The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Bacon,
Mr. Richard
(South Norfolk)
(Con)
Baldry,
Tony
(Banbury) (Con)
Clwyd,
Ann
(Cynon Valley)
(Lab)
Crausby,
Mr. David
(Bolton, North-East)
(Lab)
Dunne,
Mr. Philip
(Ludlow)
(Con)
Hammond,
Stephen
(Wimbledon)
(Con)
Harris,
Mr. Tom
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)
Hoyle,
Mr. Lindsay
(Chorley)
(Lab)
Hunter,
Mark
(Cheadle) (LD)
Kaufman,
Sir Gerald
(Manchester, Gorton)
(Lab)
Keen,
Alan
(Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
Kidney,
Mr. David
(Stafford)
(Lab)
Leech,
Mr. John
(Manchester, Withington)
(LD)
Singh,
Mr. Marsha
(Bradford, West)
(Lab)
Stuart,
Ms Gisela
(Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab)
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
David Slater, Martin Gaunt,
Committee Clerk
s
attended the Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 10
March
2008
[John
Bercow
in the
Chair]
Draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (B2007 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2008
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr.
Tom Harris):
I beg to move,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (B2007 Vehicles)
Exemption Order 2008.
I
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow[Hon.
Members: Hear, hear.] I think that I speak
for the whole Committee when I say that.
The provision of an accessible
public transport system in which disabled people can have the same
opportunities to travel as other members of society is a key plank of
our policy to improve the life chances of disabled people and promote
social inclusion. We are fully aware that without accessible transport,
disabled people are limited in their ability to access work, visit
friends and family, participate in leisure activities and access health
care and education facilities. That is why we have taken action to
ensure that public transport services are increasingly accessible to
the estimated 11 million disabled people in the United
Kingdom.
Our record on
the issue speaks for itself. We have already introduced regulations
requiring all new rail vehicles, buses and coaches to be
accessible.
Mr.
Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): Of
course, it is important that disabled people have access to railway
vehicles, and that is all well and good, but what about ensuring that
railway station platforms are also
disabled-friendly?
Mr.
Harris:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and the order
refers to the platforms on the docklands light railway. He will know
that the Government have committed £370 million of access for
all funding over 10 years to deal with such issues. So far, more
than 100 stations in England and Wales have been identified
where step-free access can be created. I cannot confirm whether the
station in his constituency has received money, but the fund has been
widely welcomed by several stakeholders, including him.
About 4,700
accessible rail vehicles are already in service on mainline and light
rail services, and more than half the national bus fleet is accessible.
We have built on our achievements by strengthening existing provisions
through the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 so that all rail
vehicles must be accessible by no later than 1 January 2020. Another
consequence of the Act is the greater scrutiny of applications for
exemptions from parts of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations,
which is why we are here today.
One
measure of the progress that we have made is that this is the first
exemption order for two years, and it
is fully supported by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.
DPTAC is the Governments statutory advisory body on the
transport needs of disabled people. It recognises that granting the
exemptions in the order would deliver benefits to disabled people by
allowing a more frequent service and by providing consistency with
existing docklands light railway trains.
Indeed, it is because the DLR
has taken accessibility seriously since its inception that the order
has been requested. The DLR is one of the most accessible transport
networks in the country: every station has lifts or ramps that allow
step-free access to the platform and there is level access between the
platform and the train. However, the DLR opened before we introduced
rail accessibility legislation, so its new trains cannot meet some
aspects of the regulations.
The DLR is
also expanding. Passenger numbers have been rising steadily and are
expected to reach 79 million a year by 2009. Two extensions are
being built: the first will go to Woolwich Arsenal next year and the
second will go to Stratford international in 2010. That will add
another five stations to the network. The new vehicles that we are
considering will allow the DLR to serve those extensions and
accommodate passenger growth on its existing network, in addition to
playing a key role during the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics.
I should say a
little about the unique way in which the DLR operates. Its trains do
not have a driver in the traditional sense, but are controlled by a
central computer that monitors every trains position and keeps
trains a safe distance apart. However, a member of staff called a
passenger service agent is present on every train. They do not drive
the train, so they are free to help passengers, check tickets and
operate the doors. Every passenger service agent receives disability
awareness training each year.
The new trains
are the first on the DLR to be covered by accessibility legislation.
