🚆 Stations: Step-free Access

• Importance of Step-Free Access: The debate focused on the critical need for step-free access at UK railway stations, highlighting that it is essential for ensuring mobility for all, including people with disabilities, the elderly, and those with pushchairs or heavy luggage.

• Current Accessibility Challenges: Only about a quarter of UK train stations are fully step-free, making the rail network difficult or unusable for many. A study showed that only 30% of disabled people feel confident using trains, and 10% do not use them at all due to accessibility issues.

• Access for All Programme: Since 2006, the Access for All programme has improved step-free access at around 300 stations and made smaller improvements at over 1,500 stations. However, the programme’s performance has been mixed, with significant underperformance and underspending in recent years.

• Recent Progress and Future Plans: The government reported completing step-free access at 22 stations since April 2024, with five more expected by April 2025. They are considering the programme’s future funding and will announce more details over the summer.

• Community Impact and Local Examples: Several MPs cited specific cases in their constituencies, such as Motspur Park station achieving step-free access and other stations like Whitchurch and Wivelsfield where improvements have been delayed or cancelled.

• Regulatory and Maintenance Issues: Concerns were raised about the reliability of existing step-free facilities, with frequent lift malfunctions and lack of staffing being significant problems. Regulations currently allow stations not to implement step-free access if another accessible station is within 50 km, which was criticized as impractical.

• Economic and Social Benefits: Improved accessibility was linked to economic growth by enabling more people to access work and services. The debate emphasized that accessible transport is crucial for creating an inclusive society and boosting productivity.

• Call for Action: MPs urged the government to accelerate the Access for All programme, resolve funding issues, and ensure that new station developments include step-free access from the start to avoid future disruptions.

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the pace and effectiveness of the government’s efforts on step-free access at stations, rather than the necessity of the initiative itself. Below are the key points of disagreement that influenced the rating:

1. Criticism of the Access for All Scheme: While there is general support for improving step-free access, there is significant disagreement about the government’s handling of the Access for All scheme. Mr. Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) repeatedly highlighted that the scheme had ‘significantly underperformed’ and called for a commitment to its future funding. He cited specific failures, such as the underperformance in completing projects and the underspend of funds. This criticism was echoed by other members like Helen Morgan (North Shropshire), who mentioned stations like Whitchurch where funding was pulled at the last minute.

   Example: - Mr. Kohler: “Despite the successes, the Access for All scheme has failed to deliver on its potential… Of the 149 schemes due to be completed in that period, only 77 wereâ€. - Helen Morgan: “Many stations, such as Whitchurch station in north Shropshire, are well advanced through the Access for All scheme, but funding has been pulled at the last minute”.

2. Demand for Immediate Action and Commitments: Several members expressed frustration and urgency for immediate government action, often focusing on specific constituency issues. For instance, Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) pressed the Minister for a commitment to the future of the Access for All fund, indicating dissatisfaction with the lack of clear timelines and commitments.

   Example: - Wendy Chamberlain: “Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are hoping to hear this morning is a commitment to that fund?”.

3. Government’s Response and Promises: The Minister, Kate Dearden (Halifax), acknowledged the criticism and progress but maintained a cautious stance on spending commitments, promising updates and future announcements without immediate concrete actions. This response did not fully satisfy the demands for immediate commitments from the opposition, leading to a sense of unresolved tension.

   Example: - Kate Dearden: “We will be able to make an announcement over the summer. I will not stand here today and make unfunded spending commitments”.

4. Specific Cases and Interventions: Interventions from MPs such as Adam Dance (Yeovil) and Natasha Irons (Croydon East) brought specific local issues to the forefront, highlighting tangible examples of where the government has fallen short. These interventions contributed to the disagreement on how well the government has addressed accessibility.

   Example: - Adam Dance: “Does my hon. Friend agree that Great Western Railway and other operators must be made to ensure that there is proper support staff at stations such as Yeovil Pen Mill and Yeovil Junction?”. - Natasha Irons: “Does he agree that this is not just about reinvigorating the Access for All scheme, but about ensuring that it is delivered consistently, that we create local partnerships and that what is delivered makes sense to the people who are impacted?”.

Despite these points of disagreement, there is a fundamental consensus on the need for better step-free access at stations. The disagreement is primarily about the means and speed of achieving this goal, not the goal itself, which justifies a rating of 3 for moderate disagreement.