Mr.
Simon: I was not intending to intervene—I was wryly
remarking to myself how often explanatory memorandums seem to lack
explanation.
Mr.
Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. With that
in mind, it strikes me as surprising that the Government believe that
the switch to the new European standards will not impose any
significant new costs, as the impact assessment document clearly
states. Either there is a material change—as the document hints
but does not explain—or there is not. If there is a material
change involving a larger category of people, there will clearly be
extra costs. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain whether
operating and rolling stock companies will have to incur greater
expense to meet the new
regulations?
What
representations have been received from train operating companies and
rolling stock companies on the impact, if any, that the new regulations
will have on their businesses? I wonder what impact such measures will
have on the Government’s capacity improvement plans. We all know
that the key challenge facing our railway network is the capacity
squeeze—the Government have acknowledged that many times. They
have promised new carriages although it remains to be seen when and
where we will see carriages that are not just repeats of earlier
announcements on the tracks. What will be the impact on the
Government’s calculation if more space is required for the
luggage, prams and so on that are hinted at by the phrase to which I
referred earlier? Will that mean fewer seats?
The draft
regulation will apply to rail vehicles that are used on the
trans-European network in Great Britain which is, I understand,
approximately 70 per cent. of our network. Have the Government
considered, for the sake of simplicity and consistency, applying the
new rules to the entire network? I ask that merely as a probing
question, to see whether it is something that the Department has
thought about; there may be good reasons for not doing so, but it would
be interesting to know what the position
is. A
further aspect of this order relates to enforcement. Curiously, as the
Minister implicitly said in his speech, the explanatory memorandum does
not tell us anything about enforcement, but he tells us that the ORR
will enforce the order. The ORR will not only be in the driving seat,
but will have criminal sanctions. Perhaps he will say a little more
about that in his concluding remarks.
Clearly the
most important thing is that a proper consultation has taken place and
that proper attention has been given to any points arising. I therefore
welcome the fact that the Government have issued a consultation
document on this topic, even if it was reduced in time, and I note that
42 responses were received.
Have the
Government consulted the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
about these issues? It was, after all, set up specifically to advise
the Government on issues pertaining to access to public transport for
the disabled. I imagine that it must have been at the top of the queue
for consultation, but might we have confirmation of that?
This draft
order is an uncontroversial one, and pending the response of the
Minister to the questions I have raised, it is not my intention to
detain the Committee further.
4.51
pm Mark
Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): May I start by saying what a
pleasure it is to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s
debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Key? Along with the hon.
Member for Canterbury, I broadly welcome the statutory instrument and
what it seeks to achieve. It seems to me right and proper that the rail
network and the vehicles in question are not subject to two differing
sets of regulation—the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations
1998 and the EU technical specification for interoperability for
persons with reduced mobility, or PRMTSI, as I shall now refer to it.
It is important that we are prepared appropriately for the new EU
regulations coming into force in July of this year and having rail
vehicles subject to two levels of regulations would confuse the matter,
both for the train companies and, perhaps more importantly, for train
users, who need to know exactly what facilities and standards to expect
before they travel. I also welcome the introduction of an end date into
the EU regulations to ensure that rail vehicles meet accessibility
standards. I
believe that we all agree that ensuring that transport is accessible
for all is important. Not only is access to public transport a right
that all people should share, it allows better access to jobs, vital
health and education services, family, friends, and leisure, which
should be taken as axiomatic. People who are less mobile should be able
to access those services the same as others, and as we know, disabled
people often travel with carers or friends and would therefore more
than repay the cost of creating fully accessible carriages over time.
That does not include some of the other groups that would have easier
access to trains, especially under the new EU regulations, and the hon.
Member for Canterbury referred earlier to families with young children
and elderly people who spring to mind in that regard. Millions more
people would be able to take advantage of our national rail network,
especially as the age demographic of our population seems to be
increasing inexorably.
The
explanatory memorandum cited a 2002 estimate that showed that disabled
people travelled up to a third less often than society as a whole. Will
the Minister confirm whether he has any more up-to-date estimates for
the number of journeys undertaken by disabled people, and whether that
trend has increased over the past six years?
