Disabled Access (Shotts Railway Station)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5450, in the name of Karen Whitefield, on disabled access to Shotts railway station. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that all railway stations in Scotland should be fully accessible to people who have a disability; in particular, notes that the east-bound platform at Shotts railway station has no disabled access, which means that wheelchair users currently must use an alternative railway station, and considers that Transport Scotland should provide suitable disabled access to this station as a matter of urgency.
I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of improving access to public transport and to our railway stations in particular.
This matter was first raised with me soon after I was elected in 1999. A number of my constituents with disabilities came to tell me of the problems that they faced in using the train service at Shotts. They found it not just difficult, but pretty much impossible to gain access to the eastbound platform at Shotts station. The situation is such that people with disabilities who want to use the train service at Shotts must use the not-so-nearby station at Fauldhouse. For disabled people, there is no point in parking at Shotts station if they are heading west because they will be unable to use Shotts station on their return journey. That is a significant barrier for people with disabilities who live in the greater Shotts area.
The issue was highlighted to me by a young student who studies in Glasgow. He can easily use the service from Shotts to Glasgow, but he relies on his parents to collect him from Fauldhouse. Clearly, that young student is as entitled as any other to enjoy the freedoms that come with leaving school and entering further education. Such freedoms are taken for granted by able-bodied students as they enter academic life. Gaining a sense of independence and self-reliance is one of the many benefits of further and higher education. However, that benefit is—to some extent at least—denied to my constituent.
The central point of today's debate is that the lack of easy access to Shotts station not only creates an inconvenience for those with disabilities, but impacts on their overall quality of life. A recent poll that was commissioned by the Disability Rights Commission highlights the extent of such exclusion. The poll found that a third of disabled people in Scotland lack confidence in travelling alone on buses and trains. That compares to only 2 per cent of non-disabled people. One of the poll's findings stated:
"frequent and reliable services would encourage travel on public transport by both disabled and non-disabled users, with improved accessibility on buses and trains the second top priority for disabled people in Scotland."
Last year's report from the transport research planning group, which is managed by the Scottish Executive, came to similar conclusions about the wide-ranging negative effects of poor access to transport for disabled people. The report found:
"A non-disabled adult is 50% more likely to make any kind of trip on a day than is a disabled adult …The average number of trips made per person per day was 1.7 by disabled people, 2.0 by people with a long term illness and 2.5 by people with no disability or long term illness."
It also stated:
"In the light of the reduced number of trips made, disabled adults were less likely to report participating in a range of social activities (e.g. communicating with, visiting, or going out with friends or relatives) compared with adults with a long term illness, or with non-disabled adults".
The report concluded by stating:
"A coherent and comprehensive strategy for achieving equality of mobility should be an integral part of National, Regional and Local Transport Strategies rather than being separate or ‘add-on'."
That is the key issue in tonight's debate. We have now reached a point where it is no longer good enough for our transport strategies to incorporate a paragraph or even a chapter on disabled access. Those considerations must be fully integrated into all capital projects and service designs from the outset. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the disability equality duty have provided the statutory impetus that was lacking for so long. We now need the commitment to deliver on those policies and to deliver real changes—on the ground and in our buses and trains.
Agencies such as Transport Scotland, the local transport authorities and First ScotRail have important parts to play in the drive to improve access to rail services throughout Scotland. First ScotRail, in particular, has a vital part to play in ensuring that local railway stations are accessible to all. I recognise the good work that First ScotRail has done since it took over the franchise. In particular, I welcome the publication of its disabled people's protection policy, which sets out a clear commitment continually to improve the accessibility of all ScotRail services. That is to be commended.
I also welcome First Scotrail's commitment to carry out a refurbishment programme at stations. However, progress on refurbishment at Shotts has been far too slow. I am also disappointed that First ScotRail has failed to provide sufficient information about the accessibility of Shotts station on its website. The website's description of Shotts station states merely—I will read only the part that relates to the eastbound platform—that there is a
"stepped ramp down to platform 2".
I do not know whether any members have visited Shotts station, but describing the access to the eastbound platform as a "stepped ramp" is like describing an ascent of Everest as a short mountain walk. There is no ramp at Shotts station; there is a series of steps down a very steep slope. Anyone unfortunate enough to take First Scotrail at their word might have a long wait of at least an hour for the next train to Fauldhouse, because no one who uses a wheelchair could negotiate that set of stairs, even with help. I ask First ScotRail to review the description of the platform on its website, to take a little more seriously the commitment that it gives in its disabled people's protection policy and to begin to move on the commitment that it gave to ensure that Shotts station is fully accessible to people with disabilities.
Members may be aware that recently the south-east Scotland transport partnership and Strathclyde partnership for transport funded a study on improving services on the Shotts line, which I welcome. The study recommended the introduction of a new hourly express service that would cut half an hour off existing journey times. It also recommended that the service should stop at Shotts. It is vital that all the stations, including Shotts, that would benefit from the new, enhanced service should be fully accessible to people with disabilities. It will not be acceptable for people with mobility problems to be excluded from the many benefits that such an enhanced service would offer.
I end by asking the minister to do everything in his power to ensure that work is carried out at Shotts and other stations with similar problems as quickly as possible, so that we can meet not just our legal but our moral obligations. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise these important issues in the chamber this evening.
For the first and probably only time in the Parliament, I am happy to support entirely and without qualification a motion in the name of Karen Whitefield.
Across the parties, there have been two major themes of the Parliament since it was set up. The first is the need for us to have economic and social inclusiveness in a way that we have not had previously. The second, which relates to transport policy, is the need to improve public transport and access to it as part of an overall approach that is aimed at encouraging people to get off the roads and on to public transport. It is, therefore, a shame that such low priority has been given to upgrading our public transport facilities—in this case, railway stations—for access by disabled people.
Karen Whitefield mentioned the disability equality duty, which was placed on all public bodies in Scotland in December 2006. Two key elements of the duty are the need to eliminate discrimination and the need to take steps to take account of disabled people's disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled people more favourably than other people.
The annual budget for upgrading stations to take account of the needs of disabled people is about £3.91 million a year. I suggest that the total transport budget should provide the scope to increase the amount of resources that are dedicated to meeting the needs of disabled people. The increase that is required would not amount to a high percentage of the total spend.
We are all conscious of the number of priorities that any budget has, but given the importance of economic and social inclusion, of getting people on to public transport and of living up to a statutory aspiration by putting the resources behind the law, expenditure on access to stations should be a higher priority.
Six stations have already been earmarked for upgrading. Shotts is in one of most deprived parts not just of Lanarkshire but of Scotland. If deprivation is taken into account alongside the special needs of disabled people, the case for upgrading stations in places such as Shotts—and in Shotts, in particular—is overwhelming.
In addition, we have a special duty to meet the needs of rural areas. Karen Whitefield has referred to herself as a representative of Airdrie, Shotts and the surrounding villages, but in a sense Shotts is a village, too. Although it is not a great distance from the main settlement, in many respects it is still fairly remote from the point of view of access. If we are to encourage people to get out of their cars and to use public transport, we must facilitate that by ensuring that disabled people have access to stations such as Shotts. It is a key priority.
My final point is that the decision on which stations should be a priority for receiving the money that is needed for such upgrades should be a political decision rather than one that is handed to a quango. It is important that the Parliament and the Executive decide their priorities on the basis of much wider concerns than those that Transport Scotland can examine. An example of such a concern is deprivation. The provision of disabled access to stations is not just a transport issue; it is about deprivation, equality and—obviously—the needs of disabled people. I am not criticising the minister, whom I know is well intentioned. However, like Karen Whitefield, I ask him to look at the whole picture and to make the upgrade of Shotts station to meet the needs of disabled people a priority.
After 5 pm debates are traditionally consensual and the debate on the motion before us tonight will be no exception, for who could argue with the objective of making Shotts railway station fully accessible to people with disabilities?
In a speech entitled "Is Transport Open to All?", which he made on 23 February 2006, Bert Massie, who is the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, described transport as defining people's horizons. He said:
"Perhaps the hallmarks of an effective public transport system are the extent to which it can provide for both the routine of our daily life and for the spontaneity we need to feel free and alive.
It should help us to do the things we have to do without the stresses of having to worry too much about them.
And it should allow us to do the things we want to do in order to make life rich and enjoyable.
For millions in Britain, it defines the ability to participate effectively in social and economic life."
The full extent of the economic impact of inadequate transport provision for disabled people is well documented in the "Mind the Gap" report, which was published in 2003 by the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. It found that 23 per cent of disabled people who were looking for work had turned down a job because of inaccessible transport. Given that a further 23 per cent had had to decline a job interview for the same reason and that 86 per cent of people with a visual impairment said that transport barriers restricted their choice of jobs, there can be no doubt that access to transport is fundamental to achieving full and independent participation in society as a whole. It follows that transport providers have a duty to ensure that in using their services and vehicles disabled people are not treated less favourably than others.
As I understand it, that is not merely a moral duty; it is a statutory duty under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government and requires service providers to take reasonable steps to overcome any physical feature that makes it difficult or impossible for a person with a disability to use a service. However, although the deadline for compliance with the act was October 2004, Shotts station is still not compliant. Perhaps the minister will comment on why that should be the case.
I might also comment on the Conservatives' record in government.
I am not making a party-political point; I genuinely want to highlight the fact that the 1995 act sought to ensure that every train station—and in fact every public body—would be compliant. Clearly, that is not the case at Shotts station. This issue is important not just for the disabled people who are affected; First ScotRail, which is responsible for the station and is heavily subsidised by the public purse, could find itself the subject of a claim.
The situation with regard to the lack of disabled access at Shotts station must not be allowed to continue. I congratulate Karen Whitefield on bringing this important issue to the Parliament's attention.
I thank Karen Whitefield for securing this important debate. Although it focuses on the specific case of Shotts station, it has a much wider context.
My first point is that the authorities must take into account the whole range of disabilities. For example, someone who cannot read English—and therefore cannot read notices—might not be able to make the right use of a railway station. A few years ago, people at Edinburgh airport got very excited about helping people in wheelchairs. That was fine, but they encouraged the production of vehicles that people who were not in wheelchairs but who had extreme mobility problems could not get into. We have to consider and deal with the full range of disabilities.
We also have to think about the journey as a whole. Ensuring that people can get on to the platform at Shotts station is a step forward, but it is not much use if people with big wheelchairs cannot get them on to the train or, if they can, they cause an obstruction and prevent, for example, people with bicycles from getting on. We must work through the whole business of getting to the station, parking, getting on to the platform, boarding the train, being able to sit somewhere comfortable without obstructing other passengers and getting off the train at the other end.
Of course, political issues must be considered and choices made with regard to investment. I hope that we can invest sensibly to ensure that, under the current—and peculiar—system in which companies buy trains and lease them to operators, the operators buy trains that are properly designed to take account not just of people in wheelchairs but of people with all types of disability. If we can provide those people with better transport opportunities, we will enhance their lives and allow them to join the rest of us, contribute to Scotland and make themselves happier. I am sure that the minister will apply his intelligence to this widespread issue.
I congratulate Karen Whitefield on bringing this very important debate to the chamber. Other members who are present in the chamber this evening have also given their total commitment to the needs of disabled people. Cathy Peattie, who is sitting next to Karen Whitefield, has done a power of work in the Parliament to help disabled people. Another member who has done that is Marilyn Livingstone, who I am sure would have been here if she could have been.
As an MSP for the past eight years and a councillor before that, I cannot say how much the issue that we are debating this evening causes me to be angry, depressed, disappointed and dismayed. No adjective can describe how I feel on behalf of disabled people in Scotland. Who knows whether, today or tomorrow, any of us might suddenly find ourselves utterly disabled and in a wheelchair?
No one—not Railtrack, First ScotRail, Network Rail, the Minister for Transport or previous ministers—has given an absolute commitment to the needs of disabled people. If that commitment had been given, we would have an action plan that set out which stations would be improved. The list would include Shotts, as well as Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, Cardenden and even Aberdour where, although the station is all on one level, my elderly constituents have to use the most bizarre arrangement of a ramp to get into the trains that arrive at that station. That is totally unacceptable.
For all the work that has been done on the issue—the parliamentary questions, letters and representations—we have nothing to show the people of Scotland. We have nothing that says that progress has been made on the matter. Progress may have been made at some of the main stations, but what has been done out there in our communities to improve the situation?
If we went for the kind of strategy that Alex Neil spoke about in which we worked first with the most disadvantaged communities, my communities would be up there at the top of the list. The part of Fife that I represent includes some of the most disadvantaged communities in the whole of the central belt. Very few people in those communities are car owners.
Does Helen Eadie agree that, regardless of where a disabled person lives in Scotland, if they cannot access transport, they are disadvantaged? The issue is not about the areas that people live in. Whether a young disabled person is living in Nairn or Falkirk, they are disadvantaged.
I accept that. I am sorry for getting so emotional on the subject, but I feel so angry about the situation. It seems that we are not being listened to by officialdom, civil servants and ministers. Nothing is being done and that is the frustration. Cathy Peattie is right. She is entitled to feel angry on behalf of her constituents in the same way that I feel angry on behalf of mine. Indeed, all of us are entitled to feel angry on behalf of people right across Scotland. Nothing is being done to address the issue. The Executive has not trumpeted any big initiatives. That causes me concern.
The issues that are raised in the responses that we receive are always to do with ownership. Is it First ScotRail or Network Rail that owns a station? Such issues are thrown at us, but nobody ever sits down and says, "Here are all the stations in Scotland that require disabled access. Let us sort out the priorities. We need a plan of action that will ensure that, by 2012 or 2013, those train stations provide access for all." As Donald Gorrie rightly said, access is needed not only for people in wheelchairs but for people pushing prams, and for those wheeling bikes and so on.
If I feel a sense of total frustration on the issue, I lay that at the door of the minister this evening.
I join other members in congratulating Karen Whitefield on securing the debate. I also share some of Helen Eadie's anger about the lack of progress that we have made. More than 40 railway stations in central Scotland still have steps that limit access, not only to people who have physical disabilities but—as Helen Eadie pointed out—to people pushing prams. As a new parent, I echo that anger. Transport is too important in terms of social inclusion for that to be allowed to continue.
First ScotRail has a welcome policy in which it says that it will provide
"all necessary assistance to disabled customers throughout our network, whether this has been booked in advance or not."
However, it goes on to say:
"If you have a special need, please contact us before you travel by calling the First ScotRail Helpline … Advance bookings can be made through the Assisted Persons' Reporting System (APRS). Please note that we need a minimum of 24 hours' notice."
If First ScotRail really intends to provide access, it is not good enough to ask people to offer 24 hours' notice. The notice period might not seem long if we are talking about a journey that is planned months in advance, but for someone who travels daily it is nonsense that they should have to give 24 hours' notice.
First ScotRail also says on its web page on special needs:
"If the station the customer wishes to leave the train at is not staffed and traincrew are unable to assist the customer in alighting, First ScotRail will take the customer to the nearest staffed station and organise for alternative transport to take them to their destination at no additional cost."
That sounds all well and good, but it is not good enough that people cannot get off at their station but must instead rely on First ScotRail to arrange a special trip. Moreover, the paragraph refers only to situations in which the customer cannot alight from the train without assistance; it does not refer to the situation at Shotts station, which Karen Whitefield described, where the problem is not in alighting from the train but in getting off the platform—again, that is not good enough.
The motion mentions Transport Scotland, but it is difficult to pin down who is responsible, in what Donald Gorrie described as the bizarre post-privatisation rail system. The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 require all vehicles on the network to be fully accessible by 2020, but do not deal with stations like Shotts station. Transport Scotland makes the valid point that it is working with the Department for Transport to ensure that Scottish issues are addressed, but the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was mentioned, is reserved to Westminster and the DFT. The document "Railways for All: The Accessibility Strategy for Great Britain's Railways", which the DFT published, says that
"Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are responsible for the station environment and customer facing assets",
but it makes no specific demands on access. The situation in relation to the responsibilities of Network Rail, Transport Scotland and the train operating companies is confusing.
