Search Results

The settlement by the owners of ‘The Sun’ to avoid their grubby practices being picked through in court calls into question the truthfulness of evidence given under oath by their senior executives, many of whom are still in positions of power today. The need for a Leveson 2 Inquiry has never been clearer. The print media (and its associated online presence) holds so much power that politicians are undoubtedly intimidated by the consequences of any attempts to rein in their influence. On a related issue, there is obviously no connection at all between Piers Morgan’s persistent hate campaign against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and the issue of phone hacking and illegal media practices that Prince Harry has highlighted. You will hear from some media commentators that Prince Harry was always in it for the money. The reality is that the way the legal system works is that he would have potentially had to pay all of News Group Newspapers’ costs if the amount of the legal settlement offered at the end of the trial was less than what News UK had offered ‘out of court’. This is why Hugh Grant had to settle early before it reached court. The government’s refusal to consider a ‘Leveson 2’ Inquiry is becoming more untenable each day and highlights the malign and damaging influence that the corporate media has over our democracy. The police and the government must act without fear to ensure that the murky relationships and questionable actions are finally brought to light, if necessary in a court of law. Journalism can be a huge force for good, holding power to account and playing an essential part in the checks and balances of a healthy democracy. However, News UK among other media corporations is the polar opposite, spreading poison in our society and destabilising our democracy through fear, while putting profit above any ethical considerations. The press claims they’re standing up against the ‘elite’ while championing the causes of the public, but many of their phone hacking victims were ordinary people out of the public eye. The media continues to hound individuals, Ben Stokes and the tragic case of Caroline Flack being two high-profile examples. However, this intrusion extends to many people not in the public eye who have never sought fame or seen media coverage as a ‘quid pro quo’ for publicity as some public figures do. Their contempt for ordinary people is seen in their actions after Hillsborough, to their eavesdropping on the voicemails of Milly Dowler and the Mother of murdered Sarah Payne. Until the media is held to account by a genuinely independent and powerful regulator the lives of ordinary people, who have never sought or experienced the limelight, will continue to be destroyed. Those who seek to shield our unaccountable media are likely to be viewed with disdain should further revelations come to light. We deserve better. Julian Vaughan 24th January 2025 Sources and further reading: Phone hacking: Jude Law, Lord Prescott and Sara Payne get payouts https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16629036 Hacked Off: https://www.hackedoff.org/about-hacked-off Information Commissioner’s Office: Phone Hacking and the Leveson Inquiry: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/ico-40/phone-hacking-scandal-and-leveson-inquiry/ Leveson Inquiry – Report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leveson-inquiry-report-into-the-culture-practices-and-ethics-of-the-press

Below is an email sent on 27th January to the Leader of Central Bedfordshire Council and the Executive member for Finance and Highways regarding their use of the government’s cash boost to fix our roads , the intention of which is to reduce their contribution to the Highways budget by the amount of extra funding provided by the government, resulting in their being no net additional funding to fix the crumbling roads of Central Bedfordshire . * I received a reply from the Leader of the Council on the same day. I include their response at the bottom of this letter. Dear Adam/John I know you are fully aware of the continuing poor condition of our roads across Central Bedfordshire. One of the core aims of Central Bedfordshire Council’s Independent Executive (as per the Strategic Plan 2024-2027) is to “be ambitious in our plans towards improving and maintaining the roads and travel network.” Therefore, it was extremely disappointing to hear that rather than use the additional funding (above the baseline) that the government is allocating to local councils for fixing potholes and road maintenance to boost spending, In the case of Central Bedfordshire this uplift is £2.57m, Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) is instead using this as an opportunity to reduce their capital spending, resulting in CBC spending on Highways remaining virtually the same as last and previous years. This was not the intention of the government uplift and it will likely put at risk 25% of this uplift which is being held back until certain criteria are met and evidence that the money is being spent on our roads wisely. In light of your current intention to reduce your contribution to the Highways capital budget by the same amount as the government’s additional funding provided to CBC for Highway maintenance, this evidence will not be available. This could potentially lead to CBC losing £642,500. That is a lot of potholes that will be unfilled. Of course, I am aware of the financial pressures faced by CBC and other councils, but this is bad business and bad news for the road users of Central Bedfordshire. It has also been stated by the council that the whole of the funding uplift (£2.57m) could be held back by the government. My understanding from reading the government announcement is that it is only 25% of the funding that has the potential to be held back. You can read the relevant document which discusses the ‘incentive element’ here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-maintenance-funding-allocations/highways-maintenance-block-formula-allocations-2025-to-2026 Further, while I am sure it is not the intention, the claim that ‘all’ the additional money provided by the Government will be spent on our roads, without clearly setting out the corresponding reduction in CBC’s amount of spending, is the sort of smoke and mirrors that reduce trust in politicians and politics. This is not in anyone’s interest. To ensure that Central Bedfordshire does not lose vital funding and to enable a reversal in the shocking decline in the state of our roads, the clear intention of the Labour government, I would urge you to reverse your funding decision regarding Highways maintenance outlined in your draft budget. I have included a link (below) to a piece from ‘Highways’ magazine which discusses the additional funding from the government, and their view on what the government criteria may be regarding the 25% of the incentive element that will be held back. For reference, I have also included a table summary of CBC’s Highways spending from the 2022/23 financial year and including the draft Highways budget for 2025/26. This data is sourced from the CBC budget books available online. https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Govt-confirms-1.6bn-for-local-roads-but-new-incentives-leave-uncertainty/14278 Due to the level of interest in this issue, please regard this as an open letter. Kind regards Julian Vaughan Langford Bedfordshire 27th January 2025 *Reply received from the Leader of Central Bedfordshire Council on the same day, 27th January , set out below without comment. “Thank you very much for your email. Rest assured Central Bedfordshire Council will continue to work with the government to ensure public money is used as effectively as possible.”

I have just come out of a fairly short meeting with Network Rail to discuss the latest progress towards a step-free Biggleswade station. Thankfully It was a short meeting due to no major issues being reported. One previous area of concern was the ground conditions in the area where the lifts are to be located. However, work has progressed without any issues with the piling completed and the ‘lift pits’ (the foundations for the lifts) on each platform are now ready for concrete to be poured into them. The foundations for the ramp that will lead to the new bridge containing the lifts. Those who use the station will have seen the new scaffold bridge running across to both platforms which enables works to carry on while trains are running. We were told this has been working well. More substantial work involving the steel structure for the new lifts and bridge is due to take place over two periods in May when engineering work on the line is taking place and no trains will be running. The temporary scaffold bridge to enable some works to take place on the platforms while trains are running. One area that may be a pinch point is the provision of power to the lifts once they have been installed. However, it is not thought to be a significant risk and discussions are ongoing between the power provider and Network Rail to ensure this is coordinated without any issue. We believe some prep work may already be taking place. I did ask what could go wrong from this point onwards – I’m not going to relax until the lifts are in service! We were told that the ‘possessions’ in May (in railway terms possessions are when engineers take over a section of the railway) are very important as that level of access is very scarce, so fingers crossed these will proceed without a hitch. The location of the entrance to the new bridge. So, as it stands the lifts are still on course to open this December. Once again I asked the question about what the staffing levels will be at the station when the lifts open. Unfortunately, there was no one from Govia Thameslink Railway at the meeting, so yet again I was not given an answer. We are a matter of months away from the lifts being opened. I will continue to press for staff to be available (and the lifts to be open) from the first train until the last. A poster at the station indicating a step-free Biggleswade station in December 2025. Our next meeting (CBC and Town Councillors, Richard Fuller MP and BRAN colleagues were also at the meeting) has been pencilled in for June. By then we will have a pretty clear idea about the progress of the scheme and hopefully we will be able to say with a great deal of confidence that we are on course for the lifts to be opened as an early Christmas present for Biggleswade. You have been very patient, you all deserve it! This has been an eight-year campaign. It shouldn’t have to be this way. Julian Vaughan Chair Bedfordshire Rail Access Network 17th March 2025

The glacial progress of the ‘Access for All’ scheme means that at the current rate of progress, the UK rail network won’t be accessible for around 100 years. This highlights the culture within government and the rail industry, which views accessibility as a favour rather than a fundamental right. Listen to any politician or rail industry bigwig and they will tell you that rail accessibility is a priority. As Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently said, “It’s a basic requirement.” Unfortunately, the reality faced by disabled people is vastly different. It is time for action, not words. Are we about to see this much-needed action from the current Labour government? Last week on 18th March, a Westminster Hall debate discussed step-free access across the UK rail network. The debate was secured by Paul Kohler, the Liberal Democrat MP for the Wimbledon constituency. I provide a link to the full debate, lasting 25 minutes, at the bottom of the blog, but below I highlight the issues raised by Mr Kohler and other MPs, as well as the government response put forward by the Halifax MP, Kate Dearden. Paul Kohler and MPs from all sides of the house who contributed to the debate succinctly set out many of the issues faced by disabled people on our railways. These 32 steps are the only way to currently reach the platforms at Biggleswade station Mr Kohler stated that the upcoming rail reforms gave a chance to put accessibility at the heart of the public transport system and that it was incumbent on the government to move on from the lofty rhetoric to the hard reality of making the transport system accessible. He pointed out that only around 25% of UK railway stations are fully accessible from street to platform. Andrew Cooper, the labour MP for Mid Cheshire put forward the case for an additional round of ‘Access for All’ nominations while Great British Railways takes shape and Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat MP for NE Fife, asked for a firm commitment from the government on the future of the Access for All fund. Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, raised the issue of Whitchurch station, awarded funding in May 2024 by the previous government, but which subsequently has had the funding pulled by the current government. I should add at this point that my understanding is that the funding hasn’t been pulled as such, but all 50 stations awarded funding are now under review. These stations are discussed further later in this blog. I share Helen Morgan’s frustration as the same thing has happened to Leagrave station, a station where I have campaigned for step-free access for some years alongside Sarah Owen, the constituency MP for Luton North. Step-free improvement work finally underway at Biggleswade station – photo taken March 2025 Mr Kohler continued by quoting the then Chair of Network Rail, and now Rail Minister, Lord Peter Hendy, who said in May 2024 that Network Rail had “significantly underperformed” on step-free access improvements in Control Period 6, which ran from 2019-2024. He’s not wrong! It does not inspire much confidence that it was Lord Hendy, who in 2015 as the then Chair of Network Rail, produced a report that led to the deferral of step free access improvements at 27 stations. Some of these stations are still waiting for step free access 10 years later. Rail accessibility isn’t just morally the right thing to do, it makes economic sense too. Julian Vaughan Natasha Irons, the Labour MP for Croydon East highlighted the inaccessibility of Croydon East and Norwood Junction stations in her constituency, the 21st and 117th busiest stations in the UK respectively. Mr Kohler then went on to highlight an issue I have written about previously, which is the legislation that allows railway station modernisation to take place without a legal obligation to ensure step-free access is provided. This legislation, hidden away in Appendix B of the ‘Persons with Reduced Mobility National Technical Specification Notice’ (PRM NTSN) permits station modernisation to take place without step-free access provision if less than 1,000 passengers a day use the station and if there is an accessible station within a 50km radius. This is a benchmark for inaction. The table below gives an indication of how many railway stations in the UK have less than 365,000 passengers a year – the cut-off below which ‘passive provision’ is permitted i.e. provision for a step free route at some unspecified time in the future. Some get out clause this! For your information, only 978 railway stations would exceed the 1,000 passengers a day threshold and there are just over 2,500 railway stations in the UK. I had to agree with Jim Dickson, the Labour. MP for Dartford who bemoaned the inaccessibility of Swanscombe station and stated that too many stations had laid outside the ‘Access for All’ scheme for too long. Claire Young, the Liberal Democrat MP for Thornbury and Yate, spoke about the unreliability of the lifts that have actually been installed at stations, which Mr Kohler indicated was a nationwide and worsening issue. The virtual absence of level boarding at UK railway stations was set out during the debate. 67% of platforms are too narrow for wheelchair users to turn at the base of a ramp and only 2% of platforms have level boarding between the train and the platform. I was heartened to hear Lisa Smart, the MP for Hazel Grove emphasise that the need for an accessible rail network is not just an issue of fairness, it is an issue of growth. Rail accessibility isn’t just morally the right thing to do, it makes economic sense too. As our population ages, the cost/benefit ratio will only increase. As Paul Kohler correctly pointed out in his summing up, if the government wants to get more people back to work an accessible transport system is a crucial part of that endeavour and is vital to create a more inclusive and productive country. The Government Response So, what was the government response and what clues did we get about the future direction for rail accessibility on the UK rail network? Kate Dearden, the Labour MP for Halifax, spoke on behalf of the government. We heard many of the warm words that accessibility campaigners will be wearily familiar with; agreement on the need for an accessible rail network so that everyone can access the same opportunities; not just a matter of convenience but a matter of fairness; the government’s unwavering commitment to improving rail accessibility etc. These cliches have been trotted out by so many different governments they have become meaningless, no matter how well meaning the intentions. The barrow crossing at Hexham station in Northumberland There were some small nuggets of information. Confirmation that 260 stations have been made step-free as a result of the Access for All scheme launched in 2006 by the previous Labour government and the admission that only 20% of stations in the UK provide full step-free access. The response then moved on to the stations provisionally awarded Access for All funding in May 2024, during the last days of the Conservative government. 