They will run in addition to the existing vehicles, which were designed
before the regulations took effect. Although the older trains were
built with accessibility in mind, they do not fully meet every aspect
of the regulations. That is mainly because of constraints imposed by
the automatic control system, which apply also to the new
vehicles.
One such
factor is the warning given when the doors are about to close. It
starts as the doors begin to close rather than three seconds
beforehand, as required by the regulations. The DLR has taken
specialist advice, and it has been found that the extra three seconds
of warning would reduce the number of trains that could be run. In
effect, every train would have to wait at least three seconds longer at
each station. The Committee may be surprised to hear that those three
seconds should be so significant, but I assure Members that the
cumulative effect on a frequent metro service such as the DLR would be
dramatic, especially because of the way in which the trains have to
cross in front of one another at junctions. It would make even the
existing level of service unsustainable.
Allowing the
DLR to continue using the existing door closure warnings will enable it
to obtain the maximum value for its investment in new trains by
providing the greatest possible capacity. The existing timings have
been in use for 20 years without disadvantaging disabled
people.
Tony
Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Am I right in thinking that what
we are discussing this afternoon is basically the result of someone
saying to the Minister, We have a bit of a problem, and
that the DLR kit, although good for disabled people, does not comply
with the regulations as it was built before they were introduced? Does
the order simply exempt the DLR?
Mr.
Harris:
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I
hope to elicit such exemptions from the Committee this
afternoon.
We believe
that having the same warning system in all DLR trains
will give the added benefit of consistency throughout the network.
Disabled people can be confident about what the warning
means.
The limitations
of the train control system also mean that the next stop cannot be
announced at every station, as the regulations require. Instead, the
system instructs each train to give that information while in transit
from one station to the next. Once again, the DLR has taken specialist
advice, which suggests that making the announcement while at the
station might risk overloading passengers with information. Stops on
the DLR are not far apart, so in the vast majority of cases the
consequences of getting on the wrong train would not be
significant.
The third
exemption concerns the gap between the platform and the train. That may
be relevant, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said
earlier. All DLR stations have level access, but at some stations the
gap is slightly bigger than that allowed by the regulations, which
could theoretically have an impact on the ability of wheelchair users
to board trains independently. However, no gap is more than 1 cm wider
than permitted, and disabled people have been using the DLR safely for
20 years. The DLR is developing a package of measures that will reduce
this gap so that it meets the regulations, but still allows trains to
run safely. The exemption gives the DLR time to consult safety
regulators on which measure is most appropriate at each station, and to
put it in place without preventing its new trains from entering
service.
When
exemptions are specific to the way in which the DLR operates, we
believe that they should lapse in the unlikely event that these
vehicles move to another system, and we have placed a condition to that
effect in the order. We recognise that rail accessibility legislation
needs to keep pace with changing needs. We do not want to stifle
improvements simply because they were not foreseen nearly a decade ago,
when the regulations were introduced. The new vehicles include three
such measures, which reflect the experience of operators and passengers
since the regulations were introduced. We plan to include them in the
regulations when they are next revised.
First, when
the passenger service agent closes the doors, they stand at one of the
open doorways using special crew-only door controls. The door closure
warning can be loud and repetitive. Understandably, that can be
annoying for staff if they have to listen to it throughout their
seven-hour shift. The DLR proposes automatically switching off the
warning at the doorway where the crew-only controls are being used. As
the passenger service agent is present and can warn passengers
attempting to board that the door is closingor even hold the
door open until the passenger is safely aboardit seems a
common-sense solution.
Secondly, the
regulations require hand-holds to be fitted on the backs of the seats
next to the passenger gangway, so that passengers have something to
hold on to as they pass through the train. However, on DLR vehicles
there is a small gap between some of the seats and the draught-screen,
which has a handrail attached. However, seats flex as people sit down,
and if a hand-hold were to be fitted at that point, those using it
might find their fingers trapped against the draught-screen. Adding
hand-holds to those seats would serve no useful purpose and could
reduce safety.
Finally,
the DLR wants to include a small handrail at waist height in the
wheelchair space. Although that is currently not permitted by the
regulations, the DLR has used a similar handrail on its older trains,
and it has been well received by disabled people. It would seem
perverse to remove something that disabled people find useful purely
because it does not meet the letter of the regulations, especially as
we intend to introduce amendments that will allow it in the near
future.
