House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 May 1990

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend is right. The Bill by no means represents part of a comprehensive package covering the capital's transport needs as a whole, or in respect only of LRT's

"efficiency, economy and safety of operation".

It is the only measure that LRT has put before the House. We have never been asked to consider fare levels, congestion, or the filth and squalor that are all part of the same issue.

"London in Need", a report by the London Boroughs Grants Committee and the London Research Centre, states :

Column 473

"Recent events such as major accidents on both the Underground and British Rail have led to a loss of confidence in the safety of London's transport systems."

Safety was one of the items referred to in the Bill. The report goes on to criticise ticket barriers and says that :

"The cost of travel by public transport in London is high. According to the Association of London Authorities, fares are higher than any other city in the EC. That creates particular problems for people on low incomes, who may be unable to afford a car and are reliant on public transport."

That is a good point well made. Such people will be encumbered with penalties as well.

I have here the latest edition of the "Capital Transport Bulletin"--no, not the latest, but the March-April edition. I have not seen a May edition yet. It is probably the latest edition. It contains an index of public transport fares for 1987 which shows that London was well ahead of Oslo, Copenhagen, Vienna, Dusseldorf, Helsinki, Zurich, Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Madrid, Tokyo, Geneva, Brussels, New York, Chicago, Luxembourg, Los Angeles, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Montreal, Lisbon, Houston, Milan, Nicosia and Athens. Fares in some of those cities cost half or a third as much as fares in London. In 1987 the only city with higher fares was Stockholm, which has a small and wealthy population compared with London. Since 1987 there have been fare rises well above the rate of inflation. It would not surprise me if we did not have the highest fares now.

The "London in Need" report also says :

"Women have less access to private transport than men and, because many are carers of young children, elderly people and people with disabilities, they tend to suffer more from the inaccessibility of transport systems and irregular services."

I should have thought that that would have been covered by a comprehensive package in the part of the Bill which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. It mentions economy, efficiency, safety and the transport needs of London travellers. Personal safety is a major anxiety for Londoners when they walk or use public transport. The report continues :

"While overcrowding is a problem during peak hours, deserted trains and stations are also a problem, particularly late at night. When questioned about travelling by public transport at night, female respondents to a survey by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust in March 1989, said they were most uneasy about travelling by underground, followed by British Rail, and were least worried about travelling by bus. There is a need for more staff and better lighting at stations at night."

The need for better lighting has not so far been mentioned. London Regional Transport has given no sign that it would spend the money which it intends to raise by penalty fares on such things as better lighting. I doubt if it will.

London Regional Transport has had a vast amount of money passing through its coffers. Fares have increased substantially over the period that it has been in control, but the money has not gone on lighting or safety. In the Bill all we get is a small part of a package about penalty fares and not the comprehensive improvement that it needs.

The "London in Need" report also said :

"Two women-only taxi services are currently operating in Hammersmith and Lambeth ; there is a need for similar schemes to be set up in other areas."

London Regional Transport is not interested in that but it is supposed to provide public transport, to work for the public.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend accept--and he may dwell on this for a little while--that LRT's investment in

Column 474

ticket machines is in contrast to the large number of escalators which are supposed to carry thousands of people every day but are out of use, being repaired in many underground stations ? That leads to congestion, danger and difficulty for thousands of people. Surely LRT's first concern should be the thousands of people travelling on its services, but they would appear to be its last concern.

Mr. Cohen : That is a good point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston mentioned it earlier. I shall repeat what I said to her. There should be penalty fines in reverse. British Telecom has set up such a system, although it is pretty weak. I am not sure that it has ever paid out under the system, but it claims to pay if it does not provide a good service. London Regional Transport should do that. However, if that were enacted, as LRT is run so incompetently at the moment it would never stop paying out. LRT would not be able to run a transport service because it would be continually paying out. It is incompetent and makes vicious cuts that are against the public interest, such as those to the 38 and 55 bus routes in my constituency.

Mrs. Wise : Has my hon. Friend thought about the peculiarity of the Bill's long title? It states that the Bill empowers the charging of penalty fares, but it goes on "and for related purposes". I have looked through the Bill and I cannot find any related purposes. I can find only provisions relating to penalty fares and that is why I am so critical of the Bill. Could it be that LRT has some plan to introduce other clauses that have not yet been disclosed if the Bill receives a Second Reading and reaches Committee? Otherwise, why should those drafting the Bill take the precaution of including the phrase "and for related purposes"? Has my hon. Friend any ideas about what those related purposes could possibly be?

Mr. Cohen : That is a good point. We have already heard that the Minister has powers to make regulations to increase fines at will without telling the House. There have been a couple of private Members' Bills, including the one last Friday that was diluted somewhat by my amendment--it was the best I could do in the circumstances. The Computer Misuse Bill was brought to the Floor of the House without police powers, but when it reached Committee it suddenly included some stringent search powers. The Sexual Offences Bill about kerb crawling is to be debated tomorrow. I admit that there needs to be legislation to deal with men who kerb crawl, but all of a sudden inserted into that Bill are considerable police powers, which I suspect will be aimed more at women than at men. If the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, I wonder whether strong police powers will be inserted into it backed by the Metropolitan police and London Regional Transport. The Bill is about collecting fares, but in my view it is also about increasing violence and intimidation. LRT will need those powers if it is to use such methods.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : I would not want my hon. Friend to mislead the House. There are some stringent rules that apply to private Bills which cannot grow in scope because of the rights of people to petition from outside. The Bill can be only narrowed in scope.

Mr. Cohen : I appreciate that and bow to my hon. Friend's expertise, but I am worried about the Bill's related purposes. I remind my hon. Friend what happened when

Column 475

automatic ticket barriers were first introduced. I cannot remember all the details, but we had specific assurances that their use would be strictly limited, that other entrances would be open at all times and that they would be staffed to assist people who had problems using the automatic ticket barriers. But within a short time the alternative entrances had been blocked off and people were forced to use the automatic barriers. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish raised the matter and pointed out that it was a breach of the undertakings that had been given at the time.

I am worried that the Bill provides for related purposes as LRT will latch on to that to breach any undertakings that are given or say that any breach is covered by that phrase. I understand my hon. Friend's point that the Bill can be only narrowed in scope, but I wonder why the phrase was used in the first place.

Mr. Cryer : It may well be that LRT has some order-making powers. Previous private Bills that have become Acts grant order-making powers in the form of byelaws to such bodies as LRT. It may well be that the idea is that, once the Bill is enacted, it will be possible to produce more bylaws within the framework of the Bill and to say that they are related to the legislation which has the authority of Parliament. I say that because it is amazing that Parliament has granted so many powers to so many people over the years.

Mr. Cohen : That is a good point. I must bow to the great expertise of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish, who have a wealth of experience from Committees about the procedures and workings of the House. Their points are especially relevant.

It is likely not only that regulations can be made to substantially increase the fines--and perhaps for other, unknown purposes--but that there may be byelaws, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South suggested. Everything hinges on the phrase "and related purposes". We do not know what we are buying, if that is the correct word, if we pass the Bill on that basis.

The Bill refers to the "transport needs" of London. Penalty fares are allegedly a part of London Regional Transport working for London's transport needs as a whole. What about the disabled? The report by the London Research Centre for the London Boroughs Grants Committee says :

"People with disabilities have limited access to transport in London ; this restricts their access to employment, education, leisure and other opportunities. The absence of lifts at most Underground stations, a lack of staff at stations and a lack of information about the ability to interchange from one mode of transport to another, inhibits the ability of people with disabilities to travel in the capital. While the number of Dial -a-Ride journeys made in 1988/89 rose to over 540,000, a condition of LRT funding only allows them to be short ie to no more than one mile outside borough boundaries."--

a ridiculous restriction.

"Greater operational integration between the various types of transport service in London is needed and Dial-a-Ride should be able to provide longer journeys."

I agree. There is nothing about that in the Bill although it talks about the "transport needs" of London, and about "efficiency, economy and safety". If disabled people

Column 476

cannot get to their place of employment, that does little for London's economy and discriminates against the disabled. There is nothing in the Bill for the disabled.

The position for the disabled is becoming worse. I have heard enormous protests from those concerned with dial-a-ride and from the disabled about the regionalisation plans of London Regional Transport. I see that you are becoming anxious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not know why. I am talking about the transport needs of London as a whole.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I am becoming anxious because the Bill is about the penalty fares of those travelling without valid tickets. The hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to have little to do with that.

Mr. Cohen : I was wondering whether penalty fares would apply to disabled people travelling on the system as a whole. There is already great discrimination against disabled people travelling on the system. They have to seek permission before they can travel on the tube and the buses are appalling as well. I referred to the booklet "Capital Transport Bulletin" of the Capital Transport Campaign. The campaign has drawn up a petition which says :

"Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House take necessary legislative action to require that all new buses and coaches purchased from 1992 by operators in the United Kingdom be accessible to all people with disabilities including all wheelchair users."

That petition will come to the House and I hope that it has a great horde of signatures.

Presumably, a disabled person who tries to use the underground without permission could find himself having to pay a penalty fare. Let us suppose that a disabled person went up to the ticket office and said, "I should like permission to travel on the tube" and the member of staff concerned said, "Nothing to do with me, guv ; I don't know what the rules are." That disabled person could then find when he had boarded the train that an inspector came along and asked him, "Where is your permission? Penalty fare imposed!" That could happen. I do not know whether it will, but it certainly could and, if it does, the disabled will be discriminated against once more.

Let us suppose that disabled people use the dial-a-ride services. Will penalty fares apply on dial-a-ride? I should not think so, but it must be said that there is a dispute between the dial-a-ride committees and LRT at the moment, and a huge row about the regionalisation proposals. I could read the House some of the letters that I have received. Presumably, if LRT does not get its way, it will punish the dial-a-ride associations, and penalty fares may be one way of doing that.

