| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. He is right about the quality of the drafting of my amendment. I and colleagues struggled with it, but it enabled us to raise the issue. I am the first to admit that it is defective in many ways.
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about frontier controls, which he rightly said is the key to the issue. I shall study Hansard with great interest and look forward to seeing an application for an appropriate procedure from London and Continental, or whomever, to the Department of Transport. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish to raise a short point in relation to Clause 16 about which I have given notice to the Minister. It relates to the adequacy of the provisions in the Bill to ensure access for disabled people in all trains running on the CTRL. Access requirements for fixed infrastructure and rolling stock for the new international and domestic services will comply with the present rail regulator's code of practice. That document
is essentially directed at piecemeal improvement of access on the existing rail network. Such a pragmatic approach to the costs of improvements may be understandable, although it is less than ideal.Newham Council has raised the issues with me. It believes that the limited aims of the guidance are inappropriate in respect of the new CTRL investment. Each Eurostar train has only two places for people in wheelchairs. That is quite remarkable. In order to obtain such places one must book in advance and then wait at a pre-arranged point on the platform for a special ramp to be brought.
I do not suggest that the existing rolling stock should be modified. That would be wholly impractical. However, I seek the Minister's assurance that, as regards subsequent orders of new international and domestic rolling stock to be used on the route, the designs will ensure much greater accessibility to all passengers, in particular to disabled people.
A number of specific improvements to rolling stock design have been suggested; for example, six designated wheelchair spaces in new train sets from which bar and buffet facilities and wheelchair accessible toilets could be easily reached. Those seating places would incorporate space for the parking of wheelchairs and adjacent transfer seats. That is particularly important for those people who wish to transfer from their chairs to more comfortable seats. Those could be of standard design with removable sides and arm rests.
The interior design of carriages should also incorporate good quality colour contrast for partially sighted people. There should be audio and visual information and sufficient space at external doors to accommodate the turning circle of a powered wheelchair.
Therefore, I seek from the Minister this evening an indication of his general approach and some assurance that these matters will be looked at. I ask for wider consultation to be invited prior to the next round of rolling stock orders being placed. That would be viewed as a significant step forward. I await the Minister's reply with interest.
Viscount Goschen: The Motion that Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill gives us a good opportunity to discuss disabled access issues which are clearly of key importance. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice that he intended to raise this issue.
As noble Lords may be aware, under Section 70 of the Railways Act 1993 the rail regulator has a duty to prepare, revise, publish and encourage the adoption and implementation of the code of practice for protecting the interests of disabled railway passengers and station users. That duty operates in place of the usual Part M of the Building Regulations 1984 which do not apply to railway operational land.
The code of practice Meeting the Needs of Disabled Passengers was prepared in consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee--DPTAC--and was published in 1994. It is a provision of the Government's minimum requirements for the CTRL project that the nominated undertaker for the CTRL
adopt and implement the disabled people's protection policy, having regard to the rail regulator's code of practice as though the nominated undertaker's activities were subject to regulation by the rail regulator.Thus, in preparing its disabled people's protection policy, the nominated undertaker will be required to consult DPTAC. I am sure that that will greatly reassure the noble Lord in relation to LCR's consultation with interested parties, expert bodies and DPTAC, the body that was established as a statutory committee to advise the Secretary of State.
Lord Clinton-Davis: What does the acronym stand for?
Viscount Goschen: It is the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. I happen to have that at my fingertips. Indeed, I believe that I referred to it in my earlier remarks and I am sure that the Official Report will confirm that.
I assure the Committee that the CTRL will incorporate facilities for disabled people following the guidelines and the rail regulator's code of practice. Therefore, the disabled people's protection policy will apply to all of the nominated undertakers' passenger facilities provided under the Bill, including facilities at stations. Of course, the normal building regulations will apply to any development not authorised by the Bill. Therefore--to use an expression heard earlier this evening--there is seamless provision to ensure that the needs of disabled passengers are properly addressed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thought that that was a very good reply. It may be in sharp contrast to others, but that is unfair. The Minister has taken the point seriously and I am grateful to him.
Clause 18 [Railway administration orders]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 12:
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, 16 and 17 and 19.
These amendments have been tabled in response to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report on the CTRL Bill. In its May 1996 report the committee highlighted three sets of provisions in the Bill that it had difficulty with, Clause 18, Clauses 22 to 24 and Clauses 32(4) and 32(5). The Bill currently provides for the various orders under these clauses to be made without being laid and thus subject to no further parliamentary scrutiny.
The committee felt that some parliamentary scrutiny was required and in each case suggested that the orders should be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. We have considered the committee's report very carefully indeed, and I am pleased to say --as Members of the Committee will see from the amendments before us--that we have been able to accept all of the committee's suggestions but one.
The suggestion that causes us difficulty is the one in relation to Clause 32(4), and I should like to explain to the Committee why we cannot make the amendment the committee sought. Clause 32(4) provides that the nomination order under Clause 32(1) may include "such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient". Clause 32(1) is the provision in the Bill that will enable us to name London & Continental Railways as the "nominated undertaker" under the Bill, so that they can use the powers granted by the Act to build the CTRL.
Clause 32(4) is a common, catch-all provision that was intended to ensure that the need for any supplementary provision could be catered for at the time. In its report, the committee comment on, but do not explicitly criticise, the fact that the nomination order under Clause 32(1) does not require further parliamentary scrutiny but say that the "supplementary" power in Clause 32(4) ought to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, Clause 32(4) is not a separate order-making power, but one linked to the power in Clause 32(1) setting out what an order under Clause 32(1) can contain.
With that somewhat detailed explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept that we did not feel it appropriate to bring forward an amendment with regard to that recommendation of the committee. We felt it entirely appropriate to bring forward other amendments implementing all the other recommendations of the committee. That is why we have brought forward Amendment No. 12 and the other amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: From this side of the Committee, we are very pleased that the Government have taken notice of the committee's recommendations and have brought forward these amendments. That is every encouraging.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 13:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Restrictive trade practices]:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
6.45 p.m.
Page 10, line 15, at end insert--
("( ) The power conferred by subsection (8) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page