In
addition to DPTAC, we have consulted Her Majestys railway
inspectorate for its views on the safety implications. HMRI is content
for these exemptions to be granted and will work with the DLR to ensure
that an appropriate solution is found to the platform gap
issue.
In
summary, the DLR is already one of the most accessible rail services in
the country. The new trains will be no less accessible than those
already in service. There will be consistency between older and newer
train fleets, which gives disabled people confidence when they travel.
This is the first exemption order for two years. Not the least of these
facts is that DPTAC sees this as a sensible exemption that will not
disadvantage disabled travellers. We believe that this is a reasonable
application of the measure, and I commend the order to the
Committee.
4.41
pm
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow, for
what I believe will be relatively short consideration in
Committee.
The
Conservative party recognises that the ability to travel on public
transport is particularly important for the disabled. Indeed, a number
of disabled people are entirely reliant on public transport to get from
their homes to places of work, shops, places of leisure, friends and
family, and so on. A public transport system that is fully accessible
and safe for those with disabilities must be an essential part of
transport policy, be it national, regional or local. Therefore, the
power to set minimum accessibility standards for rail vehicles, buses
and coaches was granted to the Secretary of State for Transport
as part of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995.
The
specific directives for rail vehicles were introduced in 1998 and
became applicable to all vehicles brought into use after 31 December of
that year. As the Minister pointed out, additional provision was made
in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to ensure that the entire
national fleet of buses will meet accessibility standards by 2017; for
trains, it will be 2020. The Minister of State, Department for
Transport has reported that 58 per cent. of buses nationally and more
than 40 per cent. of trains already meet the standards that will be
required of them more than 10 years hence. That is of course
welcome.
In particular circumstances, rail
vehicles can be granted an exemption from meeting the minimum
accessibility standards. We are considering today whether these 55
vehicles are acceptable for exemption. As I understand it, the
Secretary of State has, under the 2005 Act, the power to exempt
specified vehicles for two reasons, the first of which is where they
are satisfied that it is not possible for those vehicles to comply
fully with the regulations because of technical difficulties. Secondly,
the power to grant exemptions can be used to ensure that the ability of
disabled people to travel in the vehicles is not compromised. This
order allows 55 rail vehicles to be used for passenger service on the
docklands light railway despite not conforming to the
requirements.
The
Minister talked about the development of the docklands light railway to
the east as part of the Thames Gateway initiative, in conjunction with
the successful bid for the 2012 Olympics, so it will be one of
the more important transport arteries through London. In
recognition of that, the construction of enhancements is either under
way or under discussion. A number of those extensions and enhancements,
including the routes to Woolwich Arsenal and Stratford international,
should open before the OlympicsI am looking particularly at
2010. I understand that station upgrades are planned between Bank and
Lewisham to allow the operation of three-car trains to increase
capacity.
The
improvements on the docklands light railway are to be welcomed, but it
is essential that those benefits can be enjoyed by all, including
people who have disabilities. Having read the exemption list, I see
that six exemptions are being asked for. First, audio and
visual warnings will not begin three seconds before the doors start to
close. Secondly, in-vehicle announcements at stations will not include
the name of the destination of the next stop. Thirdly, at some stations
the gap between the platform and the train will be too largeI
think that some 28 stations will fail to comply. Fourthly, new vehicles
are to be fitted with waist-high handrails. Fifthly, there is a small
gap between the top of some seats and the draught-screen. Sixthly, the
door-closure warning systems need to be switched off for the doorway at
which the passenger service agent is standing. I note that the
Government intend to modify the regulations regarding the last three
exemptions later this year, so that vehicles would not then be in
breach of those items. In reality, we need to examine only the first
three rationales for
exemption.
Implicit in
the order is either that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the
vehicles do not meet the specific regulatory requirements because of
the technical impossibility of doing so, or that non-compliance will
not hinder enjoyment, accessibility and usability for disabled
passengers. I note that the Minister said that there is already an
inability to operate the door-closing warnings three seconds prior to
the doors closing on the docklands light railway. That has been a
consistent feature since the beginning of operations on the docklands
light railway and does not appear to have had an adverse impact, so it
should not be a problem regarding the new vehicles, and the first
exemption should be supported.
I am sure, Mr. Bercow,
that you and the Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend
to discuss the technical details of each exemption.
