| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.
Lewisham Rail Stations (Disabled Access)
12.30 pm
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is of enormous concern to my constituents and to those of other hon. Members with constituencies along the routes operated by the railway company, Connex.
In south London, there is some of the oldest railway infrastructure in the country. We have Victorian and Edwardian stations where there are high footbridges over the track, enabling people to get from one side to the other. Of course, they can do that only if they are able-bodied. When those structures were built, no consideration was given to access for those who might be less able or disabled.
The Royal National Institute for Deaf People spotted the title of today's debate and wrote to me, thinking that I would speak about improved access. I wish I were. The purpose of the debate is not to call for much-needed improved access, but to draw the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister to the action of Connex in taking away existing access for travellers with disabilities.
The matter was first raised with me in a series of letters from my constituents, complaining about the closure of side and rear entrances. That might seem a trivial issue, but it has had serious effects on the travelling public in my constituency, and has profound implications for the railway regulation and franchising authorities. It also provides the clearest evidence of institutional discrimination against people with disabilities.
In early February, I received the first letters about the closure of the entrances to the level platforms at Catford Bridge station. Susan Ford wrote to me in the following terms:
Joan Ruddock:
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I hope has been heard.
The letters from which I quoted were soon followed by one from Ruby Lescott, who wrote:
There are clearly great issues of security at stake. Naturally, I contacted Connex and sent copies of the letters. I expected a reply stating that the closures were a temporary measure, soon to be revised, and at least an apology, but none was forthcoming. The chief operating officer, Mr. Geoffrey Harrison-Mee, wrote ominously:
Joan Ruddock:
My hon. Friend is right. Many of my constituents and hers have raised the matter with the operating company.
Mr. Harrison-Mee went on to state in his letter:
Meanwhile, M. Coulston wrote to me about Lewisham station and the evening closure of the platform 4 exit, which leads to the main residential area and Tesco, which stays open till midnight. He pointed out not only the inconvenience, but the need for
Clearly, neither my constituents nor I were being listened to. I decided to follow up the offer of a meeting and made contact with Connex customer services. The staff at customer services were extremely helpful, but they said that they needed 48 hours' notice, as frequently the only staff member on a station was the person in the ticket office selling the tickets, who could not leave. Therefore customer services would have to arrange for someone else to go to a station to unlock the gates for a disabled person.
I asked about shorter notice. I was told that that could be arranged, but that certain people took advantage and claimed that there was an emergency every time. I asked about a commuter who goes to work every morning and comes back every evening. I was told that that would have to be taken up with the relevant commercial manager.
At one level, that is hilarious, but it represents the most profound discrimination against people with disabilities--not by the individuals who work for customer services, I am sure, but by the institution. The problem affects not only wheelchair users, but anyone who is less able to walk, all families with babies and buggies, and people who have heavy luggage, as they may well do at a railway station. For those who could not negotiate stairs in any circumstances, Connex's policy meant a profound restriction of their freedom to travel, whether for pleasure or to earn a living. Disabled people were offered a second-class service.
Scope, Britain's largest disability charity, said as much and took up the cause. The local newspapers--the South London Press, The Mercury and the News Shopper--all championed the passengers, as did BBC Radio 4's hard-hitting programme "You and Yours", but still Connex did not budge.
Then I received letters about Ladywell, which is my local station. It serves the district hospital and is adjacent to a school for children with special needs. It has a particularly high footbridge spanning the tracks. In the most bizarre exercise to date, Connex locked the side gates when the station was staffed--by one person, who could not open the gates because he was serving tickets--but unlocked them, giving free access to vandals, when the ticket office staff left in the early evening. Sara Peat wrote to me in exasperation, saying that she used the station every day, but suffered from a painful arthritic condition that made it dangerous and difficult for her to use the stairs. June Broom summed the situation up when she wrote:
Throughout the sorry saga, Connex maintained that the closures were in the interests of passengers--enhancing security, reducing vandalism and raising revenue. Those are laudable objectives that we all support. Of course we want our railway to be a success, but no railway operator should justify buying station security on the backs of disabled people. Everything that Connex did discouraged and prevented people from travelling, and soured relations between staff and customers.
When I finally organised a site meeting of my constituents and Connex representatives to allow people to explain how they were affected at Ladywell station, it became clear that the people running the railway had not thought through the consequences of their strategy of, as they put it,
That may seem like a great success. It is, but the situation should never have arisen. More importantly, my constituent Sandra den Hertog was told in a recent letter that consideration was being given to individual needs and that there was an on-going review. I cannot be confident that the recent reversal of policy will hold. That is why I have raised this important debate.
I want to ensure action. I also want lessons to be learned and questions to be answered. Who made the decision? Who left it to local station staff to implement a policy of shutting out their customers? In the briefing for today's debate, which no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, Connex says that it consulted about the changes by advertising the closures two weeks in advance. That is no consultation. The company even acknowledges that it did not happen at every station. It says that it has in place
Connex's disabled people's protection policy makes a commitment to improve
"On Monday 8 February I and a few hundred other passengers who travel from Catford Bridge railway station each day, were suddenly confronted with the locking of the gate which is the entrance to platform 1 (London bound). We had no prior warning".
The letter continues:
"Apart from the extreme inconvenience this has caused to passengers . . . it has now become an absolute no-go travelling area for the disabled, parents with babies in buggies and those carrying heavy bags or cases. There is no way of reaching platform 1 without negotiating at least two flights of stairs."
Mrs. Ford went on to say:
"There is of course the safety of passengers in general, particularly women. If a passenger felt compromised there was an alternative route of escape, but now on the side of the platform, where there is unlikely to be any passers-by . . . they have effectively locked in a potential victim."
That letter was followed by one from J. T. Jefferies to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who I am glad to see is in his seat, and who, I know, supports me in everything that I shall say on the matter today. Mr. Jefferies wrote of his experiences at Catford Bridge station:
"People approaching the station past the old booking office have to walk all down one side of the station, up a flight of stairs to the street, along the pavement, past the 'down' side platform, down a side street and across a car park to the 'down' side ticket office, along the 'down' side platform, up the footbridge stairs, across the bridge, down the stairs to the 'up' platform and along the platform to wherever they join the train."
14 Apr 1999 : Column 182
Of course, people travelling in the opposite direction must reverse all those movements.
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington):
The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I have a similar problem in my constituency at Wallington station, where passengers have to go down a deep underpass because Connex South Central has chosen to lock one of the entrances to the station. I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that that affects not only people with disabilities, but every passenger who travels by Connex South Central.
"Connex has simply locked out anyone with a disability. It also makes waiting on the 'up' platform at the non-peak times much more worrying as there is now only one way out of the station"--
and that is on to the track.
"Side and rear entrances at a number of locations have been closed to help us control and monitor access to stations. . . Where we have closed side and rear entrances, we have found that vandalism and graffiti have been markedly reduced, and by concentrating access at main entrances we have been able to tackle ticketless travel which has helped us provide a more secure travelling environment. These are issues I know your constituents feel strongly about."
Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East):
As my hon. Friend knows, Hither Green station in my constituency has recently received a safety award, presented by the Minister. It is a Connex South Eastern station with entirely open access. There is no vandalism there now, so the idea that closures are a way of making stations more secure clearly does not marry up with what Connex South Eastern is doing at other stations.
"Where customers have special needs, we will do our best to help by opening gates, and special assistance can be arranged by contacting our Customer Services team".
I was offered a meeting, but no attempt was made to answer constituents' claims that measures at Catford Bridge made for greater danger, not security. However, there was an assurance that gates could be opened, and we could contact customer services--more of that in a moment.
"anyone elderly or disabled, or anyone with children or shopping, to walk several hundred yards further than they used to"
14 Apr 1999 : Column 183
and to negotiate two staircases. He also pointed out that the low fence next to the locked gate was easily negotiated by anyone able-bodied, including "muggers and vandals".
Again I wrote to Mr. Harrison-Mee, who replied in similar vein to his previous letter. However, this time he acknowledged the specific complaint and stated:
"I have noted Mr. Coulston's concerns about this gate being closed, and I hope that he will now understand why we have taken this course of action."
I am sure that he did not, and neither did I.
"Disabled people can no longer use the station. The elderly now find it difficult. Watergate special school . . . can no longer go on school outings by train. . . . The direct route to Lewisham Hospital is no longer possible."
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and Scope wrote formally to Connex, arguing that its policy was a possible breach of its licence and asking for a review.
"reclaiming the railway from the vandals."
The situation continued from the beginning of February until the middle of March. In the last week of March, I was finally told that the stations in my area would have their side and rear accesses reopened and left open for 24 hours a day while a review was being carried out.
"an effective policy for assisting people with disabilities to travel."
That is patently not true. Another constituent has written at length about what happens when people try to get help from customer services. The company says that it is proud of the fact that 25 per cent. of customers with mobility problems use its customer services. I am concerned that 75 per cent. do not and I wonder why. How could the situation have arisen?
"ease of access and egress from station platforms and trains."
Compliance with the DPPP is a requirement of Connex's operator's licence. Its action is a clear breach of the licence. I am delighted that the accesses have been reopened, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that the situation is unacceptable, that there must be no repeats and that if there are any remaining closures--I am not aware of any; I think that 10 stations had accesses reopened--they must be reopened immediately. My hon. Friend must tell us that steps will be taken to ensure that the situation does not recur and to ensure proper compliance with DPPPs. I very much hope that he is already discussing with railway operators the need for them to be prepared to meet the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which will come into effect for the railways in October this year.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |