Examination of Witnesses (Questions 620
- 639)
620. Yes but the intent was nevertheless to
provide full accessibility at each of the stations, was it not?
(Dr Maynard) Actually I think probably
by that stage the intent was not to provide access at Sheffield
mainline station?
621. Is that something you would agree with
or not?
(Dr Maynard) No actually, it is not something
I would agree with.
622. Thank you. Let us carry on in that case
to paragraph 3.1 of the document which you will find as an extract
at page 23, under "Improved access to transport facilities":
"Government research recognises that transport can be a significant
barrier to social inclusion. People may be restricted in their
use of transport by low income, the absence of routes to desired
destinations, or because facilities are inadequate or difficult
to use. Age, disability and low income can prevent people travelling
by car, making them reliant upon public transport. In turn, these
can restrict or prevent access to employer opportunities and key
services such as schools, hospitals, shops and leisure facilities."[24]
Can I ask you this, Dr Maynard, in terms of those various categories
of person who find difficulty in accessing particular locations;
they are those who firstly are on a low income, secondly disabled
and thirdly old age?
(Dr Maynard) Sorry, was there some kind of
priority order?
623. No, there was no priority order; I am simply
reading what is said midway through that first paragraph.
(Dr Maynard) Yes, that is correct.
624. And if particular people who want to access
the transport system have more than one of those particular characteristics
then that is a cumulative problem that they would face, for example
low income and disabled?
(Dr Maynard) Indeed, and indeed many disabled
people are in the low income category.
625. And in terms of understanding the significance
of that particular issue in the context of whether one should
upgrade particular stations, one should look to the levels of
deprivation within and around that particular station; is that
fair?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, one needs to look at
the levels of deprivation in that area and the level of transport
provision in that area.
626. MR REED: And can I ask you please
to turn over the page to page 25, figure 3.1, it is in black and
white but it is capable of being read, is it not, in that the
grey areas that one can see on that plan show areas of deprivation,
that is to say the 20 per cent most deprived in the index of multiple
deprivation?[25]
627. BARNONESS FOOKES: It is pink.
628. MR REED: You have coloured versions,
my Lady. I do not and I am at a disadvantage in that case. Thankfully
I can read it but in any event what it is showing, is it not,
is that in respect of Newham and the stations that pass through
Newham it is identified as being a significantly deprived area?
(Dr Maynard) Yes it is.
629. And this document recognises the importance
of deprivation indices and the accessibility or the reduction
of stations within such deprived areas, does it not?
(Dr Maynard) Yes it does.
630. MR REED: And the result of taking
into account that factor comes to this, does it not, if you turn
to page 28 in the document—
631. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD: Is that the
last page in our bundle? After 25 they are not numbered.
632. CHAIRMAN: They are—at the
top left-hand corner.
633. MR REED: My Lord, at 3.1.3 under
"Access for people with restricted mobility", as I say,
it comes to this, does not it that the position of Crossrail in
January 2006 was: "One of the most significant benefits relates
to access to new services through the provision of step-free facilities
improving access to the West End, City and the Isle of Dogs. The
Crossrail project aims to minimise any undue effort by, or special
treatment of, passengers with restricted mobility. Where new platforms
are used exclusively by Crossrail trains, Crossrail will cater
for people of restricted mobility (PRM) by providing independent,
step-free access from street level to platform. Existing stations
served by Crossrail will be refurbished to cater for PRM wherever
it is reasonably practicable to do so. Where step-free access
is not available, dignified, alternative arrangements or auxiliary
aids will be employed."[26]
So the approach to be taken towards existing stations is that
wherever reasonably practicable there would be an upgrading of
those stations?
(Dr Maynard) Absolutely.
634. Yes. Can I ask you please just to turn
to the extract from the First Special Report of the House of Commons
2006-07 and Volume I in particular. It should be a three-page
extract and I hope you have a copy of that. Page 17 is the first
page after the frontispiece.[27]
To understand this, are you aware of the fact that the London
Borough of Havering appeared in Committee and highlighted their
concerns? Are you aware of any of that detail?
(Dr Maynard) I am not aware of the detail of
it; I am aware that it happened.
635. The report says this, does it not, that
Havering "appeared in Committee to highlight their concern
that the planned Crossrail works at Romford Station did not provide
adequate facilities for mobility impaired people. The Promoter,
at the request of the Committee, worked with the London Borough
and explored the possibility of: a) building a southern entrance
through the existing station structure; b) widening of the existing
mezzanine passageway; and c) how the design of the station foyer
and treatment of the area beneath the railway bridge could improve
access to the station from the south." I do not want to go
into the detail of that, you will be pleased to know. I just want
you to look at paragraph 54 which says: "The Committee invited
the Promoter to find a way to provide appropriate access for mobility-impaired
people to the developed station in the location of the current
ramp. We re-emphasise the need for implementing disability-friendly
policies and we remain grateful to the London Borough of Havering
and Crossrail for the re-design of the station to ensure that
passengers can access the building readily. We expect the same
level of regard to be shown in providing access for those with
disabilities across the entire breadth of the Crossrail operations."
Is it fair in terms of understanding the approach of the Committee
there to take this conclusion from what is said: that there is
a requirement on the part of Crossrail to have the equivalent
level of regard to that which they had in respect of Havering's
petitions?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, that is what they say.
They say they expect the same level of regard.
636. Tell me, in terms of the approach that
Crossrail have now taken towards other stations, has there been
any positive response as a result of that indication?
(Dr Maynard) From Crossrail?
637. Yes, that you know of?
(Dr Maynard) Crossrail is continually
trying to ensure that in all aspects of the work that it does
it provides a high level of regard for disabled people in relation
to access.
638. And to the extent that they have decided
not to proceed with accessibility works at particular stations,
would that be having that level of regard as is identified by
the Committee at paragraph 54?
(Dr Maynard) Yes, I think they are compatible
because it depends on the environment in which the particular
station is; it depends on the nature of transport provision in
the local area; it depends on a whole raft of things and you can
have the same level of regard. It is not conflicting to have the
same level of regard to do one thing in one place and one thing
in another and it is much like I was talking about earlier about
equal treatment not necessarily achieving an equal outcome. In
this case you can have different treatment that achieves different
outcomes because actually the circumstances are different and
the environment is different so it would actually depend on the
detail.
639. Tell me, in so far as there was there an
indication that there should be provision for access for those
with disabilities over the entire breadth of the Crossrail operations,
is that met by not providing any accessibility at two of the stations
within Newham Borough?
(Dr Maynard) I am sorry, I thought we were doing the generic
stuff now but I will carry on. I thought that the nature of the
alternative transport arrangements and the accessibility to the
other stations in Newham Borough is such that it could be considered
to be the same level of regard. What you would need to know in
order to be able to make that judgment is what the provision was
in the local area for Romford and how close by the nearest accessible
station to Romford was and what the issues were. For example,
one of the things that I mentioned in my presentation was about
the bus station at Romford and, therefore, Romford is quite an
important transport hub, if you like, transport interchange between
bus and rail, whereas, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
neither of the two stations that we are talking about in Newham
is a transport interchange hub.
24 Department for Transport, Crossrail Equality
Impact and Assessment, January 2006, p23 (SCN-20080226-005) Back
25
Department for Transport, Crossrail Equality Impact and Assessment,
January 2006, Figure 3.1 (SCN-20080226-006) Back
26
Department for Transport, Crossrail Equality Impact and Assessment,
January 2006, p28 (SCN-20080226-007) Back
27
House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First
Special Report Session 2006-07, Crossrail Bill,
HC 235, paras 53 to 54 (SCN-20080226-008 to -009) Back
| 
