House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 May 1990

Column 462

then Ministers derided my hon. Friend's concern about congestion, lack of investment and all the other problems. Of course, he has now been proved right.

When LRT took over from the Greater London council--the democratically elected transport authority for London--the Government pledged that, because there would be no democratic debate in LRT's board--its members were appointed, not elected--Members of Parliament would fulfil the role of elected councillors. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West argued that, because of problems with time and because Members of Parliament must consider national issues, they could not do such a good job as the elected local councillors had done.

Nevertheless, the Government pledged that there would be an annual debate on LRT, under the umbrella of the levy order. Because of the introduction of poll tax, the levy order has been dropped. Londoners still pay towards LRT. The Government have reduced the grant to London local authorities, so poll tax bills are higher than they should be. We can no longer have the annual debate because the levy order has been dropped, so democratically accountable Members of Parliament cannot raise issues on behalf of their constituents. I wrote to the Leader of the House and complained bitterly about that, but he said that it did not matter. He said that there would be many other opportunities for hon. Members to raise points about LRT, such as during questions.

Mr. Tony Banks : We cannot get in during questions.

Mr. Cohen : That is right. Question Time is no substitute for a proper debate. If an hon. Member does not have a question in the top 10, he is unlikely to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Many other national transport issues are involved.

Having received that reply from the Leader of the House, I assumed that he meant that we could raise points in debates such as this. Perhaps that is why this Bill from LRT has jumped the queue. It is a conspiracy. The Leader of the House is trying to help me by allowing LRT to jump the queue. That is no way to deal with these matters. We are discussing a specific item about penalty fares, so London hon. Members probably do not know that they can raise other issues to do with LRT. Perhaps that is why they are not here. I had it on the good authority of the Leader of the House that we can raise other matters, and I shall do just that.

Mrs. Wise : My hon. Friend mentioned democratic accountability. Is he aware of the good work of the GLC in making the then London Transport more accountable? Even more should have been done, and the GLC should have had a tighter grip on London Transport. My hon. Friend may not be aware of the many important changes for the benefit of women and, indeed, for the continuing good business of London Transport.

For example, the then chair of the GLC women's committee, as an elected councillor speaking on behalf of the women of London, approached London Transport with the full facts and figures about the obnoxious advertising that was a positive danger and that caused great distress to women. She prevailed on the then board of London Transport to alter its policy and to show more respect for women. She pointed out that women were afraid to travel because of the feelings aroused by those

Column 463

advertisements. She was able to do that because there was democratic accountability. All that valuable work has now been cut off.

Mr. Tony Banks : Who was the chair of that committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that hon. Members will recollect that we are dealing with penalty fares.

Mr. Cohen : I certainly recollect that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, we are talking about fines. If deeply offensive advertisements appear on tubes and buses, LRT should be made to pay compensation to those who find them distressing.

Mrs. Wise : London Regional Transport has not dared to revert to London Transport's policy. That democratic accountability still has a ripple effect. However, the longer that London is without a democracy the greater the danger that the gains will be lost.

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She referred to the chair of the GLC women's committee. I can reveal that it was none other than Councillor Valerie Wise, my hon. Friend's daughter. She was well trained in democratic accountability and good policies for women and for London's passengers in general. Of course, Dave Wexall also did excellent work. He has a fantastic record. If we compare how transport was run under the GLC and how it is run by the new lot, Dave Wexall comes out with flying colours. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West contributed a great deal to the improved policies and democratic accountability. The former leader of the GLC, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), played an important part.

I sense that you are about to stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we could do with a higher political profile in London. Someone like my hon. Friend--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. I realise that he is being tempted by some very tempting interventions, but I am sure he will direct his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Cohen : The point about accountability is important. London Regional Transport has its hands on the money. Under this Bill, it will also have its hands on the penalty fares. It is already abusing the system with all the cuts in services. There are declining conditions--filthy stations and congestion.

Mr. Skinner : The £26 million to which reference has been made is a flea bite compared with the £6 billion-worth of fraud that took place in the Common Market and which the Tories voted to permit. Let us not forget that, after a debate in which my hon. Friends and I said that we did not like the idea of £6 billion-worth of fraud occurring in the EC, the Tories, led by the Prime Minister, voted, in effect saying, "That's okay, because it's the Common Market."

It is clear that we are talking about fraud, in this case said to be worth £26 million. In view of my hon. Friend's knowledge of this subject, he should explain clearly what is likely to happen to that £26 million. I have come into the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of this subject I respect. Will he say what the new model Labour plan is for London Regional Transport? Will he

Column 464

throw out a few ideas about what the future holds for LRT, without our needing to potter about with private Bills?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will contribute to the debate later. Meanwhile, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to encourage him by being forthright. Let us have a little adventure and imagination.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am all for adventure, so long as it is within the context of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen : I agree with money being spent on the tubes and buses for the benefit of Londoners and passengers generally. I fear that, if we pass the Bill and LRT gets its hands on the money, it will go straight to the Treasury, which will then further reduce the subsidy to LRT, which has been cut already. We know what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will do with the money--

Mr. Skinner : Build bigger gates at the entrance to Downing street.

Mr. Cohen : Exactly--provide bigger gates to No. 10. In that context, I can reveal that there is a secret underground railway system from the Ministry of Defence, No. 10 and other Government Departments to certain destinations. I would like to bet that penalty fares will not be imposed on that tube line. I want the sponsor of the Bill to say whether its provisions will apply to the Prime Minister when she jumps on the secret tube that operates from No. 10 Downing street and takes her out into the country when there is a revolution. Will a penalty fare be imposed on her if she does not pay her fare? Do inspectors exist with authority to go on that secret line? We must have answers to those questions because, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover may be right to say that the additional money will go on bigger gates at the entrance to Downing street, some of it may go on improving that secret underground system, so enabling the Prime Minister, bureaucrats and top civil servants to enjoy it. Whatever happens, the public will not get the benefit of the money.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : I hope that my hon. Friend is not dodging the question of what will happen to the £26 million. I understood that the case for the Bill last year was that £26 million was being lost. That was claimed before the automatic gates were introduced. Was not the idea of the automatic gates--apart from chopping people up--to stop that fraud? How much fraud is going on now, and how much is likely to be saved as a result of the Bill?

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend is right to say that the excuse for introducing these mechanical rottweilers, as the automatic ticket barriers can be described--let us not forget that people have been badly injured when the gates have closed on them--was to reduce the £26 million of evasion. There was no proof last year that that was the loss. But now, the mechanical rottweilers having been introduced at many stations, we are told that £26 million is still being lost. As a result, LRT is apparently introducing what is described as a touch-and-pass system.

Mr. Skinner : What is that?

Mr. Cohen : It is for the sponsor to answer my hon. Friend's question. I believe that it will operate on tickets the way in which goods are passed over a magic eye at

Column 465

Sainsburys. A photographic eye will open the barrier, I gather, although we have yet to be told whether barriers will be associated with the new machinery. The fact that LRT is moving to a new system so quickly, having spent £150 million installing ticket barriers, is an admission that there has been an appalling waste of money by the unaccountable, Government-appointed board of LRT.

Let us compare that expenditure of £150 million with the £26 million that it is claimed is being lost through evasion. It is said, "The Conservatives cost you less." What a waste we have witnessed already. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was right to speak of the waste that has occurred in the Common Market. We could also refer to the fraud at Harrods--

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : About £600 million.

Mr. Cohen : Worth millions, as my hon. Friend points out. There has not been a glimmer of action from the Government on that. We do not see any private Bills on that subject. What about the Johnson Matthey fraud?

Mr. Skinner : About £100 million.

Mr. Cohen : That involved millions, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Sedentary interruptions are putting the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) off his stride. They are most unfair.

Mr. Cohen : Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only last week, a mugger snatched a suitcase from somebody in the street and made off with Treasury bonds, which are apparently exchangeable for cash, worth £292 million. Frankly, something stinks over that. I do not believe that an individual could have got away with a crime such as that. Organised people must have been behind it.

Mr. Skinner : How did the mugger get away?

Mr. Cohen : He probably made off on the tube, having paid his fare. Apparently no inspector was in evidence to ask him to open his suitcase, as will happen to others on the tube.

As I explained, the money that is raised will go to the Treasury and be wasted, as it has wasted £83 billion of North sea oil revenues. This will be a drop in the ocean by comparison. It will be used as a bribe at the next general election and, when that is over, it will finance huge tax cuts for the rich. In other words, somebody who has not paid his fare will be caught and the money raised by that means will go to the rich, rather than to LRT to run a better service for its passengers.