Like the hon.
Member for Canterbury, I, too, have some concerns about the
regulations, which I would briefly like to explore with the Minister.
Perhaps he could comment on them when he replies to the debate. In the
explanatory notes, there is mention that the technical requirements of
the PRMTSI are equivalent or superior to the RVAR, but they say that
there are
a “small
number of areas where the PRMTSI standards are less onerous that those
of the RVAR.”
Will the Minister spell
out precisely what those areas of difference are? Does he believe that
there are significant consequences to changing those requirements, and
have the Government given any consideration to adding those to the
PRMTSI regulations?
I understand
that the Government are considering making similar regulations apply to
light rail, underground and metro systems. The Minister referred to
that very issue in his opening remarks. I am still unclear as to
whether the new regulations, which the Minister said would be
introduced “in due course”, would be along the lines of
the RVAR or the PRMTSI. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that. I also
invite him to be a little more specific about what he means by
“in due course”. Are we talking about the lifetime of the
current Parliament or some date much further in the
future? May
I say that I welcome the inclusion in the regulations of a completion
deadline for accessibility? It is very important that the train
operating companies know that we are serious about making trains more
accessible. I believe that introducing the end date will do just that.
We need to ensure that the end date is precisely what the term
suggests. Having too many exemptions, or too many ill-advised
exemptions, would negate the whole purpose of having an end date.
During the debate in the other place on the Disability Discrimination
Act 2005, it was reported that the Disability Charities Consortium
stated that since 1998 more than 50 per cent. of carriages have had
some sort of exemption. Having looked at the up-to-date exemptions on
the Department for Transport website, I notice that the number of
exemptions is still increasing. Will the Minister comment on that
trend?
I think that
we all agree that we should use exemptions only when they are really
necessary, and not bail out train operating companies that have not
managed to make their vehicles accessible. I seek an assurance from the
Minister that exemptions will not be used after 2020 except for genuine
special cases, such as heritage railways where, self-evidently, changes
would alter the vehicles’
authenticity. During
the parliamentary debate on the Disability Discrimination Act 2005,
many MPs and Lords were concerned about the 2020 time limit, believing
that the deadline for all trains to fulfil EU standards should be even
earlier. I would like to ask a couple more questions about the end date
as proposed under the new
regulations. I
understand that there is a compromise to be made between accessible
access and the cost of renewing or upgrading rolling stock before the
life span of the vehicle has run out, and we all want to ensure that
the right compromise has been made. For that decision to be made, we
need to ensure that we are using accurate and up-to-date information.
If many more vehicles than were expected in 2005 are already
compliant—I think that that is the Government’s
case—the cost of replacing the remaining trains should make an
earlier end date more achievable.
In
the 2005 debate, the then Minister stated that 3,800 rail vehicles were
accessible, and an additional 700 would follow in 2006. He then stated
that a quarter of the fleet was already fully compliant with
accessibility standards. Will the Minister give us his latest estimate
of how many trains are now accessible and say whether the number
becoming fully accessible has increased beyond the expectations assumed
under the 2005
Act? I
conclude by restating how much I welcome the introduction of the new
regulations because they widen the definition of accessibility to
include others with reduced mobility. I also welcome the further
commitment to an end date for ensuring full accessibility. Elderly and
disabled travellers, in particular, have been treated as second-class
citizens by many rail companies for far too long, and it is about time
that facilities appropriate to the 21st century are delivered to
all.
We now need
to ensure that firm progress is made towards that definitive end date
and that more rail vehicles become fully accessible as soon as
possible. Even in the run-up to the 2020 deadline, exemptions should be
given only to renewed or upgraded vehicles when absolutely necessary
because, without strong enforcement, the regulations will not be able
to make a real difference to the lives of people who face so many
challenges when attempting to use our public transport
system—the objective agreed by both sides of the
House. 5.1
pm Mr.
Ian McCartney (Makerfield) (Lab): I welcome the
opportunity to speak for the first time in a Committee chaired by you,
Mr. Key. I want to raise a small matter with the Minister, a
neighbour of mine from across the firm. I apologise for not giving
notice of it.
