Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1000
- 1020)
1000. CHAIRMAN: That would be very helpful.
1001. MS LIEVEN: There is a statutory
definition, I cannot remember it off the top of my head so I will
not try and paraphrase it but I can quite easily bring in the
relevant page to give you that material.
1002. CHAIRMAN: I think we will have
to have this information because we are not going to get either
a proportion of an absolute number of people who are going to
be likely to suffer if there is not full access at the two stations
we are talking about.
1003. MS LIEVEN: The other thing we can
do, my Lord, from this side is, the figure that is generally used
for the number of people who benefit from step-free access is
the 4.4 per cent that I referred to in answer to a question earlier
today; and I can seek to get more information overnight on the
provenance of that figure so that your Lordships can have a better
idea of who that covers and how reliable the figure is.
1004. CHAIRMAN: I see that Dr Maynard
has very wisely departed, but you might be able to communicate
with her about that and get some of her views about it. I think
we really do need to know this.
1005. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: I was
going to ask what criteria you have been applying in all the other
stations you looked at in this context? Is the 4.4 per cent an
average of people who are in receipt of the benefits?
1006. MS LIEVEN: No. I can answer that
question now. I will be tugged by my jacket if I get it wrong!
The 4.4 per cent figure is based on observed data from a survey
in the north-east of England as to the number of people who would
benefit from the step-free provision. It has nothing to do with
the benefits position. If I can try and answer that. The benefits
position is no kind of guide to the people who will benefit from
step-free. If, for example, you take the mobility component of
DLA you will find a large proportion of people who get the higher
rate mobility component of DLA who would never get on a train.
For example, there is a well-known line of cases about children
who cannot go out without being held constantly because they have
various extreme Attention Deficit Disorder-type problems. That
has nothing to do with step-free access but they get higher rate
mobility component because they cannot go outside their house
without somebody looking after them. There is no correlation between
benefits and step-free.
1007. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: I was
trying to establish how you have decided to give access at all
these other stations, particularly in the west of London. What
factors have you brought to bear in making an assessment about
what the use would be? You have been knocking their case down
on the basis that insufficient people would be using it. That
is one point. Secondly, what is the cost to do it?
1008. MS LIEVEN: If I could just remind
the Committee who have not heard our evidence yet, Mr Berryman
is going to deal with both of those, but we will get as much information
the second we have the information; but first we will get as much
additional information as we can.
1009. LORD SNAPE: Before the Division,
Mr West, I was asking you about the new provision, if I could
put it that way, for access for people with restricted mobility
at Maryland and Manor Park Stations. You said you had only seen
these particular proposals today. Am I right in thinking that?
(Mr West) That is correct, my Lord.
1010. Had you seen them prior to today, let
us say two or three weeks ago, would it have made any difference
to your Council and its desire to petition this Committee?
(Mr West) Insofar as Maryland is concerned, if anything it
furthers the cause of our Petition in that it shows how relatively
easy it is to adapt the station for access for people with disabilities.
In relation to Manor Park, we have to balance the loss of the
improved environment with the loss of the platform works and the
potential that has for increasing the cost of providing full accessibility
at that station. As it was currently proposed until these plans
were tabled this morning, I am clear in my mind that the adaptation
of that station to full accessibility would be facilitated by
these works, by doing the works perhaps in conjunction with these
works which would reduce the overall cost of providing the lifts.
At the end of the day, I think we are all out there to try and
save money for the taxpayer.
1011. LORD SNAPE: So far as Manor Park
Station is concerned, you made the point earlier that you felt
the platform should be wider, or at least wider than the platforms
under the amended proposals. Again, from what I remember of the
evidence that we heard a couple of days ago, wider platforms would
reduce train capacity through that station, as I understand it.
Would your Council be happy with that?
(Mr West) I am not aware of that argument, my Lord.
1012. Presumably the fact that the platforms
are fairly narrow is because of the rail configuration of four
tracks through Manor Park Station and widening the island platform,
which I suspect is the point you are seeking to make, would obviously
reduce the clearance between the platform and those tracks.
(Mr West) No my Lord, I think we are talking
about widening the westbound platform, platform one. As I understand
it, the island platforms—and I will stand corrected on this—are
not actually made any wider at all.
1013. I do not think any platforms are being
made any wider at all. I thought that was the point that you were
seeking to make during your evidence.
(Mr West) No, my Lord. Platform one is
being widened. Again, I have only seen these drawings today and
they are not detailed drawings. I understand Mr Berryman will
be discussing this in his presentation tomorrow but from my understanding
and my casual glance at these drawings and from the information
submitted, it does seem to me that the platforms are being widened,
or Platform one is being widening.
1014. LORD SNAPE: Perhaps Counsel for
the Promoters can help me on this. Which platforms are being widened,
if any, at Manor Park?
1015. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, under the current
scheme no platforms are being widened. Manor Park is a five-track
station. The fifth track is the freight loop to the south. Originally,
as I explained in opening, we were going to close the freight
loop in order to extend the platforms. Once the principle of selective
door opening was accepted by HMRI at Maryland then it became clear
it could also be accepted at Manor Park. We do not need to extend
the platforms and therefore we can retain the freight loop, so
it is not so much a question of widening the platform as extending
the platform. The difficulty that Mr Berryman will give evidence
on tomorrow—and it is much better to hear it from him because
I will only garble it—is that it is extremely difficult
to get the lift and the stairs onto those platforms while retaining
the platforms in their current configuration and therefore retaining
the freight loop. Mr Berryman was famous in the House of Commons
for always saying that there is nothing that is impossible in
engineering, but there are some things that can be extremely expensive
and extremely disruptive, and this would be one of them.
1016. CHAIRMAN: Mr West, I am afraid
we have given you a task overnight. I have to say at the moment
that none of my colleagues is clear and nor am I about the figures
or the area where people live. Let us make it abundantly plain:
the people who might use Manor Park or Maryland do not actually
live in the railway station, they live somewhere adjacent, and
we can see on the map where the bulk of the population is likely
to be as we can see the layout of the housing on the streets.
We need to know where these wards are, and the more information
we can get about what sort of disability is being spoken to in
your evidence, the better, because you have already heard from
Ms Lieven that not everybody who has this sort of allowance is
somebody who cannot go up and down stairs. I do not think we are
going to be able to do justice to the Newham Petition until we
get some more information about all of that. We can come back
to this. If you want time tomorrow or if you want to have an agreed
statement later or something like that, there should not be any
difficulty about it. We will not ask you to deal with it first
thing tomorrow morning. I will therefore let you go tonight. We
will go on with Mr Berryman in the morning and then if you have
got any progress that you can tell us about so much the better.
Otherwise it can be left; we have got plenty of time. Ms Lieven,
the only other point is this: you mentioned the loop and I have
it in mind that we have major petitions from the freight rail
companies and I think we will need to know more about the use
of that loop or those loops in that connection.
1017. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord.
1018. CHAIRMAN: Maybe not now but we
will need to have it in mind if anybody is making any suggestions
about what should happen with that track.
1019. MS LIEVEN: That is something Mr
Berryman can deal with in the morning.
1020. CHAIRMAN: I am sure he can. I think
we will stop. I am very grateful to the shorthand writer for continuing
a bit after the allotted time. Can I just tell you this: these
microphones apparently pick up whispers between people sitting
close to each other, so be a bit careful—walls have ears,
as they used to say, and if you do not want other people to hear
what you are saying perhaps talk somewhere else. We will adjourn
now until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning when we will try and finish
the Newham petition witnesses and speeches. Thank you very much.
| 