The railway inspectorate's report on one-man operated trains has been censored. We do not know how dangerous such trains will be--for example, they may have to stop deep in tunnels--but when they are introduced, fare evasion will increase, just as it did on the buses. High fares also mean greater fare evasion. When fares go up way above the rate of inflation, as they have done, more people cannot afford them and so are encouraged to try to avoid paying. There should be better ticket facilities at every station- -not just machines but ticket offices with staff. At the moment, with one person at each ticket office there are big queues, and that encourages people in a hurry to dodge a queue and not pay their fares. They are

Column 466

desperate to get into work, yet they see train after train going. They are afraid that the boss will fine them--not London Regional Transport--by docking their wages if they do not get to work on time. Staffing is a key element.

In line with Government policy, LRT can spend as much money as it wants on white elephants such as ticket barriers--just like the channel tunnel and other such projects--but the purpose is to cut staff ; to put people out of work who would otherwise be doing a good job and playing a role in safety. The Government do not care how much money they spend on throwing people out of work. They see that as weakening trade unions.

Mrs. Wise : Is my hon. Friend aware of another hazard that arises from the introduction of machines which accept £5 notes? If a machine goes wrong, because of the lack of staff, a passenger must wait and wait. It is embarrassing to have to elbow a queue aside for attention, but people simply cannot afford to leave their £5 note in the machine. That illustrates the need for more staff to help in the issuing of tickets, which in turn will reduce fare evasion.

Mr. Tony Banks : Machines which will take an arm and a leg.

Mr. Cohen : Taking £5 for a fare is taking an arm and a leg. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston makes her point well. Lack of staff could lead to terrific disruption and perhaps even a punch-up. People who cannot get their change to see them through the day could cause a fuss while lots of other people are waiting in the queue. I do not have a narrow mouth, as witnessed by my long speech, but many station entrances do, and that makes the automatic ticket barriers dangerous.

The frustration created by not being able to obtain change or by waiting in a queue could lead to a serious punch-up and even loss of life. When that happens, LRT and its board will disclaim all responsibility. They will say that it was nothing to do with them because they were not there, and they will not have been there because their staff will not have been there.

I have said where the money from such penalty fares will go under this Government, but under a Labour Government it would go towards improving the service for passengers. We had a voluminous report on the terrible tragedy at King's Cross, but many of its recommendations have not been carried out. LRT has only just got round to banning smoking on the underground, but it has not banned the shops on the stations from selling cigarettes. Many other recommendations have not been implemented. Safety drills have not been implemented. Again, staffing is crucial to safety procedures. I am sad to have to say that the lessons of the King's Cross fire have not been learnt. Often, when I travel on the tube, I can see that something has been going on. Too many people are waiting, or a platform is empty, and one knows that something has happened. A couple of weeks ago, I was travelling home by car after a late vote in the House when I saw fire engines outside the Embankment station. Luckily, it was late at night, but if it had been the rush hour, the station would have been very busy, because many people, even Members of Parliament, change lines there. There could have been a terrible accident. Fires are still occurring.

Column 467

The lessons of King's Cross have not been learnt, and one reason for that is that there is no money to improve safety measures and to clean up stations. Stations and trains are squalid and dirty. The seats on the train that I travelled on today were falling off ; they were uncomfortable and filthy. Many cleaning staff have been cut. It is most unpleasant for Londoners to travel in such conditions. Even when a train is relatively uncongested, it is most unpleasant to have to sit in such filth and squalor.

The Labour party has said that it will move in the right direction, but I hope that we will put money into safety, into a big clean-up of the underground and into reversing the cuts on the buses. Many pensioners make great use of the free bus pass which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and I were instrumental in winning, with the assistance of all London's pensioners. But what is the good of having a pass without the buses?

Mr. Tony Banks : I take this opportunity to make it clear from the Front Bench on behalf of the Labour party that, when we form the next Government, one of the prime responsibilities of the new London council, which a Labour Government will install through elections in London, will be for transport and transport planning, and many of the good points which my hon. Friend is making in his excellent speech tonight will, I am sure, be embodied in future Government policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.

Mr. Cohen : We are talking about a £10 penalty and, given the level of fare evasion, that will be a lot of money.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : The fines last year were £10 and £5. I understand that, in the past 12 months, there has been a certain measure of inflation. My pensioners reckon that it is about 15 or 16 per cent. I gather that the Government will announce an inflation figure of 9.9 per cent. tomorrow as a fantastic triumph. If there has been 10 per cent. inflation, should not the penalties be £11 and £5.50? Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the Bill, the Secretary of State has power, by order, to increase the figure? Will he inquire of the Minister whether he intends to increase the penalties some time within the next couple of years?

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend has made some telling points. First, he asked why the level of the proposed fine would not take inflation into account. That is because London Regional Transport has given no justification for wanting a particular level of fine : the figure has been plucked out of the air. The point about the Minister being able to alter the fine at random, and without the House debating it properly, is associated with what I said earlier about the rights of debate being taken away from London hon. Members.

That is another reason why we should reject the Bill tonight : it is a blank cheque. Notwithstanding the £5 or £10 specified in the explanatory statement, the day after the Bill was passed, the Minister could say that the Government were increasing that figure to £25 or £50. The House would have no control over that.

I am not convinced that we should go along the route of penalty fines, but money spent by a future Labour Government would be spent on improved safety,

Column 468

improved services, keeping fares down, better staffing and better cleaning on our buses and in our stations. That is what the people want.

Mrs. Wise : Does my hon. Friend agree that any penalty or punishment is effective only if people are caught? The elaborate arrangement of barriers is extremely effective--I fear, too effective : I am nervous in case there is a fire. Even with that effective barrier system, if people continue to evade fares, how can they be caught in the future?

The imposition of a penalty in a Bill is not the same as imposing it on a person. LRT has said that as it will take fewer criminal prosecutions. Does that make it less likely that people will be caught, and more likely that people will take the risk of a £10 fine, rather than the disgrace of a prosecution? Surely that would work against LRT.

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I shall refer to on- the-spot fines later, and whether they will lead to a criminal record.

In my opinion, the barriers have not worked. The problem is that LRT seems to be putting its efforts into what could be a violent campaign. If the inspectors--such as the three that I saw this morning--cannot get their fare, presumably there will be a punch-up if people try to escape without paying. I can envisage a "Rambo of the LRT" : there will be films about "The Bill"--the "Transport Bill" along the lines of "Starsky and Hutch" and "Miami Vice". There is only a small amount of fare evasion, but a would-be script writer for the BBC, the IBA or Sky Television could perhaps create a series called "Tottenham Court Road Vice".

Mrs. Wise : Has my hon. Friend read clause 5 (2)(a) of the Bill? It excludes from penalty anyone who finds that, when he started to travel,

"there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey."

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is quite a common occurrence? I can envisage much nervousness being engendered in passengers who are forced to travel without a fare, and may have to argue the toss about whether they are travelling illegally, or whether that had been thrust on them. Although the Bill excludes them, I can envisage some unpleasant incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to have staff to issue the tickets in the first place, instead of thrusting apparent evasion upon people?

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that clause. Apart from the nervousness caused to passengers who could not obtain a ticket, trying to prove that there were no facilities available at the station where they boarded will be almost impossible, especially when they are surrounded by three burly inspectors. In many cases, I suspect that the money will be forced out of people by intimidation. There should be an absolute guarantee that staff will be available to issue tickets at stations every minute of the day, but there is nothing along those lines in the Bill.

There has been virtually no consultation. LRT has imposed many cuts--for example, on the 38 and 55 bus services that used to run from Leyton garage. That cut was arbitrary. I tabled early-day motion 630, which says :

"That this House condemns London Regional Transport for cutting the 38 and 55 bus routes from Leyton ; notes that this is not only means a reduced service to the public enforcing upon them bus changes, longer waits, extra cost and less safety but also a threat to the jobs at Leyton Bus Garage ; and

Column 469

is further angry at the unaccountable way in which London Regional Transport made this decision effectively ignoring hundreds of letters and a thousand plus signed petition opposing the cuts."

Now the number is approaching 2,000.

I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Le Jeune, who is a public relations officer at LRT. It was addressed to the second sponsor of my motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The letter said that there had been consultation before the cuts to the 38 and 55 buses were made : it was a public relations diatribe.

