Examination of Witnesses (Questions 740
- 759)
740. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord, we are
going to do what we can overnight. There is one figure that may
be of some assistance to Lord Brooke. My instructions are that
our analysis of the likely level of use of step-free provisions
within the stations has been based on a figure of 4.4 per cent
of total usage, which itself is a figure used by Transport for
London in its station planning, and which is based on survey data
back to the 1990s. So it does not incorporate Lord Brooke's point
about the likely increase in people who are likely to need step-free
because of the ageing population, but it gives the current baseline
for station planning.
741. The other thing I can say at this stage,
on instruction, is that all our step-free provision, such as the
sizing of lifts, gives scope for a massive increase over the existing
analysis of how many people would use it. So it is both because
there is hidden demand—there are people who do not travel
at the moment because they are put off by the steps, as it were—but
it is also taking into account the fact that there is likely to
be an increased demand in the future because of an ageing population.
In terms of the statistical basis for that, we will do some work
on it overnight, if we may.
742. CHAIRMAN: The Disability Commission?
743. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, we will both
follow up contact but also look at websites to try to find some
figures.
744. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Dr
Maynard, given the 93 per cent step-free access, would you agree
that overall this will result in a significant improvement for
people with reduced mobility who are travelling either across
London or into London than the current situation?
(Dr Maynard)
I think it is an unbelievable improvement and I hope I am still
alive in 2017.
745. You share the same objective, I think,
as all of us on this Committee! We have demanded the ability to
do that. God willing, we will. The other point I wanted to ask
you was that in relation to the two documents that Mr Reed quoted
from, one was the Crossrail Bill First Special Report of the Session,
and he referred to paragraph 54 on page 18. He said, in relation
to Havering and Crossrail, the last sentence: "We expect
the same level of regard to be shown in providing access for those
with disabilities across the entire breadth of the Crossrail operation".
Would you agree that you cannot just read that in isolation? Indeed,
if we then go to Information Paper E5, we see that 2.5 says: "step-free
access between Crossrail platforms and other railway and London
Underground platforms will be provided where reasonably practicable".
So you have this contrast between those two phrases. It does not
mean that one should be read exclusively of the other one. If
we do accept that "reasonably practicable" might be
a broad criterion, then somewhere or other, as you rightly said,
it has to be defined.
(Dr Maynard) Yes. I do not think any of
this stuff should be read in isolation. That was kind of what
I was struggling with during the cross-examination, because I
was being asked to say yes and no to things that I felt were taken
out of context. I think that in the concept of "reasonably
practicable" there is always tension, and it is a tension
between keeping the needs of disabled people and people with restricted
mobility in due regard and actually keeping the needs of the railway
in due regard, and it is about moving the boundaries—always
pushing the boundaries of what we consider to be reasonably practicable
at the moment in the railway. I do think, at the moment, that
Crossrail has been doing that.
746. Pushing the boundaries?
(Dr Maynard) It has been pushing those
boundaries. I start from the premise that if I spent a day in
a wheelchair I am sure I would want to wave a magic wand and I
would certainly want to convert most of London Underground because
it is bad enough just being a pedestrian with a dodgy hip, as
I am, and finding it, at times, difficult. Even starting from
that premise, we are then back to the world of priorities and
what can be done. That is why, to me, I wanted to be sure that
we felt that we are, in fact, pushing the boundaries on this;
that if we look overall at what is being achieved it will make
a significant improvement for people with reduced mobility.
(Dr Maynard) It will, yes.
747. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Thank
you.
748. CHAIRMAN: I have no questions, thank
you, Ms Lieven. I am wondering what we are going to be doing .
It is hardly worth calling Mr Berryman now, is it?
749. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I think the
way we were proposing to deal with this matter now is that I will
hand over to Mr Reed who may want to make an opening, probably
after lunch, and will then call his witness, Mr West. When we
have heard Mr West—and I will have very few questions for
him, I am sure, but questions will be asked—then I will
call Mr Berryman to put the engineering case.
750. CHAIRMAN: In the meantime, Dr Maynard,
if you can stay this afternoon I think it will be very helpful.
(Dr Maynard) I can stay for a while.
751. MS LIEVEN: I think Dr Maynard's
position is she has another meeting at about 4.00 but she can
certainly stay till half-past three.
752. CHAIRMAN: In that case, would it
be better if we adjourned now but, possibly, start a little earlier?
753. MS LIEVEN: If that is acceptable
to the Committee that would be excellent, yes.
754. CHAIRMAN: Twenty-past two, then.
I will adjourn till then.
The witness withdrew After a short adjournment
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of the London Borough of Newham.
SHARPE PRITCHARD
appeared as Agent.
755. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, are you ready
to go?
756. MR REED: I am, my Lord, yes. My
Lord, may I just make some brief comments in opening to set the
scene for the evidence that will be given by Mr West, whose slides
I hope you have already had advance copies of.
The Petition of the London Borough of
Newham
757. My Lord, can I deal with the nature of
Newham's appearance today by reference to those slides and, indeed,
the last page of that set of slides?
758. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, while you are
just looking at that, can I ask you what happened to paragraph
10 of your Petition about cut-and-cover at North Woolwich? Nothing
further about that at all?
759. MR REED: I understand that that
has been dealt with and, no, I am not proposing to deal with that
at all.
| 