On page 10 of
the impact assessment for the regulations, the Government rightly refer
to the number of individuals who fall into the category of benefiting
from the regulations, their purchasing power in respect of economic
advantage, and the potential disadvantage if the regulations are not
complied with. The document also notes how the regulations should be
considered in conjunction with the investment under the access for all
programme. That is important because to gain access to rolling stock,
one must first gain access to the station.
If my hon.
Friend cannot reply to my question today, I am happy to wait for the
debate on the Greater Manchester transport innovation fund bid in
Westminster Hall tomorrow, to which the Minister of State, Department
for Transport will respond. The TIF bid concerns a substantial resource
for the refurbishment of existing stations. Wigan is to be the
co-location of two mainline stations and, in some instances, new
stations will be provided such as in Golborne in my constituency. That
programme is to be completed by 2013. If the programme under discussion
is to be completed by 2020, will the time scale for investment in the
access for all programme be considered together with the TIF bid to
ensure that stations are not refurbished in advance of that? By that
time, we will have compliant rolling stock, but we will have spent, say
in Greater Manchester, substantial sums on the refurbishment of the
current or increased station network, without taking into account
improvements to ensure better accessibility both for those with
disabilities and for the carers and others who are required to be with
them to gain access to that rolling stock.
I am not
trying to be awkward, but it is important to make sure that those dates
of investment—2013 and 2020—are aligned for practical
reasons. We should not have one part of the rail network invested in
under these regulations—rightly so—while another part is
subject to a programme that should be completed by 2013. If it is not
completed, what will happen thereafter with regard to poor access to
stations, because even if there are trains that have had greater
investment, there are people who might not be able to get through the
stations to use them?
5.4
pm
Mr.
Harris: We have had a useful and positive, though short,
debate, for which I express gratitude to all members of the Committee.
I shall try to respond to all the points that have been made. If
inspiration does not descend from various quarters during my remarks, I
promise to write to colleagues who have raised issues on which I might
not be able to respond directly this
afternoon. The
hon. Member for Canterbury asked about interim milestones between now
and 2020. I can tell him that none are planned, certainly not in
regulations, but it is up to individual manufacturers if they wish to
impose their own time scale. I welcome his support for the regulations
and that of his party and the Liberal Democrats. This is one of those
few areas where it is important to have cross-party consensus, even if
we disagree on occasion about some of the detail.
The hon.
Gentleman asked for clarification on the definition of “persons
with reduced mobility” and I apologise that that was not
explicitly set out in the accompanying documents. As he rightly pointed
out, it refers to parents with pushchairs and the elderly—anyone
who finds it physically difficult to access vehicles. He asked about
the costs that such a definition might impose on manufacturers, but the
vast majority of improvements needed to help people in that category
are already being undertaken by train manufacturers and operating
companies. Although I do not say that there will be no difference at
all, we do not anticipate a significant increase in costs as a direct
result of the measures.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about the 70 per cent. of the network that is currently
defined as part of the trans-European network. The European Commission
has already ruled that the regulations will apply to all passenger
vehicles that operate on the main line, so in practice it will apply to
100 per cent. of our overground rail network. He asked what
representations had been received from the industry and whether the
regulations will result in a loss of capacity.
First, we are
satisfied that no seats will be lost due to the measures, and I want to
reiterate in the Committee our plans for 1,300 new carriages. The hon.
Member for Canterbury was rather ungenerous when he referred to those
carriages as if they were a repeated announcement—they are 1,300
new carriages. I will mention that as often as possible, but I do not
expect anyone to think that I am trying to re-announce or add on the
figures. Of course, when the figures were first announced in February
2007 by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend
the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, South (Mr.
Alexander), it was only 1,000 carriages. The number has gone up between
then and
the announcement last July and the specification is now 1,300. As I am
sure the hon. Member for Canterbury is about to remind the Committee,
those are 1,300 brand-new, net additional carriages to the network.
They do not replace existing carriages. | 