LRT did indeed consult ; the reply from 1,800 people was that they did not want the cuts. However, it went ahead with them. It was nonsense to say that people were consulted. It is no good consulting people and then not taking any notice of what they say. There has been chicanery on the part of the public relations people in LRT. In March, London Labour Members of Parliament received a letter from the chairman of LRT. He said that the other system of consultation with Members had not been working--I did not know that there was one--and that he would arrange a one-off dinner for London Labour Members. A dinner is a poor substitute for a democratic input of information, but we were to have a dinner. I intended to raise at it the cuts in the Nos. 38 and 55 bus services and the objections of the 1,800 people. Surprise, surprise--the dinner was cancelled. LRT is not interested in an input from the people. Now the dinner has been set up for late July. That is the consultation that is to take place with London Labour Members. It is absolutely derisory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering away from the Bill ; I am sure that he will come back to it.

Mr. Cohen : I was setting the scene in regard to consultation about the Bill. I have already mentioned the short letter we got from the sponsors and the statement we got today in the post. That statement is full of holes. There has not been proper consultation with hon. Members or with councillors. I do not think that there has been any consultation with London councillors. I do not think that there has even been consultation with trade unions. Why does not the statement tell us what the trade unions think about the Bill? When the Bill was before us last Session, I asked what the trade unions had to say because their members may suffer violence as a result of the Bill. Yet again it comes before us, with not a word about what the trade unions think. If they have been consulted, the consultation has not been of much use.

What consultation has there been with the public? Have there been any advertisements in the underground to let people know that the Bill is going through Parliament and that they have a right to make suggestions to LRT or to their Members of Parliament? I have not seen any advertisements. I suspect that most of the public have no idea that we are discussing the matter, because LRT is not interested in telling the public about its plans.

Mrs. Wise : Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just a London matter but that the transport arrangements in the capital affect people who travel to London for many purposes from all parts of the country? Even if there had been excellent consultation arrangements for London

Column 470

Members, it would be grossly inadequate if Members generally were not consulted. It is the concern of all hon. Members.

Does my hon. Friend further accept that it was probably a great service to him that LRT cancelled the consultation dinner, because many of his constituents might have misunderstood it if he had gone to a dinner with LRT when their bus services were being cut? My recommendation would be to insist that LRT consults properly at meetings which are held for the purpose and which are open to the public.

Mr. Cohen : I agree with my hon. Friend, but when there is no other opportunity to raise the concern of my constituents, I have to take whatever opportunities I can. It is not for need of a dinner that I would go--I probably go to fewer dinners than other hon. Members--but it would be a rare opportunity to raise the concern of my constituents.

I intended to co-ordinate the March dinner with the handing in of postcards signed by many objectors in my constituency. When the dinner was cancelled, we went along with the postcards and the petition against the cuts in services. LRT refused to accept the petition. I was forced to send it to the then Minister, even though I knew what response I would get from him. That is a joke as well. All he said was, "Thank you for the petition, but it is a matter for LRT."

I suspect that the new Minister will say the same when he has got his feet properly under the table, because that is what he did in regard to the Health Service. Previously, I raised with him the budget deficits and the chronic and life-threatening underfunding of local health authorities. He replied that it was a matter not for him but for the local health authority --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are not dealing with the Health Service ; that is miles away from the Bill.

Mr. Cohen : I am talking not about the Health Service but about the pattern of Minister's behaviour when they get petitions.

When there are protests over the working of the legislation, passengers may be beaten up by inspectors, or an innocent bystander may be caught in a terrible fracas. As a result, relatives may write to their Member. If the Member tries to take the matter up with LRT, it will say that it is not accountable. If the Member passes the complaint to the Minister for Public Transport, he will say that it has nothing to do with him but is a matter for LRT.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was right to point out in an earlier intervention that penalty fares will be an opportunity for the application of a lower standard of proof. That was pooh-poohed by the sponsor, the hon. Member for Ilford, South, but I cannot see how there can be anything but lower standards. An inspector will tell the passenger to pay up because the law says that he must do so. The passenger may say that he was not disobeying the law because there were no facilities to buy a ticket at the station where he got on the train. He may even quote the provision to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has referred, but the inspector will tell him that, if he does not pay up, he will go to court and get a criminal record.

