Confederation of Public Transport Operations Director Keith McNally outlines the body’s stance on this controversial topic
In 2019, the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) rocked the coach industry. As the only national trade association for the coach sector at that time, the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) took ownership of the problem, collected the necessary data and approached the government seeking an alternative approach. We were pleased we were able to secure initial exemptions and worked with the Department for Transport (DfT) to develop a longer-term solution.
CPT continued to collect and provide data to DfT. This led to a series of short-term exemptions from PSVAR for home-to-school and rail-replacement services.
Our sector was then hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic. The crisis prompted CPT to make a case for medium-term certainty for our members, which we achieved in April last year, with exemptions running through to 2026.
Following this week’s publication of the government’s call for evidence on PSVAR, CPT stands ready to respond on behalf of the industry. Being the largest and most diverse trade association representing both the coach and bus sectors can present its challenges. However, I believe we have worked through these well and developed positions that are balanced and fair to everyone who has a stake, including those who have made enormous investments in PSVAR.
CPT has developed a policy position on PSVAR. At CPT, we deal with regulations every day and I was keen to ensure that our approach was deliverable in a regulatory sense.
Our Coach Commission is CPT’s policy-making body for coach matters. It consists of operators large and small from the English regions, Scotland and Wales. At our meeting in April, members agreed some key principles that form the basis of CPT’s position on PSVAR.
Firstly, all “open-door” services would be required to comply – in effect, the situation as it is now, if the exemptions weren’t in place. Secondly, all “closed-door”, regular services (school and other services where the passengers are known in advance) would be required to comply where a passenger has an accessibility need (ie, “on demand”).
A third key point is that members believe that the payment of “separate fares” shouldn’t be a factor in determining whether a service is “in scope” or not. This offers a widening of the potential range of services that would comply with on-demand. It also overcomes a key issue with the existing legislation – namely that whether a service needs to comply or not depends on whether any separate fares are paid. We have made the point many times that operators don’t always know whether this is the case, depending on who has organised the service and their policies regarding payments.
Of course, PSVAR relates to buses as well as coaches. In total, 99% of buses now have an accessibility certificate, but the DfT review of the Regulations seeks to consider all aspects. It is important to understand that the call for evidence is not a consultation and the government response (promised by the end of this year) will not set out what changes it will make – only its views on the key actions recommended by those who submit evidence. There will then be a period of further engagement and policy exploration.
CPT will again be leading the industry response. Please look out for opportunities to input through our forthcoming member events and publications, as we develop our submission to the call for evidence.