310 station nominations were received and 50 of these were successful, although there was a significant proviso (what some may call another get out clause) that these stations were only to have feasibility studies carried out before any final decisions were made about whether they would actually be made step-free. As mentioned earlier, I have some personal experience of the above. Working with Sarah Owen MP, we successfully campaigned for Leagrave station to be awarded Access for All funding. However, we have since been advised that the feasibility study we successfully lobbied to receive funding for (at a cost in the region of £20,000) was not a detailed study (despite it being carried out by Network Rail and including an initial option report) and that a business case would now have to be put together to justify lifts for the station. It is almost like the government wants to put as many hurdles in the way of an accessible rail network as it can, and this is in addition to the Department for Transport pointing the finger at Network Rail and vice versa for the lack of progress on rail accessibility. Apologies for the moaning – back to the government response. Of the 50 stations, 29 had now completed these feasibility studies, with the rest due for completion by the Summer. So, as it stands we have no idea about how many of these 50 are actually going to be progressed to completion. I should make very clear now that even if all 50 stations were successful, this pace of improvement falls well short of what is required to deliver a rail network that will be accessible to everyone. As the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee stated in 2022, at the current rate of progress, it will be around 100 years before the UK rail network is fully accessible. Further, the well worn soundbite that 75% of UK railway passenger journeys take place through step-free stations is immaterial on the basis that it is a statistic primarily based on the journeys of non-disabled people. We then got to the vital part of the announcement, what is planned for the future. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if we are any the wiser at this stage. I have replayed this part of the government’s statement a few times and still can’t quite get a hint of any firm commitment to the ‘Access for All’ scheme, never mind the much needed scale up of infrastructure improvements. The statement mentioned that the government is “committed to building on this progress” and that “Ministers are carefully considering the best approach for the ‘Access for All’ programme in Control Period 7.” For reference Control Period 7 (the railway is funded in five-year cycles) runs from 2024-2029. When pressed on timescales, the government spokesperson said “by the Summer”, I believe in reference to the outcome for the 50 stations mentioned previously, but then added “and the outcome after the (June) spending review”. I am unclear if this was a reiteration of the commitment to the decision on the 50 stations, or a reference to a decision on the future of the Access for All scheme. Therefore, I have yet to receive any confirmation that the government does actually have an “unwavering commitment to improving accessibility” although I believe we will have a much clearer idea by the Summer, following the June Spending Review Announcement, where the budgets for all the government departments will be announced. An accessible rail network intersects with Labour’s core values of equality, a dynamic economy, and a just society – although following Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement, some may argue that these values no longer seem to be a priority. Whatever your view, investment at pace into transforming our Victorian rail network into a railway accessible to everyone would enshrine these values into our communities and also assist with our vital drive to net zero. If the government genuinely has an “unwavering commitment to improving (rail) accessibility,” then Appendix B of the PRM NTSN must be removed. The current bun-fight for Access for All funding prior to every Control Period should be stopped and a rolling programme of step-free improvements put in its place. Currently, communities have no idea when their local station will become step-free. This uncertainty must end and a station by station timetable for step free improvements created. If the government genuinely has an “unwavering commitment to improving (rail) accessibility,” then Appendix B of the PRM NTSN must be removed. Julian Vaughan I would urge the current government to view accessibility improvements to our railway system as one of its key missions that would enable a genuine transformation in our society. Disabled people have waited long enough and warm words just won’t do. Julian Vaughan Chair Bedfordshire Rail Access Network 28th March 2025 Sources and Further Reading Westminster Hall Debate – step free access at train stations https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/d7a82f2b-fa44-4c45-97ba-567a60f277a3?in=10:58:49″>https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/d7a82f2b-fa44-4c45-97ba-567a60f277a3?in=10:58:49 DPTAC reference frame: working towards a fully accessible railway – February 2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dptac-reference-frame-working-towards-a-fully-accessible-railway/dptac-reference-frame-working-towards-a-fully-accessible-railway”>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dptac-reference-frame-working-towards-a-fully-accessible-railway/dptac-reference-frame-working-towards-a-fully-accessible-railway UK rail network accessibility map https://accessmap.nationalrail.co.uk/”>https://accessmap.nationalrail.co.uk Step Free and Appendix B – by the author http://julianvaughan.blog/2024/11/15/step-free-and-appendix-b/”>http://julianvaughan.blog/2024/11/15/step-free-and-appendix-b/ Starmer, Rail Accessibility and Tanni GT – by the author http://julianvaughan.blog/2024/09/01/starmer-rail-accessibility-and-tanni-gt/”>http://julianvaughan.blog/2024/09/01/starmer-rail-accessibility-and-tanni-gt/ Office of Rail and Road – Estimates of Passenger Numbers at UK Rail Stations https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage

While I have always been to the ‘left’ in politics, I’ve always been prepared to work across political divides for the benefit of local communities and I am in fairly regular contact with a number of Independent Councillors who are both effective and diligent in representing their individual wards. I have no political axe to grind here, but I do have serious concerns about the state of our local politics in Bedfordshire and the current Independent (Alliance) led Central Bedfordshire Council administration. I have written previously about the reality of politics meaning that unless you can form a unified team you will not be able to put in place the much needed changes required across Central Bedfordshire. I do understand that the ‘non-political’ approach relentlessly pitched by many Independents candidates at election time can have a certain appeal, but recent events demonstrate where a lack of any political direction ends up. As the Independent-led Council has inevitably descended into chaos amid resignations, splits and recriminations, it highlights the importance of having a manifesto by which you can be held accountable and the clear direction it provides a ruling administration. At election time it also lets you know what you are voting for, or indeed voting against. This lack of any sense of direction has no doubt contributed to the current shambles that is the Council’s policy on SEND provision. It is also particularly disappointing that the current leadership of the Council seems to resent being held accountable, or be subjected to the very scrutiny they were actually once rather effective at when in opposition. Further, the current executive of the Council relentlessly takes full credit for any ‘good news’ story, yet when they have to give less welcome news they, almost without fail, blame ‘The Council’, as if it is a separate entity they are not any part of, or indeed, the leaders of.   I do have a degree of sympathy for the current administration. Local councils have been underfunded for many years and the current Labour government will have to do much more to repair the damage. However, I’m getting a sense that the Executive have almost thrown in the towel and realise the game may soon be up. It is also particularly grim that some in the supposedly apolitical Council Executive display a tribalism and vitriol that far exceeds what we see across much of Party politics in the UK. They say always be nice to people on the way up, as you will surely meet them on the way down. Wise words indeed. Why does all this matter? A lack of accountability and willingness to be put under scrutiny further erodes trust in politics and politicians – already at a very low ebb. Our democracy with all its checks and balances is precious, but it is also very fragile. Recent events in America have shown us just how quickly it can be dismantled. It is up to everyone involved in politics in one way or another, from Parish Council to Parliament, to ensure that trust in our political system is maintained. Julian Vaughan 14th April 2025 Further reading: Are planning conditions worth the paper they are written on? Fixing the system

