Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Gatwick Express Class 458 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2006

My Lords, I declare an interest as an employee of the National Express Group, the parent company which will eventually operate the class 458 trains, subject to this affirmative order. The Minister’s emollient phraseology nearly tempted me not to intervene at all. He dealt with the previous order with his typical concern and adequacy, and the House obviously accepted everything that he said, as did I. However, emollient though he might have been on this matter, I draw one or two items of concern to his attention and seek one or two assurances, on behalf not just of the Gatwick Express train operating company but also other train operating companies which might find themselves in the similar position of wishing to sub-lease fairly modern rolling stock in future. I remind the Minister and the House that the trains to which we are referring are caught under the terms of this legislation because they were delivered late to the original train operating company, South West Trains. They were designed prior to 1999, before the regulations came into being. We are discussing today a comparatively minor series of necessary alterations to the trains to make them comply with the Disability Discrimination Act. What my noble friend did not tell the House—there is, perhaps, no reason why he should, but I certainly intend to—is that this matter has been dragging on for some considerable time. These two trains—which, as the Minister rightly says, are not in daily service, but used as back-up—have been sitting in the Stewarts Lane railway depot for the past six months, waiting for this House and the Department of Transport to pass this affirmative resolution. I happen to think that such a procedure is nonsensical to say the least. Had the Gatwick Express train company never bothered to introduce back-up trains, it could have carried on using the mark 2 rolling stock with slam doors electrically hauled or propelled, none of which would have been affected by these particular regulations, because those trains were introduced into service a long time before 1999. The fact that the train operating company behaved in the way it did, and sought to sub-lease these vehicles, means, as I have indicated, that until your noble Lordships’ House has gone through this affirmative procedure, the trains will sit in a siding at Stewarts Lane. I do not know whether your Lordships feel that is a sensible way of doing things, but I do not and I do not know anyone connected to the railway industry who does. In opening the debate, my noble friend talked about the work this Government have done to make life better for disabled people. I support and applaud that. But we are talking here about a number of comparatively minor alterations needed to fairly modern rolling stock, none of which amounts to a hill of beans. They would all be quite expensive if done just for two trains out of the total fleet of class 458 trains, but none of them is particularly serious. For example, we are talking—as we did last time exemptions were sought for similar rolling stock—about the internal display being only 31 millimetres high, instead of 35 millimetres high, as laid down by the regulations. I repeat: these trains were designed prior to the regulations appearing in the first place. We are not talking about an unthinking or uncaring government or train operating company introducing rolling stock that is totally unfit for use by disabled people. These are comparatively minor things, such as the additional pressure needed to open internal doors, and the redesign necessary to the toilets in order that people can leave a wheelchair, use the toilet and return to the wheelchair. These are significant, but scarcely earth shattering matters, but for six months these trains have lain in a siding, waiting for your noble Lordships to pass this particular procedure. According to the explanatory memorandum, this is the first such order to be subject to draft affirmative resolution. I know the Department for Transport is currently developing draft regulations and expects to consult later this year. I understand that, until regulations are in force, all exemption orders remain subject to draft affirmative resolution procedure. My first question to my noble friend is: why have we had to wait so long for the opportunity to debate this matter? Secondly, how long will this exemption last? My noble friend indicated that the Gatwick Express Company’s existing franchise will last until 2011. Immediately, there are two points to consider here. First, these trains are off-lease in February 2007, when the original lease granted to South West Trains expires. Do we need, some time after that date, to adopt this procedure all over again? If that is the case, does my noble friend think that is a sensible way of going about things? Can he give us an assurance today that these trains will not spend another six months in the Stewarts Lane sidings, while the business managers of your noble Lordships’ House decide whether to put on a similar order in future? I remind my noble friend that the future of the Gatwick Express TOC is by no means assured. There is a feeling, which was first expressed by the now defunct SRA, that having these trains, modern though they may be, passing non-stop from Victoria to Gatwick Airport, clogs up the former southern main line. At various times of the day, when commuters are standing at various stations waiting to get to and from the city, these trains pass with lots of empty seats. There is a move afoot to extend the train route at least as far as Three Bridges, which would of course mean considerable changes to the existing TOC—and, in the opinion of most of the railway press, the abolition of the Gatwick Express TOC. I presume, though my noble friend may correct me if I am wrong, that that would mean yet another affirmative order for whoever picks up those trains to use as back-up. I have not been here long enough to know who is responsible for the business in your Lordships’ House, but it sounds as if he or she will be fairly busy in the months and years to come, arranging affirmative legislation, if that is how we are to proceed, to take care of all these anomalies. I would be grateful—and I suspect that many who take an interest in these matters outside the House would be grateful—for some clarification. Basically, why has it taken so long to debate this matter? How long will the exemption actually last—until 2007 or 2011? Bearing in mind that the nature of the Gatwick Express is likely to change fairly dramatically, do we need further affirmative legislation to keep these trains in service? Would my noble friend agree that the whole exercise has not really commended itself to the railway fraternity at large? In closing, I suggest that when we look at how these matters are decided in future, while understandably concerning ourselves with the rights and abilities of people with disabilities to use railway rolling stock, we reflect that what we have created is a bureaucratic nightmare. We have, and are likely to continue to have, lots of modern trains up and down the country that are not in service and not carrying passengers but are waiting for your Lordships to pass some sort of affirmative legislation. Perhaps my noble friend can think some more verses to the old Flanders and Swann song, along the lines of, ““It all makes work for the bureaucrats to do””.