Examination of Witnesses (Questions 900
- 919)
900. There is a T1 and T2 there, which is identified,
in the top right-hand corner, as "Manor Park Road may be
temporarily interfered with between" those two points that
the work is proposed. Is that right?
(Mr West) Yes, indeed.
901. The last point, please, Mr West, I should
have asked you earlier on. In terms of taxi provision—the
ability to use taxis to access accessible Crossrail stations and
the extent to which they are subsidised for those who are disabled—do
you have any evidence that you can give on the ability to use
that system to access Crossrail?
(Mr West) The only point I would make,
again, as I mentioned earlier, is that booking a taxi requires
this to be done in advance and there is no guarantee that your
taxi will come at a given time if you have a hospital appointment
or an urgent appointment.
902. Are there any benefits that can be applied
for to obtain free taxi provision, to your knowledge?
(Mr West) Not within the London Borough
of Newham, to my knowledge. I think this facility is afforded
in other boroughs, but it is not something which is available
to the residents of Newham.
903. MR REED: Thank you very much, Mr
West. Those are my questions, my Lord. There may be some questions
from Ms Lieven.
904. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven?
Cross-examined by MS
LIEVEN
905. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I have got a
few questions. Good afternoon, Mr West. First of all, can I just
establish the factual position. I understand you are not an engineer,
are you?
(Mr West) I am not,
no.
906. I do not think Newham are presenting any
engineering evidence on this Petition to show how step-free access
could or could not be provided, are they?
(Mr West) No I am not.
907. And you are not presenting any evidence
on the costs of providing step-free access at either station?
(Mr West) No, I am not.
908. Have Newham commissioned any engineering
study on how access could be provided at either station?
(Mr West) No, we have not.
909. We know you did not appear on the issue
in the House of Commons, as was explained in your Counsel's opening,
and you took what is called a Second House undertaking in the
House of Commons on this, amongst other issues. Since then has
Newham approached Crossrail and asked for a feasibility study
to be carried out on step-free access at either station?
(Mr West) Newham have approached Crossrail on a number of
occasions and a number of issues have been discussed. This is
not an issue which has about discussed recently, no.
910. Have any meetings been held between yourself
and the engineers in which you have put forward your arguments
for step-free access since you took the Second House undertaking?
(Mr West) There have been meetings held to discuss a number
of issues, including step-free access at Custom House, but no
specific meetings in relation to these stations because in so
far as Maryland is concerned we are still at this moment in time,
so far as I am aware, waiting to hear officially from the Railway
Inspectorate. The Promoters have indicated that it is likely that
selective door opening could be achieved. I think we have been
told that it will be achieved but the official line from the Railway
Inspectorate is still awaited, so we have not taken the issue
of Maryland any further. Insofar as Manor Park is concerned, there
has been a growing body of opinion within Newham in recent months
that has suggested that the Council should pursue its case vigorously,
and we had the opportunity to do that in the first House, I think
in June 2006, but from my recollection the evidence was put forward
by the Promoters within a very, very short timescale, I think
it was a matter of a week. Newham was at the last minute given
the opportunity to present information, but quite clearly we were
not in a position where we were able to do so, and rather than
come forward with half a case we are now coming today with our
Petition to your Lordships. I would also add that the issue of
wheelchair access/disability is not new to Newham. It was contained
in the Council's original petition in 1993, some 15 years ago,
and of course in the Council's second Petition in 2005. The point
I think I am trying to make is Newham's requirements for full
accessibility of all the stations is not something that we have
suddenly decided we wish to take up.
911. No I understand that, Mr West, but what
you have not done is come to us and say, "We want you, Crossrail,
to explain why you are not giving PRM accessibility at Manor Park",
in which case we could explain to you what is shown on the diagram
in front of the Committee. You have not come to us since the House
of Commons and asked for that explanation, have you?
(Mr West) We have not come to you for
that explanation and I suppose Crossrail have not come to us to
explain why it cannot be done.
912. Can we turn very briefly to the number
of disabled people point, and if we could put up your figure 7
very quickly just to remind the Committee.[63]
This is the exhibit that shows 2.3 per cent as the number in receipt
of the higher rate mobility component in DLA. You will recall
the 2.3 per cent. That is on the basis of wards which are in the
left-hand column which you describe as Maryland, Stratford and
New Town wards, yes?
(Mr West) That is correct, yes.
913. I am sorry we have not got copies of this
but the point only arose when we saw your exhibits and heard your
oral evidence but if we put up the ward map, it is not a brilliant
map but if one locates Stratford over here (indicating), Maryland
there in the centre (indicating), the ward in question is actually
called Stratford and New Town ward and extends all the way up
here onto the railway lands, all the way down here to the main
road, and then up here, so it is a ward that takes in the whole
of Stratford and a considerable catchment area to the south and
west as well, does it not?[64]
(Mr West) Unless I am mistaken, my Lord, this
map does seem to me to be based on the old ward boundaries. Do
you know what date it was actually produced because there was
a boundary change quite recently?
914. I do not.
(Mr West) I do not recognise this map
as being current. I say that because some of the names have disappeared
and are no longer wards within Newham.
915. But the point goes to your Exhibit 7. I
do not know because Exhibit 7 does not say what the date and the
provenance of those figures are. Are you suggesting that the date
of figures in Exhibit 7 postdate some ward change?
(Mr West) I would say that the date on
Exhibit 7 relates to the current Newham wards.
916. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, perhaps we can
deal with that outside Committee and establish whether there is
any material difference.
917. CHAIRMAN: I think you will have
to because at the present moment there is complete confusion.
918. MS LIEVEN: I quite agree with that,
my Lord, and we will sort it out outside the Committee. Can we
take your 2.3 figure for the moment and focus on Maryland. We
know in the am peak there are something in the region of 2,000
people using Maryland in the peak three hours?
(Mr West) If that is the case, and I have no reason to dispute
it, my Lords.
919. Just using the figure of 2.3 per cent for
a moment, that would mean that if—and it is a very big if—all
the people with the higher rate mobility component in DLA chose
to use Maryland Station that morning that would be a maximum of
46 people, would it not.
(Mr West) If you say so.
63 Committee Ref: A2, Numbers of Disabled People (NEWMLB-53_05-007) Back
64
Crossrail Ref: P9, London Borough of Newham (SCN-20080226-014) Back
| 
