House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates



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 Underground’s 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 LU’s 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 exemption—again until 30 May 2015—to 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 stations—and 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 stations—LU 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 Mayor’s 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 afternoon’s 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 Minister’s 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?
 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 9 February 2010