The Railways Act 2005 transferred a great deal of responsibility for trains in Scotland to the Scottish Executive, but it appears from the current mish-mash that powers on disability access have not been sorted out. As Helen Eadie said, although we continually hear complaints about access, the buck never seems to stop with anyone. Will the minister say who is responsible for access? Does responsibility lie with him, with the train operating companies or with First ScotRail, which owns most stations? Do Network Rail and the DFT have roles? Who will take responsibility for ensuring that we end the absurd situation whereby there is still no proper access to all Scotland's railway stations?
I support Karen Whitefield's motion on disabled access to Shotts station, in her constituency. The motion rightly says that
"all railway stations in Scotland should be fully accessible to people who have a disability".
I can identify with the situation that Karen Whitefield described in relation to the eastbound platform at Shotts station, where there is no disabled access, which means that wheelchair users are forced to use alternative means of transport to complete their journeys. For many years, I have argued about a similar situation at Montrose station, in my constituency of Angus. Disabled persons who travel from the south to Montrose have three options: they can alight at Montrose and be manhandled in their wheelchairs across the open railway to the platform that gives access to the exit and the town; they can travel further north to Stonehaven and then take the next south-bound train back to Montrose and the exit platform; or they can alight at Arbroath station and take a taxi to Montrose. The last option has the advantage of delivering people directly to their doors, but it is expensive and adds to the inconvenience of the journey.
That discriminatory situation for disabled persons is a long way from the Disability Rights Commission's goal of
"a society where all disabled people can participate fully as equal citizens".
If we truly believe that disabled citizens should enjoy the same rights, choice and opportunities in the transport and travel environment as non-disabled people enjoy, that they should not encounter discrimination or disadvantage when making journeys and that they should be able to travel and use transport services with as much confidence as non-disabled people can, the present situation is simply intolerable. I have been pursuing the problems for several years, but the Government is still far from providing any sort of solution.
The west side of Montrose station is not directly accessible for people travelling south to north because it backs on to water, so all passengers must cross the railway or journey to the next station. Although a First ScotRail station investment plan is delivering one new shelter, which is to be welcomed, the real problem of disabled access remains and must be solved. The station requires a new bridge with two lifts that crosses the railway line at the south end of the station.
I thank Karen Whitefield for raising a constituency issue that applies more widely to disabled rail travellers elsewhere in Scotland. I hope that the minister will deliver real long-term improvement for all rail travellers. As has been said, the issue needs action—people need our help and our action. The minister can deliver, so I hope that we will hear about some of that delivery this evening.
I thank Karen Whitefield for bringing an important debate to Parliament. Although it is about her constituency, the same issues arise throughout Scotland. Transport is a major barrier that disabled people face in their daily lives. Many disabled people cannot access work, further or higher education or leisure activities—things that the rest of us take for granted—because of a lack of suitable transport or because of trains that they cannot get on. In the Equal Opportunities Committee's inquiry into the barriers that disabled people in Scotland face, the committee heard that, before disabled people make a journey, they need to be confident that they can complete it without difficulty. They need to know that, even if they are going from one end of the country to the other, they can do that and will not be dumped on a platform that they cannot get off.
The issue was raised at every consultation meeting that the committee held. As Andrew Welsh mentioned, the issue is particularly difficult in rural areas. Disabled people want flexible, accessible, affordable and integrated transport systems. People told the committee that they may be able to find an accessible bus that is available when they want it, but when they arrive at a train station, the next part of their trip can be stopped simply because the platform is inaccessible. We heard from one man who is forced to travel more than a mile to get from one side of a station to the other, which he does every morning and night. That is just unacceptable. Until disabled people are confident that accessible transport will be available at all stages of their journeys, they will be discouraged from travelling and will continue to face barriers in accessing work, education and leisure activities, which many of us take for granted.
The roll-out of new rail services in Scotland is a positive development. Karen Whitefield will be pleased to hear that the new stations on the proposed Airdrie to Bathgate railway line will be DDA compliant. That is welcome, but it is vital that other stations be brought up to date and to a standard that gives disabled people access. Older folk and folk with wee bairns also have problems getting on to platforms and trains. This is the European year of equal opportunities, so 2007 is surely the time to ensure that people in Scotland, regardless of who they are or where they come from, are treated fairly and can travel throughout Scotland.
