. The only means of accessing the platform from the side he was on was to either cross the footbridge or travel half a mile down the road where he could pass under the track and return on the other side. As both of these alternatives were not reasonable, the train company suggested the claimant, at no extra cost, take the train to a further station which was equipped with disabled access facilities, adding approximately one hour to the voyage time. The claimant suggested that this was not reasonable and that the defendant company should have paid for a specially adapted taxi to drive him around to the other side. In the first instance, the Judge held that as the nearest specially adapted taxi was based in Norwich which was some way from Thetford where the station was located, it was unreas