The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Martyn
Jones
Bone,
Mr. Peter
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
Chapman,
Ben
(Wirral, South)
(Lab)
Davies,
Philip
(Shipley)
(Con)
Donohoe,
Mr. Brian H.
(Central Ayrshire)
(Lab)
George,
Mr. Bruce
(Walsall, South)
(Lab)
Hammond,
Stephen
(Wimbledon)
(Con)
Hunter,
Mark
(Cheadle)
(LD)
Leech,
Mr. John
(Manchester, Withington)
(LD)
Mole,
Chris
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)
Prentice,
Mr. Gordon
(Pendle)
(Lab)
Redwood,
Mr. John
(Wokingham)
(Con)
Ryan,
Joan
(Enfield, North)
(Lab)
Strang,
Dr. Gavin
(Edinburgh, East)
(Lab)
Tami,
Mark
(Alyn and Deeside)
(Lab)
Truswell,
Mr. Paul
(Pudsey)
(Lab)
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Chris Stanton, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The following
also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Watkinson,
Angela
(Upminster) (Con)
Second
Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 8 February
2010
[Mr.
Martyn Jones in the
Chair]
Draft
Rail Vehicle Accessibility (London Underground Metropolitan Line S8
Vehicles) Exemption Order
2010
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Chris
Mole): I beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (London
Underground Metropolitan Line S8 Vehicles) Exemption Order
2010.
The
Government are committed to an accessible public transport system in
which disabled people have the same opportunity to travel as other
members of society. We know that, without that, 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 strong action to ensure that
public transport services are accessible. Over a decade ago, we
introduced the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 to ensure
that all new trains had features making them more accessible.
More than a
third of the national fleet, which is more than 5,600 vehicles, are
already compliant and almost all older rail vehicles have been made
more accessible during refurbishment. All rail vehicles must be
accessible by no later than 1 January 2020 and we have established a
£370 million access for all fund which is
improving the accessibility of our railway stations. RVAR was
introduced under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That Act also
provides for an exemptions process that allows rail vehicles that do
not comply fully with technical accessibility standards to enter
service.
The order is
fully supported by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,
the Office of Rail Regulation and London TravelWatch. It will allow
London Underground to introduce new trains on the Metropolitan line
that have features that will improve accessibility for disabled people
and are fully compliant with RVAR in all but five respects. The
exemptions reflect the challenges faced by LU in meeting accessibility
requirements in the short term on a metro service with high frequency,
inaccessible stations and a mix of old and new
vehicles.
Before
I explain the reasons for the individual exemptions that have been
requested, I should note that those are similar to those granted by
Parliament for London Undergrounds new Victoria line trains in
2008. Those were the first LU trains to be built to modern
accessibility standards. We learnt a number of lessons during that
process, which have been applied here. Until all the new trains are
delivered, they must run alongside existing vehicles, which were
introduced into service in the 1960s and were not designed with
accessibility in mind.
Although they
are not regulated for accessibility purposes, the older vehicles
provide an audible door closure warning of 1.75 seconds, which is
standard across all of LUs services. New vehicles that comply
with RVAR should have a warning which starts three seconds before the
door begins to close. Until May 2015 there will be a mixture of new and
old vehicles in service on the Metropolitan line and the other
sub-surface lines that it operates alongside. It would therefore be
confusing and potentially hazardous for passengers to have two
different durations of audible warning on the same route. At this late
stage in their life and given the old technology involved, it would be
difficult and wasteful to change the warnings given on existing trains
for the one or two years for which they remain in
service.
Although
the new trains will from the outset be capable of providing a compliant
three-second warning of door closure, LU has requested an exemption
from that requirement until 30 May 2015, by which time all older trains
in use on the Metropolitan line and the other sub-surface lines will
have been replaced. The order requires LU to maintain a minimum door
closure warning of 1.75 seconds for consistency with the existing,
older trains, and the new trains will revert to a compliant warning
after this date. We believe that retaining a 1.75 second
closure warning for that transitional period will ensure consistency
and allow disabled people to be confident about what the warning
means.
LU
also broader concerns surrounding the effect that the introduction of a
compliant three-second warning might have on its services. A similar,
time-limited exemption was granted for its new Victoria line fleet on
the basis that a trial of compliant warnings be conducted to see
whether that could be incorporated without increasing delays or
affecting frequency of service. Members will note that, if trains are
less frequent, overall capacity falls and crowding worsens. We are
working closely with LU on that, and the exemption expiry date will
compel LU to look at the issue again in the light of the findings of
that trial.
For the same
reasons of consistency, LU has requested an exemptionagain
until 30 May 2015to provide a shorter, 1.75 second visual
warning when doors are about to close. The exemption will apply at all
times during passenger service. The order ensures that the minimum
duration of illumination is not less than 1.75 seconds
before the door closure sequence starts.
The third
exemption concerns the announcements that are made on board the train
at each station. RVAR requires both the next stop and
terminating station to be announced audibly and
visually. That requirement is designed to ensure that passengers know
whether they are boarding a fast or stopping service.
For key
stations on the Metropolitan line where there are branch lines and
junctions, or where there is a choice between fast and stopping
services, compliant next station and final destination announcements
will be made. At certain non-key stationsand by that I mean
predominantly on the stretch between Baker Street and Aldgate, where
there are no branches or junctions and all trains stop at all
stationsLU has requested an exemption to allow some, but not
all, of the mandated information to be given during transit between
some stations. LU contends that, if all the mandated information is
provided at each station, even if that is not strictly necessary, that
will greatly limit the amount of other
information that can be given to passengers at that time, such as
information on connections to other routes and services. Additionally,
some platforms on the line will be shorter than the trains arriving
there and LU wishes to use the passenger information system to ensure
that customers move towards an opening door in time for them to alight,
should they wish to do so.
Similar
exemptions were granted for the Victoria line fleet. LU is
conducting a trial with a series of announcements that it believes
could be more useful than those currently required by RVAR, including,
for example, interchange information. The results will inform future
policy on that issue.
The fourth
exemption concerns the placement of a horizontal handrail in the four
designated wheelchair spaces in each train. That recognises that
services can be extremely busy at peak times and addresses concerns
about standing customers falling against or on to wheelchair users,
owing to the lack of an appropriate handrail or other support in that
area. We consulted on the basis of allowing the installation of
handrails in those circumstances in revised RVAR regulations, which
will come into force later this year. The proposal was supported by all
stakeholders, including DPTAC, and will make similar exemptions
unnecessary in the future.
The final
exemption concerns wheelchair users access from the platform to
the train. LU believes that it would
be
Ben
Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): I am sure that the Minister
appreciates that, in order to access the train, as he
rightly says, passengers need access to the platform. In deciding on
access to the platform, the transport authorities often take account of
footfall. In other words, the busiest stations receive the highest
priority. However, disabled people cannot always choose the stations
that they need. Can he assure me that, in implementing the measures,
access to the platform will be given as much weight as it deserves,
particularly in relation to disabled
people?
Chris
Mole: I assure my hon. Friend that, in allocating
resources through the access for all fund, consideration is given to
the demand for level access at a particular location, on the basis of
the known number of users who seek to use such a facility in that area.
We can know, from statistics, how many people with disabilities might
try to use a particular station. On some occasions, where it might be
particularly difficult to provide such a facility at one station, the
alternative might be to suggest that they travel to a nearby station
where level access is more readily achievable. In such a circumstance,
some of the responsibility to make those provisions lies with the Mayor
of London through the resources that we make available to him.
Sometimes, there is contention in relation to heavy rail access to a
parallel underground station. because the Department will make
resources available for level access but the Mayor will not. That is a
feature of the Mayors devolved responsibilities, for which he
is
accountable.
As
I was saying, the final exemption concerns access from the platform to
the train. LU believes that it would be impractical to use manually
deployed boarding ramps on a frequent metro service because of
restricted space on platforms, the degree of crowding on some platforms
during peak hours, and the potential impact that using boarding ramps
might have on dwell times at stations.
Although the
new trains have been designed with a low floor that will significantly
reduce stepping distances, that provision alone will not make the
vehicles compliant with RVAR requirements at all platforms. Instead, LU
will install platform humps, which will be positioned
to allow level access to those carriages with wheelchair spaces. Level
access between platforms and trains is preferred by wheelchair users as
it facilitates independent travel without the need to involve staff.
The installation of platform humps has been trialled successfully at
some stations on the Northern and Waterloo and City lines, and is being
rolled out across the Victoria
line.
LU
wishes to link the exemption to its step-free access programme, so that
work to provide level access between the platform and the train is
carried out alongside broader refurbishment work to give step-free
access to the platform from street level. That will reduce the risk of
a disabled passenger getting stranded on a platform where there is no
step-free route out of the station. It will also minimise the
disruption caused by engineering
work.
