| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : I have been listening very carefully to my hon. Friend. I agree with him and with some of the examples raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House earlier. Does my hon. Friend accept that what he has described is the approach taken by the European Commission, charged as it is under the treaty of Rome, for the development of a communitywide transport policy to promote the competition reforms to which my hon. Friend is alluding instead of the idea of different trains on the same tracks and all that illusory nonsense which is totally unrealistic? The Commission wants greater competition between different forms of transport.
Mr. Adley : My hon. Friend studies those matters, and he is right. I am in favour of ending BR's monopoly and
Column 1131
that is the policy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I have not yet been convinced however that the illusory privatisation argument, which is quite separate, would result in a better railway. Let me return to where I was. By selling track bed in the 1960s, we closed options just when the roads were becoming clogged. We have built more roads and they have become even more clogged.I have pleaded with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State as I did with his predecessors--I have got nowhere although I place this point on the record again today--to recognise that there is a difference between instructions to BR to sell off surplus land of a general nature and an instruction from Government to BR to sell off track bed from which services have been removed. Unless we recognise that we are constantly destroying assets that can probably never be replaced, we will not be able to take advantage of the legacy of our forebears. That is a simple point, although I realise that its implementation requires a degree of intervention. However, if my right hon. and learned Friend's words are to be taken at face value, they mean that he is not opposed to some form of intervention. Please could we stop selling so-called redundant track bed?
What has happened in this country--and all over Europe--is simple ; the internal combustion engine, which once appeared likely to sound the death knell of the railways, has by its very proliferation, brought about a railway renaissance. The purpose of this debate must be to see whether we have the will to achieve that renaissance and whether we shall will the means so to do. That is putting the debate in the context of learning from the past. We are now beginning to have what I regard as a healthy debate but, in the past, it has been motivated too much by partisan political knee -jerk reactions. Even The Times, that organ of independent thinking-- [Laughter.] Hansard cannot record things in inverted commas, but my hon. Friends have just given a slight guffaw. The Times recently had a leader that was entitled "Break up and sell" but which then stated,
"BR is probably the most cost-effective big railway in the world". It is extraordinary to admit that one has one of the best railways in the world and yet to state that the prescription for its future is to break it up and sell it. If some of my hon. Friends could occasionally give some acknowledgement of British Rail's successes despite all its difficulties, that would be most welcome. I welcome the commencement last week of the full electric service on the east coast mainline. The Times undertook an interesting exercise involving three travellers, travelling by air, rail and car. I shall not repeat all the comments that were made, but the only one who enjoyed his journey was the one who travelled by train. The journey by car took seven hours and 55 minutes. When I was sitting in the Tea Room, one of my right hon. and learned Friend's ministerial colleagues said, "Yes, but the journey only cost £30.73." That is where we come to the rub, because that amount is only a tiny fraction of the real cost of the car journey both to the driver and to the nation. Unless and until the House is willing to recognise the real cost to this country of motoring, the motor car and the internal combustion engine, we will never get to the heart of the debate. Although, as I have said, I welcome the east coast main-line electrification, one has to be frank and say that
Column 1132
we have spent £400 million on modernising a Victorian railway while most of our continental competitors are building new railways. I am often asked how the railways are doing in comparison with other countries. I shall weary the House briefly with a story that was told to me in a different context by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home of the Hirsel.During his last year as a Member of this House, my right hon. and noble Friend was giving his annual garden party when he was approached by a man whom he recognised as one of his most cantankerous and difficult constituents. Of course, none of us has such people in our constituencies but, unfortunately, my right hon. and noble Friend did have such a constituent. Thinking of something totally bland to say as the chap walked towards him, Lord Home said, "Good afternoon, Mr. So-and-so, how is your wife?" to which the answer was, "Compared to what?"
I shall take that as the thesis for this part of my speech. When I am asked how our railways are doing, I must add, "Compared to what?" Compared to France and Germany to name but two, we are modernising a Victorian railway while they are building new railways.
Mr. Gerald Bowden : I am interested in my hon. Friend's point, but I wonder whether he thinks it right that British Rail is bringing forward proposals for a channel tunnel rail link which is to be superimposed on the existing Network SouthEast? Would it not be far more sensible to have a completely new route, with a dedicated freight line and a fast passenger route instead of the makeshift and ramshackle proposals that British Rail has produced so far?
Mr. Adley : My hon. Friend is tempting me. Some of our European colleagues think that we are barmy. They do not understand how we can still be arguing about whether to build a brand new railway line. Of course my hon. Friend is right. Of course we have to have a new railway line. However, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) allowed herself to be persuaded to include clause 42 in the channel tunnel legislation at the behest of some of her friends who ran the ferries, thus preventing public investment in a new railway system, and that is the root cause of the problem. However, that was during the ancien regime, and I do not want to be sidetracked down that blind alley.
The train grand vitesse is the French Government's visible commitment to a transport policy in which the train is more than an afterthought. As has been said, the French Government are about to invest £21 billion, aimed at more than doubling the size of France's TGV network over the next two decades.
Together with the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I spent two or three days in Germany a couple of weeks ago. We talked to the German Department of Transport, to those connected with the German railways and to German politicians. We travelled from Frankfurt to Hanover in the cab of a new German intercity express on a brand new railway line. One only has to do that to see the investment that has been made. One could almost hear the money falling out of the German Treasury. There has been massive investment in a public facility. The German Government are not exactly noted for running the most inefficient and overburdened economy in western Europe--
Mr. Gregory : Will my hon. Friend give way ?
Column 1133
Mr. Adley : Of course, if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, do not mind.Madam Deputy Speaker : I do not, provided that the intervention is short.
Mr. Gregory : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has said that he travelled in the cab of a German train. Will he tell the House the manning levels in that cab ? Was one driver responsible, or, as in this country, was there overmanning ? The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has such power that it can require a minimum of two people in the cab at all times so that the second person can be pouring tea or reading the Daily Mirror.
Mr. Adley : I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there were two people in that cab--
Mr. Gregory : My hon. Friend and the driver.
Mr. Adley : There were two German railwaymen in the train, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and myself--
Mr. Gregory : That makes three.
Mr. Adley : No, There were two German railwaymen in the train, plus the hon. Member for Pontypridd and myself, which makes four. I must advise my hon. Friend that two plus two still equals four, so the answer to his question is that there were two railwaymen in the cab.
Mr. Snape : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman who, like me, is usually provoked by the barmy interventions of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory)--who, fortunately for the fair city of York, will soon be back sniffing wine corks or doing whatever he did before being elected to the House. As we are comparing cab rides, may I advise him that, when I travelled on the Japanese high-speed railway line some years ago, there were two men in the cab although the line is virtually semi- automatically operated? Before the hon. Member for York asks any more inane questions, there was a driver and his mate, but I am not sure of the Japanese translations for either.
Mr. Adley : The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, being extremely unkind and unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who asked a question to which I did my best to give him a straightforward answer.
The line from Frankfurt to Hanover continues to Hamburg, and 40 per cent. of it runs in a tunnel to cope with the environmental problems that might otherwise have been caused. Perhaps that helps to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich(Mr. Bowden). The Germans recognise that, if there is a conflict between the environment and public transport--the railways--the Government must pay the environ-mental costs.
I have mentioned France and Germany, and shall now turn to Sweden which, until recently, used to be mentioned by some of my hon. Friends with incredulity as a country that is privatising its railways. At the moment, the Swedish national railways have a Government-funded budget of £1.5 billion over the next seven years--for a country of 8.5 million people. It is true that the Swedish Government have carried out a detailed examination of the option of privatisation, but they have now decided that that is an unattainable ambition and that all the shares in the railway company that was established will be held by the
Column 1134
Government of Sweden for the indefinite future. There are now no plans to seek to sell off the shares. That is yet another country which has tried to find a way of privatising the railways and has not succeeded.One thing that the Swedish Government have done--perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take comfort from this--is to allow the Swedish railways to run alternative modes of transport. The Swedish railways have set up their own bus services in competition with the private sector but in co- ordination with their railway services. That, too, might make some of my hon. Friends gasp, but I merely state the factual position in Sweden.
The Swedes have introduced what they call the tilt train, which we called the advanced passenger train when we invented it here 15 or so years ago and starved it to death for lack of investment. That system of transport could now be sweeping the industrialised world. Fiat is building a train similar to the APT, and so are the Swedes. If ever one wanted a classic example of failing to back success, one would have to look only at the sad tale of the APT and the steps that are being taken elsewhere in Europe to build what we invented. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who has had to leave the Chamber, referred to Japan in his speech. I have had lengthy meetings with the Japanese transport councillor at the Japanese embassy in London and the head of one of Japan's six new companies. They told me that I was the first British politician who had ever been to see them to discuss Japanese railway policy and what was happening in Japan.
The Japanese are restructuring their railways, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd knows. I must say that I am training him well to be a spokesman on the railways. The Japanese have established six non-competing passenger companies. They have been created on a geographic basis into regional monopolies. The counsellor at the Japanese embassy said to me :
"Your understanding of privatisation is totally different from ours. Ours is restructuring not privatisation."
In the past 27 years, the Japanese national railways have procured over 2,000 km of new double-track mainline high-speed railway--all constructed with public funds. What have we done in Britain during the same period? The latest information available to me is that we have built one and a half miles of new double-track high-speed railway--the Windsor link in Manchester. It is true that the Stansted link will be built. Indeed, I believe that it is nearing completion. But it perhaps says a great deal more than words of mine ever could that that piece of track will be the longest piece of new railway in Britain, and it is a branch line to an airport.
The six Japanese regional companies will automatically qualify for 50 per cent. Government grant on new railway construction costs. I have done my best to check my facts.
Mr. Dykes : Perhaps my hon. Friend would also care to mention the high-speed train that is planned between Madrid and Seville, on which we both travelled in recent months.
Mr. Adley : I am trying to keep my speech short. Of course I could mention that line, but my hon. Friend has now done so, so I do not need to amplify the point. Spain is yet another European country which is building new railways.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has frequently said to me, "We are going to do what the
Column 1135
Japanese are doing." All that we have to do in order to do what the Japanese are doing is the following. It is quite simple. We build 2, 000 km of main-line railway for high-speed trains at public expense. Then we transfer British Rail free of charge to six non- competing regional monopolies, financed initially by the public sector. Having done that, we write off all British Rail's debts and financial commitments involved in any staff reductions which any new private railway might inherit. Then, to finalise the process, we give the six regional monopolies an open-ended guarantee that any new private railway company would automatically qualify for a 50 per cent. grant for all new construction.If that is what my right hon. and learned Friend means by privatisation, I am entirely in favour of it, but I suspect that that may not be quite what some of my colleagues have in mind. The debate continues, but if Lord Home were to ask his erstwhile constituent what he thought of our railways the reply might also be, "Compared to what?"
I turn briefly to the future. The Government have at last begun to define the future role of our railways. I welcome that and the recent decision referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, by the Community transport council in Luxembourg to seek to create a single market in transport. But the question for us remains whether we are prepared to recognise that the Department of Transport operates a wholly unequal investment regime between road and rail when there is competition for scarce funds.
I referred earlier to the comment by one of the Minister's colleagues in the Tea Room abut the £30.73 cost of travelling by car from London to Edinburgh. The true cost of the internal combustion engine in Britain is unknown and, at the behest of the road lobby, remains carefully hidden. Over the years, I have done my best to find out the cost, for example, of the court time which is taken up in dealing with traffic offences and accidents. When I asked specifically what was the cost I was told in a written answer that the cost of answering my question would be prohibitive. The Department cannot even afford to answer the question, so we have absolutely no idea what the real costs are.
Recently, my wife and I were travelling to London with our three dogs and God knows what else--by road, I fear. We were stopped by the Wiltshire constabulary--
Mr. Adley : No, we were not stopped for speeding.
Two highly trained policemen in a large motor car spent 23 minutes with us. My wife is an extremely careful driver. She never drives at more than 69 miles an hour.I timed the two policemen. They spent 23 minutes following and then measuring, centimetre by centimetre, the distance between the letters and the numbers on my front and back number plates. What was the cost to the taxpayer of that 23 minutes of the time of two highly trained men? Do the police have nothing better to do? That is a matter for the chief constable of Wiltshire, but if we added up the true costs of the internal combustion engine in Britain, the answer would be unbelievable.
It is not just the cost of police time in dealing with accidents and congestion, apart from the time-wasting activities such as I have described -- [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is muttering. I am not sure what he is saying.
Column 1136
British Rail pays its own police force. Why, if we are trying to create a level playing field, do we tolerate British Rail having to pay for its own police force?How much does the nation spend on lawyers to deal with traffic offences? How much does road transport cost the national health service? We kill 5,000 people and maim 250,000 every year. How much social security funding is stashed away on helping people who have been injured in road accidents? In the end, what is the value of human life? If we valued human life, we would impose on our roads the same safety criteria that Parliament has always applied to the railways. That would, at a stroke, make British rail the most profitable organisation in the world. But there is no chance of that, because the sad fact is that, in road transport, any conflict between human misery and human convenience is always settled in favour of the latter.
If the future is to be based on a serious and honest assessment of the true costs of road traffic and the inevitable congestion and pollution that flows therefrom, no one will be happier than me. But I have yet to detect any hint that that is the Government's or any political party's intention.
In conclusion, I turn to the citizens charter. What does the citizen want? I suspect that the citizen wants fast, punctual trains and cheap fares as well as empty roads and free parking. In the case of British Rail, the idea behind the citizens charter fails to tackle the question whether the provider of the service has the resources and the ability to provide what the traveller wants. I do not know whether that question has been considered seriously. Of course, British Rail is subject to substantial restraints on investment and subsidy which inevitably affect the level and quality of service. Those are ministerial decisions.
Will Ministers be held to account if the rail traveller seeks to invoke the citizens charter? Let us suppose that Joe Bloggs finds that his train is late and wants to invoke the charter and claim compensation. All sorts of questions arise. Was the delay caused by an accident? Was it caused by vandalism? Was there a suicide on the line? What about hoax telephone calls? On 25 February this year, one man--I am glad to say that he is in prison now--disrupted the travel plans of 500,000 passengers and cost British Rail £25 million. How does the citizens charter fit into that? I fear that, if we are not careful, we shall end by putting more money into the hands of lawyers, as so often happens when we allow enthusiasm to evolve into legislation.
Is the road traveller to have a citizens charter? Are delays to be blamed on Ministers who allow road works to take place on the A303 trunk road to the west country in the middle of July? What about a citizens charter for airline passengers--or is it only the public sector that should be subject to the rigours of this discipline? If so, is there really a role for a citizens charter in transport? I have not had time to discuss numerous aspects of future policy options. I close with a few thoughts on what is happening in Germany. The Germans have a state-funded railway, but they know that it costs them a great deal of money, so there is now a thoroughgoing examination of the relationship between the German Government, Deutsche Bundesbahn and the German people. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, it is essential to recognise that discussion of privatisation is quite separate from the need to strike a fair balance as between the infrastructure costs of road and rail.
Column 1137
There is no doubt that those costs need to be reviewed, but that is a discussion separate from the one about privatisation. The Germans are less hidebound on these issues than we are, with our party political stances, and they recognise this. Chancellor Kohl has decided to establish a Government railway commission. Can we re-examine the role of the railways in society free from partisan prejudice? Let us take a leaf from Helmut Kohl's book. Changes to the relationship between the German Government and Deutsche Bundesbahn would require a change in the constitution, a problem that we do not face here, so such changes should be much simpler for us. I should like the Government to establish a Government railway commission with terms of reference similar to those given by Chancellor Kohl to the German railway commission. Those terms would be simple : first, to define the role of British Rail in the national and international transport markets ; secondly, to define and delineate the railways' public or community responsibilities versus their business or economic responsibilities ; thirdly, to set out the conditions for a rational and requirement-specific fulfilment of tasks by British Rail. In this way our future transport policy could be reached in a climate of rationality and realism which is long overdue.6.42 pm
Mr. John Hughes (Coventry, North-East) : This debate is timely, in that it allows those concerned with the declining standards of service on British Rail to demonstrate the desperate and long-standing need for higher investment and for decent levels of borrowing. It is also timely because BR is in a grave crisis due to the terrible neglect of the past decade or more. It is desperately in need of a new deal. Cosmetic promises have been made by the Secretary of State ; now is the time to put his money where his mouth is. That is what most people want.
It is a major scandal that the Government have run the railways into the ground, compared with those of other countries such as France, where Governments of left and right value praise and even use the railways. The crisis on BR has become so acute that senior management figures, honourable men and women with a public service vocation and a concern for BR, are prepared to put their jobs on the line.
Many hon. Members will have seen the informative article in The Independent on Sunday on this issue. I want to refer to it briefly. According to Ian King, then an area manager in Manchester, "we are giving our customers as poor a quality of service as many of us can remember."
He has also said :
"We charge fares that should provide a quality product but we do not."
These BR dissidents have been treated in a way that would make Joseph Stalin blush. This House, if not the British Railways Board or the Government, should carefully listen to their views. They reflect the experience of many years and a commitment to decent public transport, which is vital if we are to reduce the environmental damage of the motor car.
Many managers are terrifically concerned about the quality of the service-- late trains, cancelled trains, overcrowded trains, insufficient public investment and high fares. The central transport consultative committee
Column 1138
has justly criticised the Government's underfunding and has questioned the legality of cuts in British Rail services--cuts that have hit rural areas hard, and they are the areas of greatest social need.Has the Minister finally replied to the committee's letter? If not, will he answer it when he closes the debate? I share the committee's anxiety, but I want to concentrate this evening on one aspect of the BR crisis.
No one has yet mentioned the problems and treatment of the disabled. That treatment is disgraceful, uncivilised, discriminatory and unjust. The Government's consistent underfunding of British Rail and their limitations on borrowing have prevented BR from ensuring that its services are fully accessible to all citizens, especially disabled people.
Disabled people get a raw deal in all walks of life. There are well over 6 million of them and they deserve better, comprehensive and anti- discriminatory laws to guarantee their rights, not least on the railways. Unfortunately, the Government cop out on the need for such laws. Worse, instead of enhancing the rights of the disabled in employment, they are eroding those rights. If anything, the Government are anti-disabled. For them, the disabled are second-class citizens.
It is in this shocking state of affairs that BR is trying to do its best within the limitations of its funding. Its record may be better than that of other major institutions, but it still leaves a great deal to be desired. BR has set up an advisory group on disability, I concede, but its efforts have been shown to be half-hearted and less than credible by the outrageous experience of the new multi-million pound sprinter class 323 train, which can be seen at Tickfords of Coventry.
I recently took the opportunity, together with local
representatives of disabled people, of inspecting the mock-up of the new train. The class 323 train miserably fails to provide for the disabled, who need easily accessible door operating buttons, signs, fixtures and other special fittings. In response to early-day motions that I have tabled on this matter, BR's parliamentary affairs manager, Mr. Austin, sent me a letter outlining the official BR position. It argues that credit should be given for real successes and that solutions should be sought to real problems. I take it from the letter that the needs of the disabled do not constitute a real problem. Perhaps I should hand a bouquet to the Government, British Rail, Centro, and Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire transport authorities--to the professional staff and the politicians who deliberately decided to commission the class 323 train, which has toilets for the able-bodied and no toilets for the disabled and whose design gives little consideration to handrails or door-operating buttons.
In the light of those glaring omissions, I would point out to Mr. Austin and to all involved in this project that one cannot give to anyone what is their right. However, as of right, the disabled must have toilets, and the wide range of aids that they need at every station and on every train. I would also point out to all involved in transport strategy that the introduction of this type of train in America would fall foul of the law there.
Mr. Snape : Is my hon. Friend aware that the class 323 was designed to the specification of some of the passenger transport authorities that he has just castigated ; that the door to the toilet, which he said could not be used by the disabled, will be redesigned before the train enters service,
Column 1139
so that they can use it ; that the class 323 is a two-car unit in which one seat can readily be removed so that a wheelchair can be placed at a table inside the train ; and that the vestibule on both the coaches making up the unit has been designed to allow people with disabilities--to use the proper term--to use a local train travelling over comparatively short distances? Furthermore, Centro and the other passenger transport authorities consulted BR's disability panel, which consists entirely of people with disabilities.I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will realise that some of his criticisms were a little unfair, and that, despite the financial constraints under which passenger transport authorities have to operate, some new provision is being made for the disabled.
Mr. Hughes : I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend has made. I mentioned the law in America. The legislation dealing with passenger coaches for those who use wheelchairs says :
Reduction in |Charge payers|Pensioners payment |(millions) |(millions) per year Bottom of range (£) -------------------------------------------------------- 0 |1.1 |0.1 10 |2.5 |1.2 20 |4.7 |2.6 30 |1.0 |0.2 40 |0.9 |0.2 50 |1.1 |0.2 60 |1.7 |0.3 70 |1.6 |0.2 80 |1.4 |0.2 90 |1.5 |0.3 100 |1.2 |0.2 110 |1.0 |0.1 120 |0.8 |0.1 130 |0.8 |0.1 140 |14.2 |1.9
(iv have a restroom usable by an individual who uses a wheelchair".
The provisions that we make fall far short of those requirements. However, just because the British Government are opposed so strongly to legislation that would discriminate in favour of the disabled does not absolve others from their obligation towards the disabled. Silence on this important issue is tantamount to collusion. Inaction reinforces discrimination. Lip service has been paid by many to this important issue. This is obvious when Centro says that the passenger transport executive did not have a demand for toilets, and when BR has decided that the disabled should have toilets only at stations. I welcome the building of those toilets, but there are 63 stations in the Centro region, and toilets should be built at every station. BR cannot be allowed to dodge its responsibility to the disabled, and to relegate them to third-class status. If there are accessible toilets for the able-bodied, then there should be toilets for the disabled, too.
What is worse--to add insult to injury--the 323 train toilets are situated next to the wheelchair section of the unit. As one of the local representatives of the disabled has pointed out :
"No other passenger is asked to sit next to or near the toilet facility."
But that seems to be all right for the disabled, even though they cannot use the facility and even though some would be adversely affected-- physically--by proximity to the toilet and running water. BR cannot be allowed to wash its hands of the disabled, although I readily concede that the ultimate responsibility for this dreadful discrimination lies with the Government and their refusal to fund a decent public service for all.
Mr. Gregor : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes : In his response to me, Mr. Austin argued :
Column 1140
"British Rail has always believed that wheelchair users should be assisted in and out of trains, using ramps, to minimise the risks of injury to both customers and staff."I am afraid that that is not good enough. To pick up what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said about consultation with other bodies for the disabled, I can say that my friend, Mary Beaumont, the representative for Nuneaton and Bedworth Council for the Disabled, asked :
"Was it not perceived that many disabled prefer to travel independently, as do the able-bodied?"
What if there is not staff available at the station when the wheelchair user gets on or off the train? As she points out, "even if somebody has helped you on to the train, you can be stuck at the other end if you cannot open the door at your station, and if you are in an electric wheelchair and there is no ramp available at the platform."
She adds that she is worried that
"even though other people may be on the train"--
of course, they may not be--
"they may not be getting off at your station, and by the time someone has noticed you cannot open the door"--
that is, if they are bothered--the train will have moved on.
Mr. Gregory : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes : Mr. Austin also argues that the single step "allows the optimum compromise between vertical and horizontal stepping distances."
Mr. Gregory : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify whether this is a debate or an opportunity for hon. Members to read a script that they can later give to Hansard ? If it is a debate, does it not involve both sides of the House, Government and Opposition?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : The hon. Gentleman knows that it is within the accepted traditions of the House for an hon. Member to refresh his memory from notes, albeit that they may be copious from time to time.
Mr. Hughes : Mr. Austin also argues :
"Any dropping of train-floor height requires an increase in the horizonal gap which would be dangerous to all passengers ... There is no simple solution to that problem without rebuilding Britain's railway infrastructure."
It is one thing to say that change cannot be made overnight, and another to refuse even to start the process of change. The main problem is finance, and this brings us back to the Government's underfunding and the need to increase BR borrowing.
Mary Arnold of the Coventry Council for the Disabled, of which all Coventry Members of Parliament are vice-presidents, adds to my criticism of the 323 train by saying :
"The only real concession to wheelchair users is the tip up seats. The electric door switches are impossible to reach there is no grabrail to hold on to, to keep your wheelchair steady."
Overall, I hope that the House will agree with Mary Beaumont, the representative of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Council for the Disabled and the Warwickshire Coalition for People with Disabilities, when she describes these mock-ups as "glorified guard's vans".
My final criticism is about BR's consultation with disabled people. The direct testimony of disabled people that I have quoted should have been taken fully into account in drawing up the design specifications. Mary Beaumont rightly expressed her deep disappointment that more research into possible usage by wheelchair-bound people, who are also potential commuters, was not carried
Column 1141
out. I am sure that this contention will be reflected by the central passenger transport consultative committee. According to its secretary, Michael Patterson, it has yet to finalise its report on the class 323 and provision for disabled people. The Coventry Hereward college for the disabled is also preparing a report on the mock- up. I await those reports with interest.I hope that hon. Members will put pressure on the appropriate authorities to make the necessary changes in the new train. It is not too late to change the design specifications for the class 323 so that it provides the best of facilities for disabled people. I urgently appeal to British Rail to do that, or it will do the disabled a great injustice.
I ask the House to examine the American disabilities legislation, from which I have quoted. That law was passed without reference to costs because those who passed it argued that the rights of the disabled were above cost. Such laws should be part of human rights. A society that treats disabled people so shabbily disables itself because it fails to tap the many talents of all its citizens. The way in which disabled people are treated on the trains, the buses, and almost everywhere else is a disgrace. Investment in and higher borrowing levels for British Rail would start to give the disabled a better deal, especially if they and their organisations are fully consulted. I hope that the Minister will tell the House tonight that the Government will urgently allocate specific funds for the needs of the disabled.
7 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |