Plenary, 24 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001

Official Report 359KB pdf

---

Railway Station Platforms (Disabled Access)

The final business of the day is the members' business debate on motion S1M-2113, in the name of David Mundell, on disabled access to railway station platforms. The debate, as usual, will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who want to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons and ask those who are not staying for the debate to leave quickly and quietly.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the continuing difficulties disabled citizens experience in accessing railway station platforms and the adverse impact this has on their freedom to travel; notes in particular the difficulties with access to and from the southbound platform of Lockerbie station, the only mainline station in south-west Scotland, which means disabled passengers have to travel south to Carlisle and return north on another train in order to be able to leave the station premises, and believes that the Scottish Executive should do all it can to work with Railtrack, train operating companies and any other relevant bodies to ensure that the necessary funding is available and priority given to providing appropriate disabled access to railway station platforms in Scotland and Lockerbie in particular.

I welcome the opportunity to have the motion debated. It makes specific reference to Lockerbie station in Dumfriesshire, but the matter affects more than 120 stations in Scotland and is therefore of wide importance. Indeed, at the time when the motion was scheduled for debate, we did not know what was about to happen to Railtrack, and most certainly its shareholders did not know, so the debate also provides an opportunity for the Deputy Minister for Transport and Planning to give us a better understanding of what a post-Railtrack railway world will look like.

My motion refers specifically to Lockerbie station and the long-running problem there with disabled access to the southbound platform. Lockerbie is a particularly important station because it does not just serve a town or an individual parliamentary constituency, but is a railhead for the south-west of Scotland, in particular for travel to Edinburgh. Over the years, many people have battled to secure the future of the station; in recent years, people have sought to ensure that there is access to the southbound platform for all passengers who want to use it.

I pay particular tribute to the work of the Coalition of Disabled People Annandale and Eskdale, which has campaigned relentlessly on the issue, but whose chairman and secretary, John and Wyn Deamer, cannot be in the gallery tonight because of a family bereavement. We should also recognise the work of Lockerbie's local councillors, Marjorie McQueen and Lavinia Vaughan, and of Dumfries and Galloway Council, which I am pleased is represented, and which continues to pursue the issue. Dumfries constituency MP Russell Brown and MSP Elaine Murray have worked with local people to keep the issue at the forefront of the attention of Railtrack, the train-operating companies and anybody else who would listen. However, the difficulty that we have all encountered is finding somebody who will accept responsibility for disabled access to our station platforms. Disabled access to our stations in itself is not good enough if access cannot be had to the station platforms and on to the trains themselves.

I have questioned Sarah Boyack on the matter. In her most recent letter to me on 4 September, she said that

"disability discrimination is a reserved matter and therefore the responsibility of the UK Parliament".

Having received a similar letter from Sarah Boyack, John and Wyn Deamer wrote to Tony Blair on the same matter. You can imagine, Presiding Officer, how surprised they were to receive a letter from Mr Blair's office that read as follows:

"The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your recent letter.

Mr Blair receives many thousands of letters each week and hopes you will understand that as the matters you raise are the responsibility of the devolved administrations, your letter has therefore been forwarded to the Welsh Assembly for them to reply to you direct on the points you have raised."

To date, there has been no response from the National Assembly for Wales, but Mrs Deamer and all the other disabled users of Lockerbie station say that they would be perfectly happy for it to take the issue on board if it meant that at least someone was willing to take responsibility for the issue. That is what I hope will come out of the debate this evening.

The logic of the case for access is without question. Those who are most likely to benefit from the opportunity to travel by rail, in particular on new and, we hope, improved services from stations such as Lockerbie, are disabled passengers, the elderly, the infirm, mothers with young children, and even just those with copious amounts of luggage.

Train companies such as Virgin have gone to great lengths and expense to adapt their trains for access by disabled users, so surely we must complete the last piece of the jigsaw and ensure that all our citizens find it easy and convenient to use our railway stations.

As the Deputy Minister for Transport and Planning will be aware, until recently, anyone travelling north from Lockerbie station and returning to the southbound platform who was unable to use the bridge over the track was required to travel to Carlisle 25 miles away to the south and wait for a train to come back to Lockerbie station, which could on occasion be for several hours. Until recently, when Virgin waived the charge, disabled passengers had to pay for the privilege of going to Carlisle and coming back to the northbound Lockerbie platform.

That does not paint a picture of an inclusive or integrated rail transport system. It certainly does not strike a chord with the white paper, "Travel Choices for Scotland", produced as far back as 1998 by the then Scottish Office. That document set out a strong commitment to implementing the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and stated that all stations in Scotland must have disabled access by October 2004. It is difficult to imagine how that aim is to be turned into reality without concerted action, and not simply by drawing on individual funds or schemes.

Sarah Boyack has previously suggested that Dumfries and Galloway Council should apply to the public transport fund on the Lockerbie station access issue, but that would mean that the council would be unable to put forward any other public transport proposal for the area.

In August 2000, Sarah Boyack set up the transport advisory group, following the publication of research findings entitled, "Transport Provision for Disabled People in Scotland". That research showed that an estimated 12 per cent of Scots have some kind of disability and that 250,000 are likely to have significant difficulty in using public transport. Also in August 2000, the Lockerbie rail liaison group met and heard that the cost of providing disabled access at Lockerbie station would total £160,000. At the time, the shortfall was some £50,000, which it was hoped could be provided by the shadow strategic rail authority. Although Sarah Boyack says in her letter of 4 September that she does not think that funding has been a factor in holding up the project, it is likely to be a very significant obstacle indeed, especially as the cost of providing a new overbridge is now estimated at £750,000.

I do not share Sarah Boyack's previously expressed hope that short-term measures can be implemented to improve access at Lockerbie or at the 122 other stations with access problems. Only specific funding earmarked for providing disabled access, and having a body with clear responsibility for delivering it within a defined time scale, will work. Whether it be the successor to Railtrack in Scotland—about which I hope Lewis Macdonald will give us details—the train-operating companies, the Strategic Rail Authority or ministers, at UK, Scotland or even National Assembly for Wales level, it does not matter. We cannot go on passing people from pillar to post every time the issue is raised. We must have clear responsibility and clear ownership.

We have had enough fine words about what the UK Government and the Scottish Executive want to do to allow everybody to have access to public transport. It is now time for action, otherwise disabled travellers will be travelling not only on a train south to Lockerbie but, regrettably, on a train to nowhere.

I am grateful to Mr Mundell for securing the debate. I share his frustration that disabled travellers who wish to alight at Lockerbie have to go to Carlisle, wait for another train and come back again. Until a recent intervention by my colleague Russell Brown, they also had to pay for a single journey from Carlisle back up to Lockerbie. Fortunately, that fare has now been waived. I also pay tribute to the Executive for its recent announcements of additional funding for public transport, including extra money for a feasibility study on improved transport in Lockerbie.

Mr Mundell mentioned a number of people who have been involved in the campaign over a number of years. Lavinia Vaughan's predecessor, Councillor Steve Berry, was involved, and it is a matter of great frustration to people in the area that we seem to be getting nowhere. I am indebted to Russell Brown for some information that he has managed to root out from the House of Commons library, which illustrates some of the problems that can arise from passing legislation that is not particularly good.

Many of the difficulties arise from problems with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I shall quote selectively from the research by the House of Commons library. One problem seems to be that the 1995 act established a general right of access and then made that subject to a test of reasonableness. It is difficult to interpret what is and what is not reasonable. In addition, the structure of the industry at that time was such that specific responsibilities under the act remained unclear. Let us hope that, whatever happens to Railtrack, things will be improved.

Railtrack owns, or owned, most of the stations in Britain—around 2,500—and was responsible for their maintenance and renewal as well as that of the rail infrastructure. However, it managed only the 14 major stations and leased the remainder to the train-operating companies. Virgin Rail was the train-operating company at Lockerbie station. It has worked with Railtrack and Dumfries and Galloway Council to find a solution.

Because of problems in legislation, it is not clear who is responsible for costs. Railtrack has some responsibility for costs that the station facility owner, which is the train-operating company, incurs in complying with changes, but it does not bear responsibility for all costs. The station facility owner must provide some finance, too. The landlord—Railtrack—also has some responsibility in ensuring that it enables the work to be done.

Research carried out by the House of Commons library indicates that specific responsibilities in the industry were unclear in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The problem seems to be the line of definition between the individual train operator, the station facility owner and Railtrack, as the landlord of the station. The issue is unclear. For possibly four or five years, people have campaigned and they seem to be getting nowhere.

We would like clarity on what is required of Railtrack by 2004. Is it required to make the necessary changes, or does the test of reasonableness mean that it is not? There seems to be a suggestion that the successor might have until 2020 to come up with the goods. Meanwhile, we continue to have a problem. Disabled, elderly and other people are unable to access the southbound platform.

A great deal of suspicion arises from Railtrack's withdrawal from the project, among a number of other projects. The explanation was that, after Hatfield, there was a determination to move away from passengers crossing lines and from level crossings. There is a suspicion that it might have opted out of a number of projects.

I appreciate that the matter is reserved and that funding must be found from Westminster's purse rather than the Executive's. However, if the Executive was able to bring any pressure to bear on the organisations that are involved in trying to solve the problem, I am sure that all concerned would be most grateful. Representations should be made to solve the problem once and for all.

I congratulate David Mundell on securing the debate and on the cogency of his argument. Unfortunately, the unsatisfactory situation that he described in respect of Lockerbie is all too familiar throughout the rail network in Scotland. I have received representations from many constituents who have had difficulty in using stations, particularly on the Glasgow to Stranraer line along the Ayrshire coast. Many are unable to use the old bridges that cross the lines to other platforms. More often than not, those bridges involve climbing steep stairs up and down. That is completely impossible for wheelchair users or young mums with baby carriages.

Many people do not use trains as a consequence of such barriers to access. As at Lockerbie, others must resort to taking a train in the opposite direction to which they want to go until they reach a station where they can alight and cross to the other side. On the Ayrshire coast line, Ayr serves that purpose. The time, trouble and expense involved in that effort are disproportionate to what should be a simple journey. The fact that so many people put up with that says a lot about the stoicism of our fellow citizens who are subjected to that rigmarole, but it is a damning indictment of the underinvestment in our railways over many years.

I made representations to Railtrack on behalf of those constituents and was told, "Yes, we have a programme to improve accessibility and to replace old bridges, but given that each replacement will cost £0.25 million"—which was the figure that I was quoted, so David Mundell was obviously given an inflated amount for Lockerbie—"we cannot afford to complete such a programme in less than 20 years." Where does that leave the 2004 deadline? I am sure that members will agree that the situation is totally unacceptable and flies in the face of the fine intentions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and effectively thwarts its objectives.

Now that the infrastructure of the rail network is back under public control, I hope that the Executive will ensure that disabled people's needs will move up the priority list, as outlined in the document, "Strategic Priorities for Scotland's Passenger Railway: A consultation paper: November 2000". I hope that the Executive will also establish a national advisory committee on transport needs for the disabled and encourage direct consultation with disabled passengers and their carers at the point of use. As well as providing a more accessible physical environment, the rail industry must assess openly and transparently how its staff at stations and on trains can provide a more responsive service to those with disabilities.

As convener of the cross-party group on mental health, I want to highlight the need for further research on the services that are required to make it easier for those suffering from mental health problems and learning difficulties to use public transport. It must be remembered that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 covers people with physical and mental impairments. Those impairments have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Staff training is vital to improve customer services and to ensure that customers with disabilities are able to access services as easily as possible. All service providers should look at that, to ensure that staff know how to make it easier for those with disabilities to use their services. That change should be brought about quickly and easily.

Other simple changes that would help disabled customers could be introduced easily by service providers. Those changes include improving announcement systems or introducing induction loop systems to ensure that those with reduced hearing can access services; making timetables more readable and understandable; providing literature in large print, in Braille or on tape for those with visual impairments; and upgrading signs to ensure that they can be understood easily by those with learning difficulties.

None of those modifications would be horrendously expensive or overly ambitious, but they would be appreciated by large sections of the travelling public and would allow many of the non-physical barriers to access, which limit the use of railways by our fellow citizens, to be overcome.

I congratulate David Mundell on flagging up just how inaccessible our railway network is.

Of the four stations in my constituency, at only two—Keith and Huntly—can both platforms be accessed by a person in a wheelchair. A disabled passenger at the other two, Insch and Inverurie, has to be at the right side of the tracks. At Insch, wheelchair users could just about wheel themselves down the ramp at the end of the platform and across the level crossing. That is hardly safe or desirable.

All four stations have disabled car parking. Staff assistance is available at certain times—provided that 24 hours' notice is given—at three of them: Inverurie, Huntly and Keith. Those stations have an accessible ticket office with an induction loop and an available ramp. That is all very well as far as it goes, but how many people know what is available and where? If they know what is available locally, can they be confident that they will not find themselves in difficulty at a distant, or even a near, destination, depending on which platform their train is directed to?

On a more positive note, I am looking forward to being at Inverurie station at the end of November to see the launch of the independent travel project. The project director, Mike Harper, is a wheelchair user and an enthusiastic, inspiring and mobile advocate who regularly commutes between Wales and Aberdeenshire. The project has carried out extensive consultation with disabled people in Aberdeenshire. It has progressed to the point at which it is now in the process of recruiting three travel buddies. They will assist people to make full use of the travel opportunities that are open to them and will campaign for more equitable travel opportunities.

Some progress has been made in tackling barriers to accessibility. Awareness that barriers must be removed is increasing. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is helping to concentrate minds, but an enormous amount remains to be done and funded. This debate will have its own small effect on prioritisation. I commend David Mundell for securing it.

I, too, congratulate David Mundell on securing the debate. I do not have a specific interest in relation to the situation at Lockerbie; my interest is primarily as convener of the cross-party group on disability.

When one speaks to many disabled people about issues that impact on their lives, they often say that public transport is at the top of their agenda. It should be acknowledged that the Executive has recognised that. In 1999, the Executive undertook a piece of research entitled "Transport Provision for Disabled People in Scotland". It made six key recommendations for improving public transport, including the rail network, for disabled people. The report highlighted that about 5 per cent of the Scottish population has difficulty accessing trains and other forms of public transport.

I will give an example that may not be covered by David Mundell's motion. Apparently, only about 15 per cent of our bus fleet has low-floor access, which is a considerable benefit to many disabled people. Many disabled people must travel by bus to get to a train station.

I will give some examples of where access remains a problem at major train stations in Scotland. At Glasgow Central station, Shopmobility applied to Railtrack—which owns and operates the station—to provide a service for the shopping area in the station. The application was denied because the station manager and Railtrack's disability adviser—who I understand is based in London—witnessed a speeding wheelchair on the concourse. They were concerned about the safety of other travellers in the station.

Edinburgh Haymarket is one of Scotland's busiest railway stations, yet it is inaccessible to disabled people who have mobility problems as they cannot get on or off a train there. They often have to take an extra journey on to Waverley and come out again. If they have to get off at Haymarket, they require physical assistance, which they sometimes have to pay for, to get out of the station.

Railtrack also owns and operates Edinburgh Waverley station. Although it has made a number of improvements to disabled access there, additional problems have been created. For example, parking was reorganised as part of the disabled access development. It was moved from close to the platform to the rear of the car park. Disabled parking is now further away from the platform, which creates a barrier for disabled people who want to access trains.

On the broader issue of public transport for disabled people, five key areas must be addressed. First, we should have a co-ordinated public transport policy that sensitively meets the needs of disabled people. Secondly, any such policy should provide more physical access and services to disabled people who are using the transport. Thirdly, staff who understand the needs of disabled people using the service must be available. Fourthly, we must have clear information about the services that a company provides to disabled people and that alerts people to places where there are problems with access. Finally, there should be consultation between transport providers and those who are responsible for organising transport infrastructure and policies. Addressing such issues would go some way towards addressing the problems that many disabled people encounter when accessing public transport.

I have referred to a piece of research that the Executive undertook back in 1999. Given the problems that were identified in the report and the six key recommendations that were made in it, I ask the minister to tell the chamber what the Executive has done to improve access for disabled people.

I congratulate David Mundell on securing this debate. I will make one very important point that Adam Ingram also mentioned.

Many stations in Scotland are staffed only during the day or not at all. There are few more intimidating places than a cold, unlit, rainy and windswept railway platform on a dark Scottish winter evening. Although such places discourage any traveller from using the station at night, they are a particular discouragement for disabled or elderly people, who must feel secure whether they are travelling on a train or whether they are waiting for one.

There is a desperate need—particularly in the evenings—for fully trained staff who are ready to offer assistance to disabled people and all other travellers. Reducing the staff at Britain's stations was a false economy, and representations should be made to Railtrack and the operating companies to co-operate to get staff back into our stations to make them safer and more pleasant places to use.

Like everyone else, I congratulate David Mundell on raising this matter. Although Lockerbie is not in my constituency, it is the closest of what might be called the former intercity railheads and it might be of some use if it were not so difficult to access for the reasons that have been outlined. There are three stations in my constituency. The southbound platform at Kirkconnell has exactly the same problem of inaccessibility. Even if it were morally acceptable, the alternative of going to Sanquhar is not practical because of the very few trains that run up and down that line.

At the moment, the train-operating companies are investing in new rolling stock with fairly good disabled facilities. Indeed, Virgin Trains is launching its new Voyager trains in Scotland tomorrow. It is ironic that disabled people cannot use them because they cannot access platforms. Because of the franchising arrangements, it would be unfair to expect train-operating companies to improve platforms. As we know from the decision on the Great North Eastern Railway franchise, the extension of franchises is a fairly uncertain matter anyway. Furthermore, at the end of the franchise the companies retain the rolling stock that they lease—but they would not retain stations that they might have improved.

We understand that, even before the collapse of Railtrack, there was increasing reluctance to invest in station infrastructure as the company had to spend so much money on rectifying the many track defects. There is a considerable cost associated with this issue—we should not skip that. The new bridge that was erected at Inverkeithing station to get over the problem of disabled access is a substantial structure and was not erected cheaply.

David Mundell alluded to the former implementation target of 2004, which we will clearly not be able to meet. The Executive must commit itself to a plan that has some dates attached to it. No one can reasonably expect everything to change overnight, but we should be able to expect that the situation will change. Many people now feel that there is no time scale for the changes, no commitment to them and no hope of some of the stations having disabled access in our lifetimes.

I am grateful to David Mundell and other members for the constructive way in which they have addressed this important issue. Elaine Murray, who is the constituency member for Lockerbie, has spoken to me before about the specific problems there, but I am pleased that the debate has been extended to recognise that similar problems exist elsewhere in Scotland. I am especially familiar with some of the stations in Aberdeenshire to which Nora Radcliffe referred.

The Executive is committed to the development of an integrated transport policy to achieve a fairer and more inclusive society. Where we have powers to do so—which is an important factor to bear in mind—we will continue to make the improvement of access to public transport for people with disabilities one of our priorities in the tackling of social exclusion. In the forthcoming transport delivery plan, we will set out and update our prior commitments. I know that members will look forward to that with interest.

It is important to remember that questions of disabled access to public transport go wider than physical infrastructure. Robin Harper and others have pointed out that, as well as those questions, there are issues of customer service that the rail industry will have to address. For the services that are currently provided by ScotRail, some of those issues will be addressed through the directions and guidance that we will issue to the Strategic Rail Authority. In setting out our strategic priorities for Scotland's passenger railways last year, we emphasised, as Adam Ingram said, the importance of the railways' being more affordable, more accessible and more user friendly.

Within the wider agenda, we have taken an important step in setting up the mobility and access committee for Scotland—MACS—which will be a channel through which disabled people will be able to express their views, and an advisory body that will be able to accumulate significant expertise on issues of access. The committee will work alongside the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland and advise ministers on the transport needs of disabled travellers. We want to ensure that MACS influences the development of future transport policy on the priorities that we set. Alasdair Morgan suggested the importance of setting priorities on the range of policies in this area. We are consulting on the regulations to establish MACS and we expect it to be in place early next year.

So far, so good. However, it is essential to recognise that the role of Scottish ministers is limited by the nature of the devolution settlement. That may be a disappointment to David Mundell and others, but the powers that MACS will have on our behalf, and the advice that it will be able to give us, will benefit the cause of social inclusion in the context of a disability discrimination regime that is set at a UK level—not, I am afraid, by the National Assembly for Wales, but by the UK Government.

I am grateful to Elaine Murray for drawing attention to some of the characteristics of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—particularly the test of reasonableness and the inhibition and uncertainty that that may bring in the application of the act. As we have heard, the act requires providers of public transport to ensure that their services are accessible to disabled people by October 2004, but only as far as they are reasonably able to do so. I need not remind members that the minister who was responsible for introducing that bill in the House of Commons was William Hague. No doubt he will have reflected on its contents since then.

It is clearly not for this Parliament to debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—that is a reserved matter—but we will have its provisions in mind during our discussions with the providers of public transport services in Scotland.

As has been said, the problem at Lockerbie is particularly thorny. As many members will know, the bid that was submitted earlier this year had the support of Dumfries and Galloway Council as the local authority, Railtrack as the infrastructure provider, ScotRail as the facilities operator at Lockerbie and Virgin Trains as the main user of the station. The bid involved the construction of a level crossing across the goods loop behind the main southbound line.

Elaine Murray implied that even the bid's supporters recognised its weaknesses. It provided access to the southbound platform from outwith the station premises, but not from one platform to the other or from the southbound platform to the ticket office. Such limitations led to its rejection by the Strategic Rail Authority, the UK body with responsibility for partnership funding. The bid was also rejected on the basis of the view of the railway inspectorate, which is a UK body with responsibility for rail safety. It believed that creating such a level crossing would be contrary to the general trend of its policy.

The great attraction of the solution offered by the bid was its affordability; the other solutions will inevitably cost more. Two figures have been mentioned this evening. Suffice it to say that replacing or upgrading a footbridge anywhere will be an expensive business, but there are particular difficulties in Lockerbie because of the nature of the existing structure.

In spite of the difficulties, there is a recognition that a solution to the Lockerbie problem has to be found. Tackling it was on the list of proposed infrastructure enhancements that were due to be discussed by Scottish ministers and Railtrack before such plans were overtaken by the company's recent financial difficulties. As Elaine Murray mentioned, a couple of months ago, as a result of those difficulties, Railtrack backed out of undertaking infrastructure enhancements in Scotland. Since then, of course, Railtrack has been placed in administration.

I may disappoint David Mundell, but tomorrow's debate on railways will allow some of the issues around the future structure of the infrastructure provider to be brought out. Suffice it to say that we do not expect Railtrack to undertake any new enhancement work while it remains in administration but that we expect the new body that emerges to take on the commitments that were under discussion.

Sarah Boyack met the chairman of Railtrack, John Robinson, last week and has written to the administrators to re-emphasise some of the priorities that were discussed previously. One of those priorities is, of course, disabled rail users at Lockerbie station. I must stress once more that responsibility for many of the decisions on these matters lie with UK bodies such as the Strategic Rail Authority, the railway inspectorate and the Disability Rights Commission.

We will continue to carry out our responsibilities and make the case for our policies of social inclusion. On the Scottish rail franchise, we have produced the paper that has been referred to in the debate. The Strategic Rail Authority will ensure that the franchise includes features that are common to the UK, including measures to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Much still needs to be done to take full account of disabled people's needs. We recognise that we have a responsibility to work with partners to arrive at solutions to problems in general and the Lockerbie case in particular. The next step must be the resolution of the situation that affects Railtrack. The sooner UK ministers, in partnership with the Executive, can solve those problems, the sooner we will be able to respond to the specific problems that have been raised today.

Meeting closed at 17:44.