Stephen
Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend on such good use of
his time this afternoon, bringing his constituency interests to the
attention of the Committee. He is a mind-reader—I was about to
ask the Minister about that matter. We debated it under one of these
orders about a year ago, and the then Minister said that 58 per cent.
of buses and more than 40 per cent. of trains met the accessibility
standards. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in the
past year, and when he thinks that accessibility standards will be
achieved at around the 90 per cent.
level? There
are two circumstances in which rail vehicles may be exempt from meeting
the standards. One is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that it
is not possible for them to comply fully with the regulations; the
other is that the Secretary of State is assured that despite the
exemption the ability of disabled people to travel will not be
compromised. The 2005 Act seems to provide for the Secretary of State
to decide through regulations which parliamentary procedure should be
used to make exemption orders. The regulations set out what the
criteria for such a decision should be and, for the sake of
transparency, it is utterly sensible that those criteria should be in
the public domain. I am pleased that there was a consultation exercise.
It appears from the papers provided that the draft statutory instrument
has received external support. Will the Minister confirm the extent of
that support? The draft statutory instrument seems a sensible move
forward and I am happy to support
it. The
Minister ran through the other draft order, which concerns 376 new
vehicles that are to be used in passenger service on the Victoria line
and exemptions on the basis that vehicles do not conform to four of the
criteria set out in the DDA. The Minister ran through those exemptions
in some detail and I am grateful for his explanation, but I wish to
press him on a couple of points. He talked about the audible door
closure warnings, which will be one and three quarter seconds as
opposed to three seconds, and he confirmed that that exemption would
cease in 2011. Will he confirm that the 376 new vehicles and any others
that will be on the Victoria line will comply with the longer audible
warning post-2011?
The Minister
then spoke about the exemption regarding the onboard announcements,
which will not include both next stop and terminating information. He
explained that one piece of information will be given while the train
is at the station and one while it is in motion. He also said—I
think that I heard him correctly—that extra information will be
given about connectivity. Will he tell the Committee how that
information will be delivered? I am grateful for his reassurance on the
smaller letter
size. The
Minister then went through the step access exemptions that were being
sought for a short period. Will he confirm when the step access
exemptions are to finish, and when the entire Victoria line will have
step free
access? It
is implicit in the draft order that the Secretary of State must be
satisfied that the vehicles will not meet the specific regulatory
requirements because, technically, it is impossible for them to do so.
I assume that, with new vehicles, that will not be the case and that
the rationale for the exemptions is that, although they are being
granted, they will in no way hinder the comfort or safety of disabled
passengers. I should be grateful if the Minister were to assure us that
that is the rationale behind the Secretary of State’s granting
of the exemptions.
I am pleased
that the Minister detailed the consultation that has taken place. He
said that proper attention has been paid to any points arising from it,
and I am grateful to him for telling us who has been consulted. In
particular, he mentioned Her Majesty’s railway inspectorate. The
explanatory notes mention that groups have given support. They also say
that HMRI commented on the provision of handrails in wheelchair spaces.
Those comments were in appendices, but they have not been attached to
the papers provided to the Committee. Will the Minister tell us what
was in those appendices, or write to us, so that the Committee can have
the information in the near
future? I
believe that both statutory instruments are uncontroversial. Pending
the Minister’s response, I do not intend to detain the Committee
this afternoon.
5.6
pm Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Dean.
I, too,
welcome the Minister to his first transport SI Committee.
Perhaps we are to have general transport debates every Monday
afternoon; if so, I look forward to it.
I start by
commenting on the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility Exemption Orders
(Parliamentary Procedures) Regulations 2008. I must confess to being
somewhat wary of supporting regulations that give Ministers the power
to use discretion. However, I am partly reassured that Ministers will
take account of representations from the Disabled Persons Transport
Advisory Committee, which should ensure that the Government do not
attempt to push through orders without appropriate parliamentary
scrutiny. I am further reassured by the Government’s 12-week
consultation with stakeholders, including disability organisations,
especially as all respondents agree that the Secretary of State should
have such discretion. On that basis, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches
do not oppose the regulations.
I am happy to
support the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (London Underground
Victoria Line 09TS Vehicles) Exemption Order 2008. It represents a
sensible response by London Underground to the transitional period
while the new 09TS vehicles are introduced and the old 67TS vehicles
are phased out. As for the audible door closure warnings, I am not
totally convinced by the Minister’s assertion that passengers
would be confused by different durations of audible signals. Taking a
consistent approach on all trains until the last of the 67TS vehicles
go out of service would avoid the possibility of confusion.
I turn to
onboard announcements. The proposed exemption highlights the
potentially restrictive nature of the RVAR with regard to the
requirement to announce both the final destination as well as the next
stop, in order to distinguish between fast and slow trains. Given that
the Victoria line has no branches or junctions, and that all trains
stop at every station, London Underground should be given the
opportunity to trial different announcements that might be beneficial
to passengers.
London
Underground’s decision to use thin-film transistor screens on
its new vehicles is a clear example of an exemption that will improve
the experience of passengers, particularly those passengers with
learning disabilities and people who do not have English as a first
language, through the use of pictures, colour coding and sign
language.