In
order to facilitate that, LU will require exemptions from the
requirement to provide level access at wheelchair-accessible doorways,
except at those stations on the Metropolitan line that are already
compliant. The exemptions will last until work to provide step-free
routes is completed, and the number of exemptions will reduce
progressively as each station becomes step-free. The last of the
exemptions will expire on 31 December 2013 and LU has already allocated
£5.5 million to complete that work. That is extremely
encouraging, but nine platforms remain where the exemption will cease
to apply when step-free access is provided, because a programme for
providing step-free access to those platforms has yet to be
established.
Finally,
there are a further 12 platforms where an exemption with no time limit
has been sought, since the geometry of the platforms currently presents
an insurmountable barrier to level access. Parts of the Metropolitan
line form the oldest stretch of underground line in the world, dating
from the 1860s when attitudes towards customer accessibility were very
different. Some platforms are therefore severely curved or of a
compromised height where the line is shared with other LU or national
rail lines. In such circumstances, allowance must be made for the
different height, size and shape of trains that use the same track and
platforms.
Without
a known solution to the particular difficulties presented by that
relatively small number of platforms, setting an expiry date at this
time would be entirely artificial. We and DPTAC believe that this is a
sensible approach to the issue and will continue to monitor the
situation closely. If a novel solution is developed, the exemption
could be revoked at any
time.
The
order will allow LU to introduce new, accessible vehicles in a safe
manner that will provide improvements for all passengers. Moreover, the
order is supported by all stakeholders, including DPTAC. We believe
that the exemptions requested are reasonable in the circumstances and I
therefore commend the order to the
Committee.
4.44
pm
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Jones, and it is a delight to see the
Minister. We had three sparring
opportunities over the past week, but I suspect that this
afternoons debate will be less contentious than our previous
ones.
I
begin by emphasising that the Opposition recognise that although the
ability to travel on public transport is important for all people, it
is particularly important for disabled people, a number of whom are
entirely reliant on public transport to get from their homes to access
places of work, shops, leisure, family, friends, health care, education
and so on. Public transport that is fully accessible and safe for those
with disabilities must form an essential part of a national, regional
or local transport policy.
We need to
have rules relating to accessibility. The power to set minimum
accessibility standards for rail vehicles, buses and coaches was
granted to the Secretary of State 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 that year. Additional provisions
were made in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to ensure that the
national fleet of buses would also meet accessibility standards by
2017, and trains by 2020. There has been some good work on that across
the transport industry, but the Minister might want to tell us what
progress has been made overall on meeting those targets, and whether he
still expects them to be met.
As the
Minister has pointed out, there are a number of particular
circumstances in which rail vehicles can be granted an exemption from
meeting these minimum accessibility standards. The Secretary of State
has the power to exempt specified vehicles from particular requirements
in two circumstances: first, when he is satisfied that it is not
possible for those vehicles to comply fully with the regulations; and,
secondly, when it is ensured that the ability of disabled people to
travel in vehicles will not be compromised.
The draft
order will allow 58 new vehicles to be used in passenger service on the
Metropolitan line despite not conforming to five of the requirements
set out in the DDA, which the Minister outlined. The Metropolitan line
is the oldest underground line in the world, having opened on 10
January 1863. The tube network is something of which Londoners can be
proud and greater accessibility is something to be strived
for.
A number of
exemptions are sought in the order, as the Minister set out. I
understand why a number of them are necessary. He dealt in particular
with the issue of the time lapse in the announcements on new and old
vehicles. If that exemption were not granted, an audible announcement
could be made a certain number of seconds before the doors opened on a
journey from Moorgate to Baker Street, but the time could be longer on
the return journey. People will have an expectation of the time period,
so different times could cause
confusion.
I
see that a number of the exemptions have different expiry dates. I
understand that the one relating to the time lapse expires on 30 May
2015, while various others expire on 30 May 2013. Will the Minister
detail the expiry dates of the five types of exemption so that we are
clear about the situation?
It
is implicit in the order that the Secretary of State is satisfied that
the vehicles will not meet specific regulatory requirements because
that is technically impossible, or because their non-compliance will
not substantially hinder the comfort or safety of disabled passengers.
I note that the Minister said that proper consultation had taken place.
It is clearly welcome that DPTAC, ORR and London TravelWatch have all
been consulted on the issue. He said that the consultation showed that
DPTAC was satisfied about all issues, but I understand that DPTAC
raised two points, the first of which was about progress on
wheelchair-compliant doorways. It also suggested that disabled
passengers could be hindered because of the situation surrounding
manual boarding at stations. I understand from the Ministers
comments that that is difficult to address due to dwell times. Will he
indicate what further consultation on that specific issue was carried
out with DPTAC? Is he satisfied that platform humps are as safe as
manual boards for disabled
passengers?