I thank Karen Whitefield for securing the debate. Society's expectations on such issues have risen—a fact that came out in the points that were made earlier about legislation passed in another place at another time. We are more demanding. Members' comments from around the chamber have reflected that, and rightly so. We have to take such issues seriously, and I refute the allegation that nothing has been done. I will touch on that in a moment.
Most stations in Scotland were built more than 100 years ago. They were not designed for people in wheelchairs or people with disabilities. As a result, one third of our stations today are not fully accessible. I accept the scale of the challenges. We are addressing the challenges on three fronts: through the funding of major projects; through a specific Great Britain-wide scheme; and through the First ScotRail franchise that has been mentioned.
To answer Karen Whitefield's and Alex Neil's points, all new stations that are being built as part of our investment in the rail network will be wheelchair friendly. Alloa station on the new Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line will have level access; Haymarket in Edinburgh, which is being redeveloped, will have new lifts installed; and, later this month at Lockerbie station, work will start on the new footbridge and lifts, which will be available for use by November.
The UK Government's strategy for improving access to the rail network was announced in March last year. We are working to that strategy and are currently funding major improvements at six stations, including those at Dalmuir, Stirling, Kirkcaldy, Mount Florida and Motherwell. Network Rail has developed detailed designs and has ordered the lift for Motherwell station. The programme costs between £1.1 million and £2.7 million for each station, which is a not inconsiderable investment. The 2006-07 programme for more minor works covers 54 stations, so it is not true to say that nothing is happening.
The Equal Opportunities Committee has a close relationship with the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland and has taken evidence from it on this issue. MACS is consulted every year on the draft programme of work. That is a highly effective way of ensuring that the programme takes relevant issues into account.
Through franchise arrangements, there are quicker ways of improving facilities for disabled people. First ScotRail spends some £250,000 a year on small-scale alterations and additions to existing stations. For example, new parking spaces are provided for disabled people, as are pick-up spaces, dropped kerbs and handrails. I re-emphasise—and I hope that members will accept—that MACS is very much involved in the process. When designing programmes, we engage fully with people who are directly affected and have legitimate needs.
I accept that our programmes are long term and I accept that that does not assure members that, for example, a lift or particular facilities can be provided now. However, we are committed to providing access to the rail network for all passengers.
The minister spoke about improvements and about First ScotRail's minor works budget, which is spent on small-scale physical alterations or additions to improve accessibility to stations for disabled persons. That is fine, but it in no way meets the needs at Shotts station or at Montrose station. Something more is needed to fix such major problems.
I agree. That is why the proposals on access for all are dealing with six stations right now. If we were carrying out the minor works only, Mr Welsh's criticism would be legitimate. However, we are doing other works as well. In addition, at every station that we are completely redeveloping or building afresh, we are ensuring absolute compatibility with the needs of people with disabilities. I accept that there are not that many such stations, but there are some.
At Shotts, First ScotRail has plans to provide two disabled parking bays, dropped kerbs, and a small ramp at the platform for eastbound trains.
I am grateful to the minister for his comments. He is right to say that First ScotRail has drawn up plans, but I understand that the proposals were put to one side because there are difficulties with the acquisition of land that will be required to create the two parking bays and give access to the eastbound platform.
Can the minister assure me that Transport Scotland will work with First ScotRail and SPT as a priority to overcome the difficulties, so that we finally have disabled access at Shotts station?
I am happy to give Karen Whitefield the assurance that she seeks. She will not be surprised to hear that my briefing tells me the point that she has just made. I apologise—I was not aware of that before tonight. There have indeed been the difficulties that she mentioned. I will certainly ensure that the bodies that she mentioned work together to progress the scheme.
I understand that First ScotRail has written to the group of landowners to seek their permission. There are 108 of them, which seems an awful lot, but I guess that that reflects the complicated nature of land ownership in the area. The letters were hand delivered last Thursday and responses are coming in. We will do our level best to ensure that that part of the process is concluded as quickly as possible.
I accept that we need to make more progress. As I said, it is now more of an expectation in society that we deal with the legitimate needs of people who want to access Scotland's developing and growing rail network. We will do that through the measures that I have outlined and, in particular, we will seek to solve the problem that Karen Whitefield mentions in her motion.
Meeting closed at 17:46.