The decision
by London Underground to provide platform humps rather than manual
ramps is particularly welcome. However, I want to press the Minister
about seeking assurances from London Underground that when the humps
are introduced there should be clear marking and colour co-ordination
to ensure that wheelchair users can make their way to them. When
underground stations are busy it might be difficult to find
one’s way in a
crowd. There
is a clear benefit to wheelchair users in not being reliant on the
provision of a manual ramp. It is simply common sense to link the
installation of the platform humps with London Underground’s
continuing step free access programme, and not to take the risk of
wheelchair users being effectively stranded at stations and unable to
get out, because there is no step free access. On that basis, I am
happy to support the
order. 5.11
pm
Paul
Clark: I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for
Manchester, Withington for their comments on the orders and shall try
to deal with all the points that were raised. I am disappointed that
the hon. Member for Monmouth is not present to hear the response, but I
am sure that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will be able to convey the
information to him. The programme for providing access to stations is
fundamental and critical. I believe that through the access for all
programme, Abergavenny is one of those that will get a lift. That may
help the hon. Member for
Monmouth. As
to what we have done to date, currently a third of the rail fleet is
accessible. That means some 4,700 vehicles are currently RVAR
compliant. Of course, as part of the investment in the railway network,
we have increasing rolling stock capacity coming on stream, with 1,300
already announced. We are working hard to continue that progress and
hundreds of stations have already been identified as part of the access
for all programme, to help to make progress with the options for
accessibility.
The hon.
Member for Wimbledon raised several important issues. We have consulted
on the issue, particularly with DPTAC, which, as the hon. Gentleman
recognised, is the Government’s adviser on public transport for
people with disabilities. The committee has been clear in its support
for the action set out in the statutory instruments. That applies to
HMRI as well. I shall come specifically to the issue of appendices and
handrails
shortly. The
issue of the audible door closure will be dealt with by 2013. I say
that rather than 2011 because as I said in my opening remarks, it
allows for checking that the three-second time scale would not
jeopardise the safety of any member of the travelling public,
particularly those with disabilities. Three seconds is a longer period
in which people can rush for a train, and therefore it might create
other problems.
On the
question of step free access, and when that is to happen, schedule 2 of
the Victoria line order sets out clearly how long the exemption is to
apply at each station on the Victoria line. It does not include
Pimlico, as I said earlier—or Tottenham Hale or Brixton, which
are already accessible. On the question of onboard announcements and
connectivity, DPTAC recognised that unnecessary audible messages only
confuse the situation for certain people and so it thought it quite
right that this exemption should be provided. I can give the Committee
an idea of the new signs that will be on the trains. They will be much
clearer than the dot matrix signs which show connectivity. I do feel
like saying that these are ones I made earlier with sticky-backed
plastic.
The
Chairman: Order. Visual aids are not normally used in
Committee. Perhaps the Minister could describe
them.
Paul
Clark: The signs on the trains will be much closer to
people. They will be fewer than 3 m away. They will be much clearer in
the information that they contain as a result of new technology. They
will also allow additional information to be displayed using pictures
and graphics and they will be able to provide information while the
train is
travelling. The
hon. Member for Wimbledon asked about the rationale and there being no
discomfort or hazard for disabled passengers. That is a primary
consideration—it has to be. DPTAC would not have supported any
of the statutory instruments if it thought that they were contrary to
that and they are exactly in that spirit. I will write to the hon.
Gentleman about HMRI and handrails. I apologise. I thought that the
appendices were provided by the Department and I will write to all
members of the Committee with a copy of
them. An
additional longitudinal handrail was developed. It intruded slightly
into the wheelchair space, which is currently not permitted by the
RVAR. However, human factors experts advise that their installation on
the new Victoria line trains would have increased the risk of someone
hitting their head when getting out of the tip-up seats in the
wheelchair space. That was due to the small size of the tube trains.
They were precluded on that basis but an additional vertical handrail
has been fitted opposite the wheelchair space instead. I think that we
have overcome those problems, but I will certainly send the appendices
to hon. Members.
I thank the
hon. Member for Manchester, Withington for welcoming me and for his
kind comments. I look forward to Mondays being transport days. We
probably need to let the House authorities know that that will be the
case. He asked about audibility and wondered whether there was
confusion. DPTAC was of the opinion that it made sense to have one
period of time and therefore to allow the exemption order to be at one
and three quarter seconds.
In terms of
the marking of ramps, it is obviously in London Underground’s
interests to provide good signage for all the travelling public,
particularly those who are disabled. I certainly take that on board. On
step free access to the whole of the Victoria line, as I said, London
Underground is spreading its resources across
the whole network. The programme for the Victoria line is laid down in
schedule 2. I think that that covers all the points that have been
raised by hon.
Members. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility
(London Underground Victoria Line 09TS Vehicles)
Exemption Order
2008. Draft
Rail Vehicle Accessibility Exemption Orders (Parliamentary Procedures)
Regulations
2008.Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility
Exemption Orders (Parliamentary Procedures) Regulations
2008.—[Paul
Clark.] Committee
rose at twenty minutes past Five
o’clock
| 