[
Interruption.
] I am pleased to hear that the
right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton thinks that my speech is
excellent; it will probably benefit from being shorter. I will not go
through the technical details of the exemptions mainly because the
Minister has already done so in exhaustive detail. It also seems that
none of the six exemptions that the Committee is being asked to support
will seriously hinder safety or accessibility for disabled
passengers.
Clearly, it is
important that the there has been a proper consultation on the order
and that proper attention has been given to any points arising. With
that in mind, I welcome the fact that the Government have consulted the
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee about these issues. As
the Minister said, it assented to the necessary exemptions;
however, I would like to ask him three specific questions. On the
exemption from article 4(3)(b)the three-second
ruleDPTAC recommended that the exemption be granted only if a
member of staff is present in each of the units at all times. Has the
DLR given the Department for Transport an assurance that it will comply
will that
suggestion?
DPTAC
also recommended that the exemption should apply only while rolling
stock is in the service described by the exemption application. Will
the Minister confirm whether a new exemption will be required if these
vehicles were used for any other service? I will be interested in what
the Department has to say about that. I also note that Her
Majestys railway inspectorate was consulted about the various
safety aspects of the exemptions. Will the Minister tell us exactly
what it said about the safety
issues?
Like the
Minister, I think that the order is essentially uncontroversial, and
pending his response to my questions, I do not intend to detain the
Committee for
long.
4.49
pm
Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I, too, welcome
you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I do not intend to delay the
Committee for long. The order is neither controversial nor long, so I
am happy to put our support for it on the record. However, I would like
to make a couple of brief points and to seek clarification from the
Minister.
Later this
year, the Department for Transport is due to introduce regulations
setting an end date by which all rail vehicles must
comply with accessibility regulations. Do the Government envisage its
being before the 1 January 2020 deadline? Has any assessment been made
of the cost to the rail industry? Also, is the Minister confident that
the industry will be able to comply within the established time
scale?
Some of the
B2007 vehicle designs are not currently permitted
under the rail vehicle accessibility regulations, but they will be
incorporated in changes to the RVAR later this year. Are there any
other changes being requested by the industry or by passenger groups
that the Government will not be introducing later this year? On that
note, I give our support for the exemption
order.
4.50
pm
Mr.
Harris:
I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Members
for Wimbledon and for Manchester,
Withington.
The hon.
Member for Wimbledon asked about the three-second rule. Specifically,
he asked if the DLR had given the Department for Transport an assurance
that a member of staff would be present and the answer is yes. He also
asked about the position of vehicles if they are removed. He can
correct me if I am wrong, but I think that his question was this: if a
vehicle were moved from the DLR to another metro system, how would that
affect these exemptions? My understanding is that the exemption that we
are asking for today applies only to the DLR and if a new exemption
were needed, a new order would have to be moved. He also asked about
the safety concerns, if any, of Her Majestys railway
inspectorate and I can confirm to the Committee that HMRI have no
safety concerns about the implications of this
exemption.
The
hon. Member for Manchester, Withington asked about the end date of the
exemptions that we are considering. In fact, all the exemptions that we
are asking for will end a number of years before 2020. For example, the
three-second door closure warning exemption will last until 2016. The
exemption regarding the next-stop announcement being made on board the
train, rather than before it leaves, will last until 2014. The
waist-level
handrail exemption that I mentioned applies until the end of 2009,
because it will simply await the redrafting of the regulations
themselves. The same applies to the seat-back hand-holds to which I
referred. Similarly, the exemption regarding the door closure warning
in the doorway where the passenger service agent operates controls will
expire in
2016.
The
hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost to the industry of meeting the
compliance date of 2020. I do not have a lot of information on that
subject. Obviously, the DLR itself has calculated that it can afford
the cost, as have other operators. However, if the hon. Gentleman will
forgive me, I will write to him and to other members of the Committee
with any more information that I might be able to obtain on that
subject.
I
am grateful for the attention of the Committee and for the support of
both Opposition Members and members of my own party. This is a very
straightforward application for derogation in these circumstances.
There will be major benefits for the travelling publicnot only
for people who are disabled, but for people carrying luggage or who
have children in prams with them. It is a measure that the Committee
can unite around.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility
(B2007 Vehicles) Exemption Order
2008.
Committee rose
at six minutes to Five
oclock.