22 Jun 2004 : Column 1163
House of Commons
Tuesday 22 June 2004
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
BICHARD INQUIRY REPORT
Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report on child protection procedures in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary, particularly the effectiveness of relevant intelligence-based record keeping, vetting practices since 1995 and information sharing with other agencies.—[Ms Blears.]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
The Secretary of State was asked—
Translink Busway (Dunstable/Luton)
1. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): If he will make a statement on the Translink guided busway proposed between Dunstable and Luton. [179609]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Translink was given provisional approval for funding of up to £78.39 million in the 2004–05 local transport settlement, subject to statutory powers and planning approval being obtained. The scheme is now the subject of an application to the Secretary of State for approval under the Transport and Works Act 1992. It would not be appropriate therefore for me to comment on its merits, as doing so could prejudice our consideration of the application.
Andrew Selous:
Yet again, the wishes of the people of south Bedfordshire, as expressed in every survey of public opinion undertaken, and the wishes of all their county and district councillors, irrespective of party, are being ignored. They resent having an unwanted, expensive and bad value for money scheme imposed on them. Will the Minister please, even at this late stage, agree to put on hold the plans for Translink until a full and proper evaluation is undertaken into an alternative light rail scheme with feeder bus services, which would save the Government about £70 million and win them the undying affection of the people of south Bedfordshire?
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1164
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not able to put a hold on a process that has started to unfold under the Transport and Works Act 1992, but I can assure him that heavy rail and light rail alternatives to Translink were thoroughly assessed by the Department. Patronage for such projects was shown to be insufficient, and the alternatives did not offer value for money, despite some of the projects included. If he is serious about heavy rail or light rail alternatives, he might have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and explain to him what public expenditure means.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): My constituency could be served by Translink, but, unfortunately, only really effectively if it is a guided busway because bus services offer flexibility. However, does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole scheme could be expanded to cover much longer distances and a much wider area, especially when housing between Luton and Milton Keynes is developed in future years? Will he continue his strong support for the Translink busway scheme, which we strongly support in Luton?
Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. All I can say at this stage is that we will wait and see how the process under the Transport and Works Act develops for the Translink project, but I am sure that the Department will entertain any subsequent well-founded applications and treat them in the appropriate manner.
Travel Facilities (Disabled Access)
2. Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): What steps his Department is taking to ensure that better facilities for the disabled are provided on the (a) rail network and (b) underground systems. [179610]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Since 1999, we have required all new trains to be fully accessible. We have worked with industry and issued guidance on improving access to stations, as part of the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In addition, London Underground has a key network strategy to make more of its key stations accessible.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that very few stations on the new underground map are marked as having disabled access. He will also know that travelling on the underground is a nightmare for many people who have disabilities. Even if they know that they can go to a station where they can get to the platform, they do not necessarily know whether the train will be at the right level to get on. Very often, they do not know what will await them at the other end of their journey. That is not acceptable for disabled people in 2004. When will the Government do more to ensure that we really meet the requirements of disabled people?
Mr. McNulty:
I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will know that 40 underground stations are currently accessible without stairs or escalators. Given the peculiar difficulties associated with the age and infrastructure of much of London's underground,
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1165
Transport for London has developed a key network strategy to make about 100 stations accessible to disabled people. Stations outside that key network will be connected to it by fully accessible bus services. That is all fine and proper, but greater awareness and publicity is still needed when that network is in place to allow people to know not just where they can start their journeys, but where they can finish them with the same accessibility, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells) (Con): The Minister may know that the Minister of State wrote to me on exactly this issue last month. I am grateful to him for his letter, which was constructive. Does the Minister agree that the Department's current position is that there will be some money, sometime—we do not know how much and we do not know when—to make railway stations disabled friendly? Will he give the House some idea whether there is any target for improving railway stations in that respect in the next few years and, if so, when that is likely to be delivered? What is the earliest possible date on which a very busy station, such as Tunbridge Wells in my constituency, can be made disabled friendly?
Mr. McNulty: I shall look into the specifics of Tunbridge Wells in more detail and get back to the hon. Gentleman. He will know, perhaps far more than others given his background in finance, that I am unlikely to make any commitment on a specific budget line for the overall rail budget when we are some weeks away from the spending review. However, I will write to him in the fullness of time specifically about disability access to stations.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Discussion about accessibility for people with disabilities is too often restricted to those with the more obvious disabilities that require wheelchair usage. Is the Minister content with the progress made in recent years on enabling those with hearing or sight difficulties to use station services more effectively? Does he agree that progress could be made on that as well?
Mr. McNulty: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Accessibility is not simply about wheelchair access, although we do need greater progress in that regard. There have been significant improvements throughout the rail network and the bus and tube network in London and elsewhere on the availability of real-time passenger information and the greater availability of assorted tactile, oral and other forms of information for those passengers with a degree of disability that is, perhaps, more hidden than other disabilities. The point that the issue is not simply about wheelchair use is strong and I take it on board.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
(UUP): Can the Minister tell us how many mainline stations have tactile facilities to allow those who are blind to purchase tickets? Such facilities have been in operation in stations in the far east for years. Surely, as we are modernising, we should be dealing with that. Does he also agree that there is a tendency to forget that people with disabilities have a right to move about freely?
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1166
Mr. McNulty: I certainly accept the second point. The whole purpose of accessibility, in its broadest dimension, in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, is about people's right to move around as freely as possible. I do not know the formal answer to how many mainline stations have that tactile dimension to ticket purchasing, but in researching further the wonder that is Tunbridge Wells station and disabled access to it, I shall also write to the hon. Gentleman in that regard, with a specific answer.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |