| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC361
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC361
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC361
Tuesday, 17 June 2008.
The Committee met at fourteen minutes to four.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Following the delayed start and before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee will be that it do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should make it clear that the Motion to approve the statutory instrument will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Code of Practice) Order 2008
Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2008
3.47 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2008.
The noble Lord said: The provision of an accessible public transport system in which people with reduced mobility can have the same opportunities to travel as other members of society is a key driver in improving their life chances and promoting social inclusion. Without accessible transport, people with reduced mobility are limited in their ability to access work, visit friends and family, participate in leisure activities or access healthcare and education facilities. That is why we have taken strong and positive action to ensure that public transport services are more accessible to the growing number of people who have previously faced difficulties when trying to use them.
Regulations requiring all new rail vehicles, buses and coaches to be accessible have already been introduced. There are around 4,700 accessible rail vehicles already in service which are covered by the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, widely referred to as the RVAR. We should remember that many thousands of older rail vehicles have also been made more accessible by refurbishment.
The United Kingdom's leadership in this area has now been recognised at a European level and the European Commission has come forward with a new standard for the accessibility of trains. This is based largely on the RVAR. The introduction of the new standards is the reason why we are here today. The regulations before us are needed to prevent the application
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC362
The Merits Committee has drawn the regulations to the special attention of the Committee because the exemptions under the new European regime that we are moving today are dealt with administratively—as they already are for other aspects of that regime, such as signalling and radio communications—rather than by statutory instrument. However, we are confident that consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and others will ensure that the needs of people with reduced mobility are not taken lightly. No adverse comments were received on this issue during the consultation process.
We must also understand that we are talking only about limited exemptions for the oldest vehicles, which were built before any access standards were in place at all. There are no grounds for new trains to be introduced into service without being fully accessible. Simply disapplying the RVAR would leave the trains that were previously subject to it completely unregulated until they triggered the European standards by being refurbished. As that is clearly unacceptable, the draft regulations also ensure that there is an obligation on train operating companies to continue to operate these trains in an accessible manner, as if they were still subject to the RVAR standards, unless and until they trigger the new standards.
In addition to facilitating the introduction of the new European standards, the draft regulations also deliver on our commitment to set an end date of 1 January 2020 by which time all trains must be accessible. This measure was originally included in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and enjoyed full cross-party support during its passage through the House of Lords.
Members of the House of Lords have consistently demonstrated both their interest in, and the strength of their support for, measures that improve the accessibility of our railways. That is the main reason why we are seeking approval for these regulations today. They will help secure significant improvements for all passengers, not just people with reduced mobility, and the rail industry has already been working to similar standards for approaching a decade. For those reasons I commend these draft regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2008. 21st report from the Merits Committee, 21st report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC363
Lord Hanningfield: We are not against the introduction of these regulations. However, I have a few points to put to the Minister. I should also like to point out that there is a little concern, felt particularly by train operators and other interest groups, about the effect of having two sets of regulations.
Train operators have expressed particular concern about the regulations’ effect on refurbishments. Are the Government sure that the regulations will not prejudice the future refurbishment of existing trains? We have two sets of regulations but train operators are refurbishing their trains to the first set. Might there not now be a hiatus in the refurbishment of carriages and trains? Can the Government assure us that operators will not be discouraged from refurbishing trains?
Secondly, operators and interest groups have given mixed reviews regarding what form the regulation enforcement regime will take. Many operators feel that compliance should be enforced by existing safety management regulation. Some have suggested that it would be logical for the Office of Rail Regulation to take on a single enforcement role, whereas I gather that light railway operators have argued that Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate should be the enforcement body. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that operators’ concerns about how the regulations will be enforced have been addressed? Will they ensure that the Rail Regulator is properly resourced to ensure compliance with any regulations? Can the Minister answer the questions on the enforcement of the new regulations?
My next point is linked to my first point. The Minister said that there is an end date for compliance with the new European regulations. Might it not be better if new trains comply with regulations as they come on stream? What will happen to carriages that do not comply by 2020? Will they be taken out of the system? There might be a real problem about having sufficient stock at that time if some carriages are not compliant with the new regulations.
Whatever we do to provide accessibility for disabled people, sometimes the trains are so crowded—certainly the trains that I use—that people cannot get to the toilet if they want to because it is impossible to move. Would the Minister like to comment on that? How will disabled people get around on trains if they are so full most of the time?
Lord Berkeley: I, too, have had representations from the railway passenger industry on these issues, and in many ways they reflect the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I shall start with his second point about enforcement. Can my noble friend explain whether the enforcement will be done by the Office of Rail Regulation rather than by the department? We now have an ORR that covers both safety and economic regulations. It seems to me that to comply with the principles of independent regulation that we have discussed so many times here in Grand Committee and in the Chamber, the enforcement of the various policies in the regulations should be done by the ORR. I shall be glad to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
The new TSI supersedes the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations. There is a body of opinion in the Association
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC364
As the TSIs more or less forbid retrospective application, the Government have a few problems. For example, there is a proposal to amend the 2006 interoperability regulations which transposed into UK law the interoperability directive (2001/16) and superseded the Railway (Interoperability) (High-Speed) Regulations 2002. The latter is one of the instruments we are talking about. However, the amendment proposes the retrospective application of this TSI to rolling stock placed in service before 1 August 2006—and there is an awful lot of that around—which is not deemed to be authorised under Regulation 4 of the RVA (IRS). The effect is to enforce changes to all pre-1999 rolling stock that has not been subsequently modified to comply either with the RVAR or the PRM TSI. Such rolling stock will have to comply with the PRM TSI by 2020 regardless of whether it will be subject to a major upgrade. But these changes might conflict with Article 1 of the interoperability directive (2001/16) which states:
“These conditions concern the ... placing in service ... of the parts of the system placed in service after the date of entry into force of this Directive”.
4 pm
I believe that ATOC has a point in suggesting that there is a serious legal anomaly between these draft regulations and the TSIs which they are supposed to be implementing. Can my noble friend give an assurance that the changes to the regulations do not set a precedent for retrospective application of the European technical specification which covers virtually every aspect of the railway? The disabled element is only one aspect, although a very important one, of specifications that cover all kinds of things. If we are to go down the route of retrospective application then it will cost somebody, probably eventually the Government, a great deal of money. It is a dangerous precedent.
Can my noble friend therefore also confirm which trains will be required to be modified by 2020? Is there a modification programme that would helpfully be linked to the other essential changes to rolling stock which will be required depending on where they are, including the introduction of ERTMS—which, as we know, is due to be implemented on the Great Western by 2016 and then rolled out across the network in the following 10 years or so? My third question is fairly obvious: where will the budget for all this come from?
Finally, I do not think that the new Southern franchise being let had any mention of the need to take into account or comply with these new regulations. Does the department intend to introduce these accessibility requirements within this franchise and all other franchises at the earliest possible date to ensure that modifications are taking place? I would be grateful to my noble friend for answers to those questions.
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC365
The Earl of Glasgow: My concern is with the exemptions. I would like an assurance from the Minister that any exemptions to these regulations will come back for consideration in this House and will not simply be pushed through unilaterally by the Department for Transport.
Lord Addington: I have a couple of brief comments. My noble friend has drawn attention to how the exemptions were dealt with. I think that I am the only Member of the Committee who took part in the whole passage of the Disability Discrimination Act, during which we had long and sometimes bitter arguments, and long and bloody battles, about ensuring that we kept control of these exemptions and monitored them.
As luck would have it, I was also a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee when we first noticed the number of exemptions. The first exemption I saw was about a vintage railway system. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would agree on this, but my attitude to that exemption was: if you are a person in a wheelchair who wants a 1930s travel experience, by all means go in the guards van along with the mailbags, but if you are using a train as a commuter in the modern age, you require slightly better standards.
Let us not forget that improved accessibility in getting on and off trains also tends to help other people as well. It is almost a truism, but accessibility for those in wheelchairs tends also to help those pushing prams or carrying heavy bags. Such changes benefit the public as a whole. I am afraid that the rail industry has resisted these changes and commented that there should perhaps be other priorities. It is an ongoing discussion and there are merits on both sides. But I think that that aspect should bear some weight in the discussion.
As my noble friend pointed out, we have said that we want control over this because far too many exemptions have been granted in the past. If the department has a better lobby group than the disability lobby—and between the transport and disability lobbies there is an interesting tug of war—and the transport lobby gains access to the right ear, it is easy to see that exemptions may be passed rather too readily, as has happened. It would be a good step forward to ensure that Parliament is aware when these exemptions are passed. I look to the Minister for an assurance that we will have some way of checking this in future. We agree with the Merits Committee that the assurance we were given under the 2005 Act should still be valid. We should be able to see what is happening and check it. We do not have a good record here. In the past the transport lobby or the railways lobby seemed to get their way rather too readily.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to all noble Lords for their well informed questions, which add to the debate’s value. We have had a useful brief discussion on these issues.