A post on why we should all be concerned about the Labour government’s commitment to an accessible rail network. Below is a list of the 50 stations selected for ‘Access for All’ (A4A) funding in May 2024 by the last Conservative government. Aigburth Ash Vale Battle Bellgrove Bodmin Parkway Bredbury Bushey Castle Cary Chinley Church and Oswaldtwistle Colchester Dalston Kingsland Dorchester South Dudley Port Dumbarton Central Esher Falkirk Grahamston Flowery Field Gunnersbury Hedge End High Brooms Inverurie Kew Bridge Kidbrooke Leagrave Ledbury Marden Maidstone West Neath Newton for Hyde Port Sunlight Raynes Park Rock Ferry Ruabon Sileby Shotton Sleaford Small Heath South Croydon Stamford Stroud Swanwick Thirsk Ulverston Upminster Walton Whitchurch (Shropshire) Wivelsfield Wymondham Yeovil Junction If we look at the number of stations nominated for ‘Access for All’ (A4A) funding in previous Control Periods, financing for the railway is allocated in five-year Control Period (CP) blocks, then 50 stations is about average. Control period 5 (2014-2019) had 42 stations nominated. Control Period 6 (2019-2024) had 73 stations nominated, with a further 12 added in the March 2020 budget. Moving forward to December 2024, with a new government and the Labour Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy, tells the Commons Transport Committee that the 50 “was not really a list of 50 that were going to happen. It was a list of things that might be done if they proved to be feasible. We have to work our way through that.” Moving further forward to June 2025 and we still await an announcement on these 50 stations, over a year on from the initial announcement. And in the case of Leagrave station, a station for which I have campaigned for step-free access alongside Sarah Owen MP for several years, an initial feasibility study, carried out by Network Rail, has already taken place. I know this because I successfully pitched to the local council for funding for the feasibility study. At this point I should add that it was the current rail minister, Lord Hendy, the accountable minister for rail accessibility, who released the ‘Hendy Report’ in 2015 that resulted in the mothballing of 27 ‘Access for All’ projects in 2015 – some of which are still awaiting step-free access today. It would not be an unreasonable question to ask if we have the right leadership in charge to drive forward the change required to make our UK rail network accessible. Currently, fewer than 2% of UK railway stations have level access between the train and the platform. Further, a government spokesperson admitted in a Westminster Hall debate on the 18th March 2025, that only 20% of stations across Great Britain have step-free access to and between all platforms. In light of this, and bearing in mind that there are over 2,500 railway stations in the UK, if the current Labour government cannot even firmly commit to the 50 stations listed earlier, then what chance do we have of achieving an accessible rail network within many of our lifetimes? As Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson noted: “In my lifetime, I will not be able to get on a train without the permission or support of a non disabled person.” In the government’s recently announced June Spending Review, there was not a single mention of funding for rail accessibility. Lord Hendy has announced the creation of an ‘Accessibility Roadmap’, due to be published later this year. While this is welcome, on current form, I have little confidence that it will do anything to shift the glacial rate of accessibility improvements across the UK rail network. We have net-zero carbon targets set in law; we should have the same for a time-bound, funding ringfenced, accessible network too. I have serious doubts that this will be achieved under the current leadership of the rail industry who have, by their own admission, failed disabled people. It is particularly disappointing that this culture seems to be continuing under a Labour government, whose core values have traditionally been equality, social justice, a dynamic economy and more recently the drive to net zero. And it is yet another example of this government punching down at the most vulnerable in our society. We can and must do better than this. It’s not just morally the right thing to do, it makes economic sense too. Julian Vaughan Chair Bedfordshire Rail Access Network 20th June 2025 Sources and Further Reading House of Commons Transport Committee: Access Denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/47122/documents/244036/default/ Association of British Commuters: Rail Accessibility: Department for Transport in breach of UN Disability Convention https://abcommuters.com/2025/06/16/rail-accessibility-dept-for-transport-in-breach-of-un-disability-convention/ Hansard: Stations Step-Free Access – Westminster Hall Debate 18th March 2025 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-03-18/debates/0E9C5C68-1541-4BC4-AC3C-218F313C152B/StationsStep-FreeAccess# DPTAC Working towards a fully accessible railway https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dptac-reference-frame-working-towards-a-fully-accessible-railway/dptac-reference-frame-working-towards-a-fully-accessible-railway Julian Vaughan: A Decade of Step-Free delay https://julianvaughan.blog/2024/08/09/a-decade-of-step-free-delay/ Julian Vaughan: Step-Free and ‘Appendix B’ https://julianvaughan.blog/2024/11/15/step-free-and-appendix-b/

*This blog, written on 26th June, has been updated on 27th June to comment on the concessions/U-Turn made by the government. Solidarity with the 100-plus Labour MPs who are taking a stand against the government to support the most vulnerable people in our communities. I can confirm that if I were in their position, I would have also put my name to their amendment to the ‘Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill’, which is due to have its Second Reading next Tuesday. Perhaps it is with this knowledge that I was offered the candidacy (politely declined) for the 7th safest Tory seat in the UK at the last General Election. However, it is not just those to the ‘left’ of the party who have signed the amendment, but a cross-section of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The decision to cut Winter Fuel Payments was not just morally wrong, but also a complete disaster politically. That those advisors in Labour’s inner circle could not see how this decision was going to play out is very concerning. While the decision has been reversed, the die has been cast and the tone of this Labour government has been set, perhaps irrevocably. More than ever, we need people in politics who genuinely understand the lives of ordinary people, not those more comfortable in the company of corporate lobbyists. There comes a point in any government that, no matter what good or even brilliant things they do, and the Labour government has done some good things, people stop listening. This point has come to this government very early, not helped by an electorate radicalised by apathy, distrust in the political system, and the crystal-clear messaging of the hard right. Labour’s mantra about ‘growth’ has failed to give hope to the public, besides which its reliance on trickle-down economics is dubious at best. I do not believe it is at all clear to the public what Labour now stands for, especially when it appears to have abandoned the values of equality and social justice it once held so dear. Its attempt to outflank the hard right on immigration is as misguided as it is ugly – people will always choose the genuine article. Even if people disagreed with Labour, there would be a grudging respect for their principles. The seeming absence of principles is being clocked by the public and resulting in a deep lack of trust. We need a government that has the backs of ordinary people and particularly the most vulnerable in our society. As a Labour supporter all my life, who has dedicated a fair bit of time standing up for Labour and Labour values, it is gut-wrenching that we now seek to punch down on disabled people. Labour’s current approach is a gift to the Reform Party. The public won’t give two hoots about the railways being nationalised if it doesn’t lead to cheaper fares and decent services. After lending their vote to Labour, many will never do so again if their local councils continue to cut services to the bone and the government continues to support water companies more than people. The hubris of Starmer’s shadowy inner circle of advisors, seemingly now devoid of any political antennae, is bad news for Labour and bad news for the UK. It’s not too late to change direction, starting with a reversal of the cuts to the benefits of disabled people. It’s time to be bold – I’ll back that 100%. Update inserted on the 27th June… My initial thoughts on the ‘Welfare Bill’ concessions/U-turn. I have serious concerns that the reported co-production is just ‘consultation’ by another name? Unless disability groups are equal partners in this, with the power to veto, it’s all just a bit tick-boxy. The government has shown their hand on welfare provision – a sham consultation process will just kick the can down the road. There is a profound difference between “voices being heard” and voices genuinely being listened to. As a trade union health and safety representative, I have first-hand experience of how consultation is viewed primarily as a process to get through, rather than an authentic opportunity for change. The resulting ‘two-tier’ benefits system (protecting current claimants but hammering future claimants) may well temporarily stem the tide of outrage against MPs, worn down by the onslaught following the Winter Fuel Payments debacle, but it will inevitably store up trouble for the future as a rising number of people claim under the harsher new welfare regime, probably just as the next General Election looms. There are many details and scenarios to still iron out. It’s concerning that a Bill with these hastily made alterations is being rushed through Parliament with little scrutiny. Politics requires the art of compromise, but this is a completely self-inflicted mess.The threats to the ‘rebel’ MPs before this U-turn mean this cannot in any way be spun as a glittering example of the government’s collaborative approach to policy formation. Someone will have to take a fall for this. It could potentially be Starmer. We really need to get our shit together. Julian Vaughan 26th June 2025 Sources and further reading House of Commons Library Briefing: Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10296/ Department for Work and Pensions Press Release (30th June): Further details on welfare reforms published ahead of second reading: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-details-on-welfare-reforms-published-ahead-of-second-reading Updated Impact Assessment following recent changes to UC and PIP Bill – updated 30th June 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-statement-social-security-changes-updated-impact-on-poverty-levels-in-great-britain/spring-statement-social-security-changes-updated-impact-on-poverty-levels-in-great-britain Original Impact Assessment of UC and PIP Bill – posted 18th June 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper/spring-statement-2025-health-and-disability-benefit-reforms-impacts

Earlier today, we attended a site visit to the lift works at Biggleswade railway station. This site visit was hosted by Network Rail and apart from members of the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network team, was attended by local Town Councillors, Central Bedfordshire Councillors, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) representatives and our local MP Richard Fuller. Below is a Q&A on the main questions asked during the site visit . Q. When will the lifts come into service? Work is progressing well. The lifts are likely to come into service by Christmas 2025. There is a best-case scenario of late November and a contractual date of 31st December. Q. Will the lifts be open from first train until last? We have been asking this question from the start of the campaign – and asked it again today! We were told the expectation is that the station will be staffed from the first until last trains and GTR has put in a funding request for the extra staff required. This request is currently sitting with the Department for Transport. Bearing in mind that we are now within 5 months of the lifts opening, we really need a decision quickly. There was a mention of ‘mobile assistance teams’ if the funding for full-time staff is not forthcoming. We will be asking for more details on this if it ends up being the option chosen, as we have received mixed reports on their effectiveness. Q. What work is still left to do? The necessary cables have now been installed to provide power to the lifts – this was previously a potential pinch-point for the progress of the project. Lighting, handrails and CCTV still need to be installed on the ramp leading up to the new bridge and work continues on the lifts themselves. Q. When will the hoardings be removed? The majority of the hoarding will probably be removed in September, with the hoarding directly around the lifts being removed during October. Testing of the lifts before they enter passenger service will take place during November. We have requested that the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network Team ‘road test’ the ramps/lifts before they open. Q. Will I still be able to access the platforms from the current bridge? Yes, the current access points will remain open. From the outset, we have made clear that the current stairs should remain open and that the stairs to the new bridge are an addition rather than a replacement. The principle behind this is to ‘future-proof’ the station for increased passenger numbers and enable the station to be used safely during peak times. Those who get off trains in the rush hour will be fully aware of the congestion at the bottom of the stairs. The new lift shafts at Biggleswade station So, after many years of campaigning, Biggleswade will soon have a railway station that is accessible to everyone. This is long overdue, but very welcome news. However, there is still much work to do to improve accessibility across the UK rail network, much of which is a no-go area for wheelchair users, those with restricted mobility and parents with young children. We also need to fix the issue of train and bus companies not being required to speak to each other to co-ordinate their timetables to provide maximum benefit to passengers, to ensure that public transport is a viable alternative to the car. Thank you to all who have helped throughout the campaign. We will not rest until the lifts are actually open! If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at the address below. Julian Vaughan and Paul Day from the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network Julian Vaughan Chair Bedfordshire Rail Access Network email: bedsrailaccessnetwork@gmail.com

Following my research into how funding received from housing developers is spent in our communities, I posted The secret world of S106 funding blog on my social media. Of course, while social media can be a useful tool, it is no substitute for actually getting in touch with the decision makers directly. As the planning department failed to come back with a response to my queries, I contacted the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council directly. The email is below in full. I will provide an update when I receive a response. Dear Adam Following the commencement of the recent development in Langford, 150+ houses (CB/19/00336/OUT) just South of Cambridge Road, bordering the East Coast Mainline, I started doing some investigation into how S106 funding is spent within Central Bedfordshire and the transparency and accountability of that funding. My research does raise a number of issues, that I would be grateful if you could answer. I have approached CBC’s planning department on a number of occasions, but apart from an initial contact and a promise to look into the issue I have not received a response, which is why I am forwarding it to you. The results of this research are contained in the following blog: http://julianvaughan.blog/2023/10/31/the-secret-world-of-s106-funding/ This research also links to the provision of cycle routes across the Biggleswade, Langford, and Arlesey area, and I am pleased to see that the Council has adopted my suggestions, put to the Council in 2021, for a route that links these three areas into the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan proposals currently out for consultation. You can read these suggestions here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2021/09/02/safe-cycle-routes-for-langford/ My questions are as follows: 1. While the Council does post data on S106 funding per parish ( for reference here: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/2 I have included a link to this in the blog) in terms of the following: date received, unallocated, committed, spent. However, the Infrastructure Funding Statements do not provide sufficient detail on how the money was spent and which development that spent money was received from – a link to the Infrastructure Funding Statements here: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/8 You will be able to see that when the money comes in it is directly linked to a planning application, but when it is actually spent no such link is shown, just the amount and what the project is. This means that it is difficult if not impossible to trace the money from the start of the process – the signing of the S106 agreement, through to the end of the process – the money being spent on an infrastructure project. Further, I had to spend a considerable amount of time looking at different links and Excel spreadsheets to bring all this information together. Q: How will the Council substantially improve the transparency and accountability of the S106 funding and spending process – and in a form easily accessible and understandable to the public? 2. From the 2021/2022 Infrastructure Funding Statement (the latest statement online) we can see that there are £45 million (image attached) of unallocated funds from previous years, some of this funding is from a number of years ago and a few of the S106 funding amounts risk being clawed back. This £45 million is a substantial increase from earlier years. Bearing in mind that the Central Bedfordshire area is in desperate need of improved infrastructure this level of unused funding is a concern. Further, this money hanging around over a number of years results in less accountability about where this money eventually ends up. I know you have personally raised concerns in the past about funding being obtained from one village or town and then spent in areas a significant distance from those areas. Q: What steps are the Council taking to ensure that this money is spent promptly and in the locations where the development took place? Will you also provide the latest unallocated S106 funding amounts? 3. The S106 funding agreement for the development states that £80,000 is to be provided towards a scheme to provide pedestrian and cycle access over the East Coast Mainline (via the humpback bridge at the end of Edworth Road). This money has been received by the Council, but the project was de-linked from the development during discussions at a Development Management Committee Meeting in September 2019. As I set out in the blog, what is happening with this scheme is a bit of a mystery, to me as well as the Parish and Ward Councillors. However, I can see from the recently opened consultation on cycle routes in the area that there is a proposal to link up the cycle routes via improvements to the humpback bridge. This would link a proposed cycle route just to the East of the railway line running all the way up to Biggleswade with a route running through the new development off Cambridge Road in Langford onto Henlow and Arlesey. Q: Can you advise me of the status of this project, which would bring safety as well as connectivity benefits to the area? 4. From the conversations I have had, local parish councils have little say in how the S106 funding is allocated within their areas. Parish Councils have a significant level of understanding about what their communities need, but this knowledge seems to be being ignored. This goes against what Central Bedfordshire Council set out in the Mythbuster infographic (attached) which talks about the importance of involving the relevant Parish Council at virtually every step of the process, from pre-application to completion. Q: What steps will Central Bedfordshire Council take to improve this? With trust in politicians at a low ebb and the lack of infrastructure in the area a hot topic, I hope you will agree that the issues discussed above are an area that needs improvement. Happy to discuss this further either on the phone or in person if it would be helpful. Due to the interest in and importance of these issues, please regard this as an open letter. Many thanks Julian Vaughan 2nd November 2023 *Update – I received an email response from Adam Zerny later that afternoon saying that he will discuss the issues raised in the email with officers and ensure that I get answers. I will update you when I receive a full response. A ‘myth buster’ infographic produced by Central Bedfordshire Council highlighting the involvement of local town and parish councils in the S106 allocation process. Unallocated funding received by Central Bedfordshire Council from housing developers via S106 funding. This is an increase from £29 million two years earlier. #UKpolitics #housing #Bedfordshire #S106funding #democracy #Politics #accountability #transparency #Hertfordshire

One of the most frequent issues that came up on the doorstep while campaigning during the Mid Bedfordshire by-election was the number of housing developments lacking associated infrastructure. Having walked around numerous housing estates over the last few months it seems that developers are permitted to lazily lob in a generic play area and completely ignore the need for any shops, community spaces, or anything at all for older children. The fact that we need more houses, particularly affordable houses is undeniable, but people are rightly unhappy about how the new housing does not seem to bring the much-needed infrastructure along with it – and the resulting pressure that is put on our doctors, schools and roads. Firstly, to meet the significant challenge of climate change we will need to both cut CO2 emissions from our housing stock and reduce our reliance on the car. Secondly, to help get communities onside with the need for more housing we must be transparent about how money received from developers (known as S106 funding) is allocated. Currently, I believe we are failing in both areas. This blog will talk about, and evidence, the lack of transparency in how this money is spent as well as the need for dedicated cycle lanes, separate from road traffic, to encourage a modal shift from the car to the bike to reduce pollution, cut our CO2 emissions and promote a healthier lifestyle. What is S106 funding? The definition of S106 funding, taken from the Local Government Association website is as follows: “Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism which makes a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site-specific mitigation of the impact of development. S106 agreements are often referred to as ‘developer contributions'”. There is a very useful Q&A on S106 produced by East Lindsey Council here: https://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/media/10014/Section-106-Contributions-Facts-and-Questions/pdf/Section_106_Contributions_Facts_and_Questions.pdf and below is a ‘myth buster’ re S106 funding from Central Bedfordshire Council below. Cycle routes in Bedfordshire I will discuss S106 funding, specifically in relation to a development in Langford, Bedfordshire later in this blog, but before then a brief description of cycle paths, or the lack of them, across Langford and the surrounding area. There is currently a significant gap in the National Cycle Network between Arlesey and Biggleswade and anyone cycling between these two towns has to share the road with cars and lorries or travel along poorly maintained unlit bridleways prone to flooding and barely suitable for cyclists commuting to work. Improvements to the cycle network in the Langford area (Langford is a sizeable village with 3,712 residents in 2021) have been identified for many years. These improvements were set out in the Local Area Transport Plan (LATP) for Arlesey and Stotfold, published in 2013 and covering the period between 2011 and 2026. The main areas of improvement are set out in the table below. 10 years on and we are still waiting for a cycle route between Langford and Biggleswade, real-time information signs at bus stops in Langford and new bridleways on the East side of the railway line. Currently, the bridleways to the East of the railway line, the vertical line in the centre of the map below, are fragmented and do not provide a direct route between Langford and Biggleswade. A map of the footpaths and bridleways in the Langford area. The brown dotted line indicates a potential route to link the bridleways between Arlesey and Biggleswade. S106 funding agreement The need to provide both a safe cycle route across the East Coast Mainline railway and the linking up of bridleways seemed to have at last been recognised in the S106 funding agreement for 150 houses planned on the South East edge of the village of Langford. The Section 106 funding agreement relating to the housing development off Cambridge Road, Langford was signed on 16th April 2021, and planning permission was granted three days later on 19th April. This funding agreement included the following commitments: Part two of the agreement sets out that the ‘Highways Contribution’ must be paid prior to the commencement of the development and the ‘Cycle Links Contribution’ paid in instalments as the development is occupied. For reference, below is a selection of some of the other S106 funding for the local(ish) area: For those who live in Langford, the more detailed table below may be of particular interest. The table shows the itemised S106 amounts for each contribution type. Data from P139 of September 11th 2019 Development Management Committee Meeting pack relating to application number CB/19/00336/OUT While researching for this blog I did manage to find more information about the status of the S106 funding in terms of whether it had been received by the council from the developer and if those funds received have yet to be committed. Here is the link for these reports for parishes across Central Bedfordshire: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/2 However, while this information is welcome it lacks detail on how exactly the money was spent, if indeed it has been spent at all, and the data also indicates that a significant amount of money received up to 10 years ago remains ‘uncommitted’. It is not clear whether this is due to data not being regularly updated, or whether there is a large fund of uncommitted money/committed money not yet spent in local council coffers. Either way, the lack of transparency of the data and the publicity given to it means that the general public has little idea of the benefits provided to their communities via developers’ contributions. Returning to the cycle path issue in Langford, an outline of the plan to ensure cycle and pedestrian access across the East Coast railway line via the humpback bridge was set out in a memo (dated April 2019) from Central Bedfordshire’s Highways Department to the Principal Planning Officer. The relevant sections of this memo are set out below: In addition to these plans there is a memo (dated April 2019) from the Rights of Way Officer detailing plans for a bridleway extension across the humpback bridge: Indicative map created by the Central Beds Council Rights of Way Officer. The grey vertical line just to the right of centre indicates the path of the East Coast Mainline. The humpback bridge crosses this at the Edworth Road/Cambridge Road junction The two memos from the Highways and Rights of Way officers to the Principal Planning officer were responses to a consultation, so it doesn’t mean what they recommend will actually take place – although I would argue that extending and linking bridleways should be a priority for any local council if they are serious about promoting sustainable means of travel. It is clear that the local Parish Council had concerns about whether these plans were going to be taken forward in the planning application and set out these concerns in an email to Central Bedfordshire Council on 13th September 2019. Looking back at the relevant minutes of the Central Bedfordshire Council Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting on 11th September 2019 (two days before the email above) the Highways Officer again puts forward the case for speed reduction measures and pedestrian and cycle route access over the East Coast Mainline via the humpback bridge – further they suggest an £80,000 contribution via S106 funding to assist in achieving this. Further down in the minutes the Rights of Way Officer again suggests linking up the bridleways via the humpback bridge (see Figure 1 above). The response of the Central Bedfordshire planners to these two issues is confusing and lacking in necessary detail. The response to the Rights of Way Officer’s suggestion is fairly straightforward, if disappointing. They rule out linking Bridleway 4 and Bridleway 8 due to the slope of the land on the Southern side of Cambridge Road leading up to the humpback bridge, but point out that a contribution of £40,000 has been agreed by the developer to “provide cycle links between the development and Arlesey and Biggleswade stations”. The planners’ response to the Highways Officer’s recommendations is far less straightforward and just as disappointing. It agrees that speed reduction measures should take place and the £80,000 figure, but states that these be de-linked from the delivery of the development. Crucially their reasoning for their decisions lacks any detail on the nature of the speed reduction and fails to mention anything about cycle or pedestrian access across the humpback bridge. As the proposals (whatever they are) have been de-linked from the development they were not included in the ‘recommended conditions’ which must be satisfied to enable the development to proceed. The humpback bridge looking towards Langford and the site of the new development. From this point, the trail of what exactly is happening in terms of creating a cycle route across the humpback bridge goes cold. The issue has been raised in a number of Langford Parish Council meetings, including by me as a member of the public in October 2021. However, despite the issue being raised by myself and others, and answers sought from Councillor attendees, no answers have been forthcoming. What is known is that to date Central Bedfordshire Council has received the £80,000 Highways contribution and £20,000 of the contribution to cycle paths between Arlesey, Langford and Biggleswade. What is unknown is how the Council intends to spend this money and whether it will be spent as per what is set out in the S106 funding agreement. While the planning team at the Council have acknowledged my query, they have yet to provide a satisfactory response. Conclusion Central Bedfordshire’s cycle network, like many other areas across the UK, is badly fragmented – and where it does exist cyclists will often have to share the road with cars and lorries. Councils seem to believe that painting a white bicycle on the road surface somehow provides cyclists protection – a lazy tick-box attitude that does little to solve the issues faced by cyclists. A perceived lack of safety puts off many potential cyclists and it’s clear that a modal shift from our cars to our bikes will not occur until we have dedicated cycle lanes separated from vehicle traffic. The looming climate emergency means that we must take all practicable steps to reduce car use and increase cycling, walking and the use of public transport as sustainable means of travel. Further, cycle paths need to be of a sufficient standard to encourage commuter as well as leisure use. Turning up to work looking like you’ve just taken part in a cyclo-cross event is clearly not acceptable. Bridleway 9 South of Biggleswade We also need far more transparency in how the money received by Councils from developers is spent in our communities. Currently, as I have found out through researching this blog, this means looking through multiple pages online and delving through Excel spreadsheets, without actually getting to the bottom of how monies have been spent. This lack of transparency and accountability further erodes our trust in politics and politicians. Creating linked-up cycle networks across the Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire region isn’t rocket science. However, they will need funding and Councillors and Councils with both the vision to make them happen as well as the ability to work with landowners across the region to come to agreements regarding land use. There will be challenges, but the multiple benefits of lower pollution, reduced congestion on our roads, cuts to our CO2 emissions and a healthier population are surely worth the time, effort and money required. Julian Vaughan 30th October 2023 *Postscript: When doing some final checks prior to posting I did find further information on how S106 funding is spent across Central Bedfordshire. The link to the latest reports can be found here: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/8 I note that while the collection of the money is set out per development, when the money is actually spent it is not clear from which development in which village this money originated from. Further, it is clear there is a substantial amount of money that has been received by the council, but has yet to be allocated. As this money could be held for a number of years it further reduces the transparency of the process. The table below shows the amount of unallocated money from previous years up to 2021/22. This figure of almost £46 million is a substantial increase in unallocated funds from just two years previously when the figure stood at £29 million. For reference, the ‘Leisure and Libraries’ budget for 2023/24 is £5.1 million. Sources and Further reading S106 FAQs https://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/media/10014/Section-106-Contributions-Facts-and-Questions/pdf/Section_106_Contributions_Facts_and_Questions.pdf Central Bedfordshire Council decision re Land of Cambridge Road, Langford https://cms-centralbedfordshire-uk.azeusconvene.com/data/45cdcad9-fd9d-4452-9bbd-a1b90ac50b6a/parts/6.2%2019.00336%20Report.pdf Central Bedfordshire Rights of Way https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/82/countryside/431/rights_of_way Sustrans – National Cycle Network https://www.sustrans.org.uk/national-cycle-network Langford Parish Council Minutes https://langford-pc.gov.uk/parish-council-minutes/ Langford Neighbourhood Plan https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory_record/87061/langford_neighbourhood_plan Central Bedfordshire S106 funding agreements by Parish https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/2 Central Bedfordshire Council – Development Management Committee minutes 2019 onwards https://cms-centralbedfordshire-uk.azeusconvene.com/index.html?TYPE=hFUdrecOOu #UKpolitics #biggleswade #cyclepaths #sustainabletravel #Bedfordshire #Langford #S106funding #Politics #cycleroutes #Arlesey #transparency #housingdevelopment

Rishi Sunak believes that a General Election is “not what anyone wants”. After the Tories’ disastrous Conference in Manchester, he is in a vanishingly small minority. For Sunak to stand behind a lectern in Manchester emblazoned with the slogan “long-term decisions for a brighter future” while announcing the shelving of the HS2 route to Manchester, is either arrogance or stupidity, or a mixture of both, depending on your point of view. The build-up to the Conference, with Sunak rowing back on the UK’s net zero commitments, gave an indication of what was to come and both Sunak’s and Braverman’s speeches set out the direction of travel for a Tory party out of ideas and lacking any sensible heads to correct their frantic dance towards the hard right. While Mordaunt’s “stand up and fight” warm up act was just bizarre, Sunak’s speech was deeply disturbing. Acknowledging that trans people are among the most vulnerable and persecuted groups in our society doesn’t diminish the rights of anyone else. Words matter – Sunak’s deplorable speech, a cynical attempt to cling to power, is very likely to lead to more abuse and violence against transgender people. Solidarity with all those in the LGBTQ+ community. Apart from the wildly inaccurate portrayal of Labour policy, Braverman’s dog-whistle filled rant failed to mention the huge cultural, societal and economic benefits migrants have brought to the UK or the need for the UK to play a role in reducing global inequality. The Tories talked about making long-term decisions and taking the “difficult options” all while blitzing us with their scattergun policy offerings that are both short-term and purely for political gain. The public deserves better than a government flailing around desperately trying to stoke up culture wars while creating false enemies. I am proud to be British and it is distressing to see how this government is trashing our public services and our reputation around the world. All this Tory government has left to offer is to sow hate and division. We are better than this. A Labour government will have a fair, effective asylum system and will tackle inequality, poverty and the impacts of climate change around the world. After 13 years of a Tory government’s indifference and mismanagement, it is time for empathy, compassion and competence in our politics. The Tories won’t provide this – a Labour government will. Julian Vaughan 7th October 2023 #Politics #UKpolitics