I foresee an additional problem. I am not straying from the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but just this week I read in a newspaper about two people impersonating social

Column 471

workers in an attempt to get access to children. That was a shocking case, and I hope that they are caught and dealt with. Impersonation takes place. I can envisage impersonation on trains. All someone needs is a uniform ; some poor London Transport inspector may even be mugged for his uniform. Someone impersonating an inspector will be free to roam up and down every train, collecting penalty fares. There is nothing in the Bill to say how that will be stopped. LRT may say that it has transport police, but the problem of impersonation has not been covered. Some people will stop at nothing to make a few bob. Desperate individuals will see it as an easy way of conning the public.

There is no mention in LRT's statement of whether a person will get a criminal record under the new system. Paragraph 5 of LRT's statement confirms :

"This penalty would be payable on the spot or within 21 days but, if the passenger refuses to pay the penalty, the Corporation could, and do intend to, institute civil, rather than criminal, proceedings for recovery, except in cases involving flagrant dishonesty when prosecutions will be brought."

It is all very well saying that, but advert after advert warns that people must buy a ticket if they are not to get a criminal record. We must be clear whether a person risks a criminal record following the implementation of this legislation.

What will happen to the information about a person's name and address, which must be given when the spot fine is paid? Data are already exchanged between Government Departments and provided to other organisations that should not receive them. Information provided in connection with the poll tax ends up with all kinds of credit agencies and senders of junk mail.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Can my hon. Friend explain how the inspector can be sure that he has been given the right name and address? Is there not a danger that individuals will give false information, so that a person who was never involved ends up with a criminal record? Also, how will payment within 21 days be enforced if the information is false?

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. If false information is given, the fine cannot be enforced. That implies that inspectors will really have to lean on the individual, demanding to see proper identification. If it is not produced, all kinds of heavy tactics might come into play. A person who happens not to be carrying any identification may find himself taken to the police station and criminalised.

It is even possible that people will maliciously give the name and address of a person they do not like--perhaps a neighbour. The Government are currently into a campaign of encouraging people to snitch on their neighbour. That is how the poll tax will develop. When the Government start running anti-scrounger campaigns, they will say, "Snitch on your neighbour. Who lives with your neighbour and should be paying poll tax?" The Government will encourage the public to snitch under this Bill as well.

In these days of modern data transfer, there now exist minicomputers and microcomputers. Within a few years, inspectors could be walking around carrying a micro-computer into which they will be able to enter the name

Column 472

and address of the fine payer, which information will then be transferred on to a large database at Broadway, or wherever the offices are. An innocent person could find that his name has been entered into the records, yet he will have no chance to have it deleted. His first problem will arise when he is brought before the court and denies that he was the individual concerned. The magistrate may say, "I don't believe you. You are fined anyway." That individual's good character will be besmirched.

Under the Data Protection Act 1984, the public cannot have access to police records to see whether any information that they contain is incorrect and to have it corrected. Both the police and the security services have exemption from the provisions of that legislation. Some poor individual named by another as a fare dodger may find his name entered into the police records, with no opportunity to have a correction made. The advertisements warn "Get a ticket, not a criminal record." They feature a man who has a respectable job in the City and who is likely to lose it because of his criminal record for fare dodging. An innocent person could find himself in the same situation because of the Bill.

The sponsor referred to a dispute and appeals procedure. Come off it. How will that work in reality? The dispute procedure will be a blooming great punch-up.

Mrs. Wise : Paragraph (2) of the preamble, on page 1 of the Bill, states :

"It is the general duty of London Regional Transport pursuant to section 2 of the said Act of 1984, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State and in conjunction with the British Railways Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London and in carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to (a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London and (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation". Later, it is stated that it is in pursuance of those objectives that LRT is presenting the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the current state of London's transport services, and given the duty placed on LRT to ensure

"efficiency, economy and safety of operation"

and that the capital's transport needs are met, it is extraordinary that the only measure that LRT has seen fit to put before the House is one dealing with fare penalties?

Does not my hon. Friend agree that LRT should concern itself more with a great many other matters? If fare penalties were but one aspect of a comprehensive programme of improving London's transport, the House might look with more favour upon the Bill. In the circumstances, is it not extraordinary that LRT can state its general duties but then go on to present the provisions that are in the Bill?

Next Section

Home Page