I will come back to the Merits Committee point and exemptions as I wish to deal first with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who, like me, is a fairly regular user of the rail network and
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC366
I heard what the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Berkeley, said about enforcement. We think it is right that there should be enforcement through Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate, which has an enviable track record of enforcement on safety matters. That is entirely consistent with its safety role. It is respected in the industry here and abroad for the way in which it operates, for the standards it sets and the valuable advice and guidance that it gives. Over the long history of our railway network the inspectorate has been an important element in improving safety standards and ensuring that, by and large, we travel in safety and in comfort on the network.
Overcrowding was mentioned. We are now well into the procurement process for 1,300 additional carriages, which will be targeted on the busiest parts of the network. They will ease overcrowding and ensure that proper facilities are made available for people with particular needs. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, thinks but I consider that on my line from Brighton the rolling stock is of a very good standard and provides a good level of comfort. Those of us who have commuted for longer than we sometimes care to remember have certainly seen those standards improve. I think that there is very good space provision. It is obviously best to travel outside the rush hour, but the new trains and carriages have done a great deal to improve the quality of services. I do not think that we will have an issue there; and with the way in which the procurement process is working, being targeted at easing pinch points, there should ultimately be greater satisfaction with the service.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is, as ever, acute to the issues and well versed in European concerns. I am grateful to him for supplying us with advanced warning of his questions. His first point was to request assurances that changes to the regulations will not set a precedent for retrospective application. Since 2001 we have made it clear that we intend to apply the accessibility regulations to rail vehicles introduced before the RVAR came into force and to set an end date for the national rail fleet to be accessible. In our view, the forthcoming replacement of the RVAR by the PRM TSI does not affect that commitment.
The noble Lord also asked for confirmation about which trains will be required to be modified by the 2020 date and whether we will establish a programme for modification linked to other essential changes to rolling stock. Which trains operate past the end date is a commercial matter for vehicle owners. They have identified to the Department for Transport which
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC367
The noble Lord also asked whether we have the necessary budget to achieve full compliance by the 2020 date. The additional cost of setting the end date will generally be met in the first instance by the train owners who will recover them through increased leasing charges. When bidding for franchises, potential operators will take account of them in their bid, which will inform the amount of subsidy required from or premium paid to the Government.
Finally, the noble Lord asked a question about the new conditions for the Southern franchise. He said that they make no mention of the need to take account of and to comply with the new regulations and asked whether it is the intention of the department to introduce these requirements for accessibility within the franchise and, for that matter, other franchises at the earliest possible date. The current consultation regarding the South Central franchise seeks stakeholders’ views on additional items to be included in the invitation to tender when it is issued later this year. As we stated during consultation on the draft regulations in front of us today, it is already the Government’s intention to specify accessibility works on a targeted basis for trains that bidders may be considering using in franchises in future. I do not think we should forget the significant improvements in accessibility that the rail industry has already delivered on older trains during the refurbishment process. We must not be complacent, but a pretty good job has been done, and that speaks volumes about the improvements that the rail service has enjoyed across the network and through the rail companies.
We have taken the comments and concerns of the Merits Committee very seriously. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising them today. In response to the Merits Committee, the department did not propose making amendments to the interoperability regulations of 2006 in order to introduce a statutory instrument for derogations under the PRM TSI; that is not our preferred policy. We wish to retain consistency in the manner of handling derogations against other TSIs, especially on regulation principles.
4.15 pm
In the context of the interoperability regime, we believe that the SI route is disproportionate, especially when compared with the administrative manner of handling dispensations from station accessibility requirements to which the PRM TSI also applies. It has to be remembered that dispensations from bus and coach access regulations are handled administratively. This approach has not received adverse comment from the stakeholders that have been consulted, including DPTAC, which I would argue is a very authoritative body in this area. During the consultation process we made it very clear that we intend to use the exemption
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC368
The rail industry is very well aware that significant items such as passenger information systems, priority seats and wheelchair spaces must be provided. As a user, I would argue that those three things are of the utmost importance: they provide people with information in a timely way; there must be priority seating; and there must be very generous space allowances for wheelchairs so that there is proper movement. No adverse comments on this were received during consultation on the draft regulations; in particular, no adverse comments were received from the authoritative DPTAC body.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |