Event: IDAG Meeting

Standard Summary Report

Event: IDAG Meeting

Date: Thursday, 26 March 2015

Duration: 10.18 – 11.52 (Sitting 1hr 25mins)

Speakers: Alice Maynard Chair Leyla Mustafa (LM) Peter Wright (PW) Marco Taylor (MT) LU Customer Strategy Team

Agenda: Single Equality Scheme, KPIs

London Underground: Step-free access

Tel: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected] www.merrillcorp.com Wordwave International, a Merrill Communications Company 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 10.18am

The meeting began at 10.18 and those present introduced themselves.

LM reported on a change in the way the equality key performance indicator (EKPI) was to be applied. While SES/EKPI would remain on the TfL score card at the highest level and in planning; otherwise, the activities themselves would still appear, but these activities would not appear under SES/EKPI. Their next task was to engage with stakeholders to identify the key issues for TfL and the activities and mitigations that needed to be put in place and to make the SES a lot smarter. A particular focus would be on developing measurable KPIs – the ability to track the impact of an activity and to be able to determine whether they had achieved what they had set out to. The sub-regional forums would be the base-line sounding board for the SES and there would be other areas of engagement and a programme to ensure that current and emerging issues are captured and the business more focused.

In response to questions, LM said that while the TfL score card would indicate the number of SES actions achieved, on MD score cards, individual actions would appear under milestones deliverable and agreed that having trialled the way indicators were put on the score card had demonstrated that they could have a positive impact. Nonetheless, it was argued that including KPIUs on MD score cards would lead to duplication or that they were difficult to measure or cumbersome insofar as there were so many potential indicators across the entire network. However, the programme had caused people to focus on these issues and think about how these activities could be incorporated and measured. They had an opportunity and a challenge in focusing not only on the mechanics of measurable activity but the outcomes that would constitute success in terms of people’s experiences.

PW introduced MT’s presentation on the underground step-free access project, pointing out that its purpose was to provide information and an understanding of how best to draw out from the sub-regional forums what they regarded as a good step-free access station. He noted that at the sub-regional forum East, people were split into groups to discuss and debate the issue rather than simply answering specific questions.

MT explained how, during a workshop at the Access All Areas event in October 2014, they were able to capture a list of features that people felt made a difference to delivering step-free access schemers. They had decided to build on this and hold a number of sessions focusing on what contributed to the quality and user- friendliness of such schemes. Using the features captured in that first session as a template, subsequent sessions not only captured new features, they enabled them to prioritise those identified. Further, these sessions then introduced people responsible for engineering and delivering the schemes to apprise people of the detail and the challenges involved in such schemes – issues such as wheelchairs and buggies – to allow people to consider the complexities involved and the need for compromise where a must-have feature clashed with the complexity of its delivery. In open discussions during these sessions issues like toilet provision, bus hubs and ramp based versus lift based schemes. Given the different perspectives of wheelchair users and pushchair users, MT said it was important that they improved their engagement with this latter group.

These sessions, therefore, brought forward features and perspectives from a broad spectrum of disabled people with a broad spectrum of views, sometimes encompassing ideas that went beyond stations alone. General areas for discussion would include the perception that in delivering a scheme, ‘something was better than nothing’ such that an increase in the number of stations made step free would take precedence over the provision of toilet facilities as a priority. MT said the slides and pack used for the East sub-regional mobility forum presentation would be circulated.

In terms of analysis, the features emerging from these sessions would be grouped into logical areas and used to engage with their ‘owners’ discipline experts, whether of the physical infrastructure or the more abstract features such as staff training, information and publicity. This analysis would allow them to assess whether the must-have and ‘nice-to-have’ features identified were relevant and fit for purpose and allow them to create a good practice guide as a point of reference in delivering user-friendly access schemes. The outcomes they would share with Access for All and others to enable networks beyond LU alone to benefit from this exercise. Where financial constraints demanded a compromise solution, the guide would ensure that key features were not lost and that the right balance was struck.

MT asked members whether there were other groups they should be seeking to engage with. It was suggested that the focus was currently too narrow, that the trade-offs anticipated would impact the value of access-free facilities important to certain groups. The wider they cast their net, the greater their awareness of the impact of these schemes on the broadest constituency of users. There were those, it was observed, who, while they may not see themselves as disabled, ought to be involved in the debate. Parents of disabled children should be consulted and the elderly and the learning disabled should not be overlooked. Where compromise solutions had been adopted, disabled groups should be able to experience these first-hand in order to ascertain whether these solutions had been successful. Where, for example, bus hubs represented the compromise solutions, these had to have toilet facilities because of the vicissitudes of travel. It was observed that while parents with under-5s placed a positive economic value on long ramps, disabled people placed a negative value on them. Further, TfL’s Sustainability and Accessibility panel had pointed out the need for greater urgency in the step-free access programme and appropriate funding. Staff availability and visibility was also an issue.

MT himself posed the question about the viability of bus hubs, more easily accessible in certain areas of London, feeding travellers to and from access-free stations. The East sub-regional mobility forum was largely negative in this regard but members saw the issue in terms of the accessibility of the hub as an interchange between transport modes. The aspiration had to be for step-free journeys by whatever viable means such that step-free transport hubs, such as Walthamstow, were able to serve a step-free network. Insofar as they were creating cycle superhighways, could they not also create accessibility superhighways – an interconnecting grid of accessible transport facilities?

There followed a short adjournment.

(11.21pm)

Short Break

(11.30pm)

Following the adjournment, PW gave an update on IDAG recruitment. There had been 53 applications submitted, out of which 8 had been considered worthy of interviewing. While there had been a fairly wide range of disabilities represented the majority of applicants had been wheelchair users. It was important to include the widest range of impairments in order to satisfy the disabled constituency that its diverse needs were being addressed. The short-list, therefore, had to focus on the representation of the broadest possible spectrum of understanding and experience, irrespective of any specific impairment to ensure that the broader constituency had a voice. Nonetheless, the group had to have an element of diversity in terms of impairment – an IDAG dominated by wheelchair users would not be ideal, despite the fact that group had traditionally been more vocal and more involved in the variety of forums representing the disability voice.

It was suggested that the recruitment process be looked at to engage with a greater variety of potential applicants, including those for who the application process itself could be challenging. Equally, irrespective of the particular disabilities of members, their approach mind-set had to be panoramic.

PW said the quality of applicants shortlisted was very high and the next step would begin after Easter. One member observed that while experience might be related to a specific impairment, competence was not and the strength would lie in an individual’s understanding of the experiences of others with diverse needs and impairments. Once the IDAG team had been settled, it would be introduced to each of the company’s E&I leadership groups to embed it in their minds and ensure top- down recognition.

In conclusion, the Chair thanked all members for their work, especially those stepping down, encouraging them, to remain in touch and to remain critical.

The meeting concluded at 11.52pm.

(11.52pm)