Due to the threat of legal action by disability activists and a number of metro mayors, the 21-day consultation window on the Rail Delivery Group’s (RDG) proposals to close almost 1,000 ticket offices across the rail network has been extended to 1st September. As of around a week ago, some 170,000 responses to the consultation had already been received and it is clear that the public are overwhelmingly against the closures. For an in-depth look at my interpretation of the spin coming from both the RDG and the Department for Transport click here. On behalf of both the Arlesey and Biggleswade Rail User Groups, I collated and forwarded a number of questions to Thameslink and Great Northern Railway. The questions and their replies (received on 28th July) are set out in full below. 1.  What happens if the Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) are not working and a passenger is unable to buy a ticket prior to boarding a train? A:  As today, if a ticket machine is not working then customers will be able to board a service and purchase a ticket at their destination. 2.  Will extra TVMs be provided at either station? A:  No, this is not part of the current proposals. 3.  Will the location of the TVMs be changed at either station? An additional TVM for the N/B platform at Arlesey? The current location of the TVMs can obstruct the public from walking across the bridge. A:  We would be open to looking at the best locations for TVMs at stations following consultation feedback. We previously moved one TVM from the platform to the front of the station at the request of the Rail User Group. 4.   What will the ticket offices be re-purposed for? A:   Possible options could include using the space for commercial, community or social use. Staff will also continue to need space for rest breaks and toilet facilities etc. This will depend on the station and no decisions have been made. 5.   How will I know I am getting the best-value ticket? For example, the ‘super off-peak’ ticket is not on the top page of the TVM display. A:   Our ticket machines are set up to show the lowest cost National Rail through fare based on the information a customer puts in. 6.   What welfare facilities will there be for platform staff and will there be a place of safety for staff who are lone working? A:  Staff will continue to need space for rest breaks and places of safety, so this would continue to be provided. 7.   Can cash be used in the TVMs? A:   Yes, both Arlesey and Biggleswade have cash TVMs 8.  How will problems with tickets purchased via ‘Trainline’ be resolved? Currently, these are resolved by ticket office staff via a downloaded NCode exchange letter from Trainline. A:  Trainline will be able to advise their customers on what they will need to do. 9.  As the proposals are to close the ticket office, will there be additional sheltered waiting areas installed? A:  We do not have any plans for additional waiting shelters under these proposals, but existing waiting rooms and shelters will remain available to passengers. 10. Other Train Operating Companies (Southeastern for example) have published their Equality Impact Assessments for each individual station. Why hasn’t GTR? A:  Initial versions of Equality Impact Assessments for each individual station have been completed and shared with the Department for Transport, Transport Focus and London TravelWatch as part of the consultation process. These are however live documents, so are continuously being refined based on consultation input. 11.  Can GTR guarantee that there will not be a reduction in the total current combined headcount of ticket office/platform staff? A: As part of these proposals, there may be some potential for redundancies for a certain number of staff across the network, especially as not all staff may be interested in the proposed new roles. We cannot pre-empt the outcome of consultation but will be consulting with the trade unions on avoiding job losses. 12.  Will the current platform staff presence outside of ticket office opening times be maintained? For example the platform staff present at Arlesey and Biggleswade between 16.00 and 20.00 Monday to Friday. A: It will vary by location and in part depends on the type of staff and why they are at a location. Schedule 17 should not be confused with station staffing, as while there is a link with single member of staff locations, most stations such as Biggleswade are already staffed far in excess of Schedule 17 hours such as for accessibility, dispatch, or revenue / security as examples. Platform staff are not involved in retail, so no change at Biggleswade for example. As a rough rule of thumb for a network-wide view, where a station only has a ticket office, the proposed ticketing assistance hours match. Where a station has a ticket office and a gateline, the hours match the gateline as these exceed ticket office hours. Medium size or large stations often have other forms of staff such as platform staff, or dedicated accessibility staff whose hours will normally exceed both – they are not proposed to become involved in retail however, so do not feature. 13.  Will there be a core location point for the assistance staff so that passengers will know where to go for help? Or will passengers, including disabled passengers have to go looking around the station for them? How do you expect this will impact passengers with disabilities? A:    We understand how important meeting points are as a consistent static point for customers to seek assistance and will be reviewing their locations as part of the proposals to establish a new policy for our station meeting points. This will also give us the opportunity to make sure they are in the best place for customers who need assistance (ie. easy to find and in an accessible location) and work with industry partners on a consistent approach across the country.. We will continue to provide support in line with our Accessible Travel Policy. 14.   Will your changes restrict the ability of disabled passengers to ‘Turn Up and Go’ (TUAG) rather than book assistance in advance? A:     We will continue to provide support in line with our Accessible Travel Policy, for example turn up and go support such as ramp access for disabled customers. 15.   Will it be possible to purchase and load a Smartcard for immediate use from ticket machines? A:   Ticket machines are not able to issue new smart cards, but customers will be able to purchase and load tickets onto smart cards at the ticket machines. 16.   Where will the nearest retained ticket office be located? A:    Additional retailing facilities are proposed to be available at Peterborough, Huntingdon, Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Cambridge, Finsbury Park, St Pancras and King’s Cross. 17.  If I have to travel to an open ticket office to purchase a ticket that is not available from a TVM will I have to buy a ticket to travel to this location? How will I be reimbursed? A:   Yes, you will need a valid ticket for your journey. This will be refunded by the staff at the station. 18.  What plans are there to improve the reliability of the TVMs? A:   The role of the station teams will continue to include maintenance of the TVMs to mitigate against them going out of service, plus fault reporting for any issues that they are not able to fix through established finger-tip maintenance processes. We will also continue to monitor TVM availability remotely and investigate any issues, as per current procedures and to ensure any repairs are carried out as quickly as possible. 19.   When will an e-ticket option to Finsbury Park be available? A:   We are working on this with Transport for London as it is their station, they are looking into options to support the acceptance of eTickets at their stations. 20.   How will passengers purchase split tickets? A:     Split ticketing options will remain available as today online or manually via machines. 21.   When will a day return with London Underground Zone 1 only be available to purchase from a TVM? This is currently only available from a ticket office. A:    They are already available to purchase Online and we looking at options to make more products available via the ticket machines. 22.   How will a passenger purchase a ticket via a Warrant or travel Voucher? A:   You will be able to use a Warrant or Voucher at a station with additional ticketing facilities.  This is also being examined at an industry-wide level 23.   How will passengers exchange delay repay/enhanced delay repay tickets? A:    If you mean a Delay Repay Voucher, you will be able to use one at a larger station with additional ticket facilities. This is also being examined at an industry-wide level 24.   What are the estimated cost savings of these proposals? At a station by station and total level. A:    While we clearly need to ensure the railway is efficient and sustainable for the long term, we cannot pre-empt the result of the public and employee consultations. 25.   How will passengers purchase cheaper advance tickets? A:   They will be available to purchase Online or at a larger station.  This is also being examined at an industry-wide level 26.   How will passengers apply for ticket refunds? How much longer will this process take? A:   Passengers will be able to get refunds Online and by post via our Customer Services team as today, or at a larger station with additional facilities. 27.   What options will be available for passengers wishing to purchase a railcard who can’t buy one online? A:    They will be available at a larger station, with some already being available by post. 28.   How will ‘Priv’ tickets be purchased? A:     They are already available to purchase online, and will be available at a larger station with additional facilities. 29.   Currently £2 child fares can be purchased at a later time than the adult ticket was purchased. With TVMs, these will need to be purchased at the same time. How will GTR resolve this? A:     They will continue to remain available at a larger station with additional facilities, and we are currently looking at options to make more products available online or via ticket machines. Julian Vaughan Chair Bedfordshire Rail Access Network 1st August 2023 Further reading and links to have your say below: Train station ticket office consultation Homepage Rail Delivery Group: Customer Focused Stations July 2023 https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/uk-rail-industry/customer-focused-reform/customer-focused-stations.html? I also recommend following the Association of British Commuters who do excellent campaign work for justice and equality in public transport. #UKpolitics #ticketofficeclosures #accessibility #publictransport #railways #Politics #ukrailways #Transport #ticketoffices