Mr. Cryer : Would my hon. Friend care to comment on circumstances in which a disabled person obtains access but does not have a ticket because there is too much of a hurry or because he is busy handling a wheelchair? Is it not likely that if he is accused of not paying his fare and is therefore subject to a penalty fare, he will seek to avoid further action? Clause 9(1)(a) provides that no action is to be taken if the passenger has paid the penalty fare to the person providing the service. The disabled person might well feel that the easiest way out is to pay the fare and get the authorities off his back. The Bill thus allows for a potential intimidation of disabled people who already face great difficulties in life without having such obligations thrust upon them.

Column 477

Mr. Cohen : Yes, I think that there is an element of intimidation. I have given some examples already. I think that the Bill will lead to the intimidation of able-bodied people--let alone disabled people, always supposing that they can gain access to the transport system in the first place, which a lot of them cannot because LRT has been slow to improve access to buses and train services.

As I said, there are many problems with the dial-a-ride system. One local resident in Waltham Forest, Mr. Docking of the Walthamstow Older Persons Forum, complained about it. He said that the regionalisation--I presume that he also means the penalty fares or other penalties imposed by LRT on disabled people--

"will take away all local control. Should this change come about it will affect the most vulnerable persons in our community, the old and impaired, and those who suffer from some disability and cannot always use public transport. Also, there are many of our older community who are afraid to use a normal bus service at night when they wish to make a visit. The more difficult it becomes to obtain a Dial-a-Ride bus the more people become homebound. This change, should it come, could cause a number of things to happen--fewer buses to cope with a greater number of people. A complete breakdown of the system unable to cope with the already unsatisfactory booking system, and shorter journeys. Dial-a-Ride has already suffered by a shortage of buses. Are we now beginning to see the end? Is this what London Transport would like to see? When are we going to be consulted on the changes that affect our way of life--or are we just to settle for a cup of tea and a chat and accept what we are given?"

They do not even get a cup of tea and a chat but they are certainly being told that they must accept what they have been given. We have not had satisfactory answers from LRT about its plans for the regionalisation of dial-a-ride. These matters are related to the Bill, and I make no apology for referring to the state of the underground or the cuts in the 38 and 55 bus routes for the very reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech. We have been refused the opportunity to debate LRT issues in the House and the system entails no local democratic accountability.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Does my hon. Friend agree that it is puzzling that London Regional Transport preferred to take the time of the House to introduce this measure on penalty fares rather than deal with some of the serious issues to which he referred? Would it not have been far better if it had not introduced a Bill such as this but suggested to the Government that, if we need a system of penalties, it should be introduced across the whole country, not on a local basis ? It would have been far better to introduce a Bill to improve London transport along the lines that my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Cohen : That is the case. We are still waiting for a comprehensive set of proposals for London Regional Transport on which the London public can be fully consulted and can have an input in decision- making. We need proposals that will make a significant improvement in the transport system. My hon. Friend is right that penalty fares should not be a small part of a piecemeal package for London--the rest of the package is non-existent--which does not apply to the rest of the country.

The Government should have said to LRT, "Go to the back of the queue on the penalty fares issue. First, we want to extend to the rest of the country the system introduced by the GLC of free travel for pensioners." That should have had a higher priority than penalty fares.

Column 478

It is not simply a matter of fare dodging in London. There is a lot more to the matter, such as safety, cleaning up the tube and introducing lower fares. Those points should also have come higher.

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend has rightly dealt extensively with the system. I refer him to the original cause of the Bill, which is the entirely unsubstantiated claim on which we have received a trivial and meretricious document from the promoters--who receive large sums of money for doing very little--about the amounts that are lost through fare dodging. We do not support fare dodging. LRT should have known that the cost would be dwelt on because it has been dwelt on before. Will my hon. Friend explain that there are still fare dodgers on conductor-operated buses--Routemaster buses on central routes and one-man or one-woman operated buses on other routes? Does he agree that the expensive ticket equipment that is supposed to work superbly, which was installed at a cost of many millions of pounds, was supposed to stop people getting on trains without a ticket anyway?

Mr. Cohen : That is right and it was touched on in the earlier part of the debate. The figures presented in the statement by LRT were completely unsubstantiated. LRT failed to come to any conclusions about the impact of the ticket barriers on fare dodging. It has simply churned out the same figures again. If the figures have not changed, automatic ticket barriers were a complete waste of millions and millions of pounds. The people responsible should be sacked for wasting public money.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend agree that the old argument about sacking incompetent managers is long gone ? They should be transferred to repairing the escalators at the same rates of pay as the people who usually do the work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Let us keep to penalty fares.

Mr. Cohen : The point has been made and I shall take Mr. Deputy Speaker's advice and not dwell on that matter, but clearly high salaries are being paid. I expect that high salaries will not be paid to the inspectors. I saw three inspectors on the train this morning. They were women, put in the front line of potential violence. It may be that the fact that they are women will mean that violence will not take place. Their gender might help to stop violence in some cases. But it is typical of LRT to put women in the front line of the potential risk. I bet anything that those women are not highly paid but low paid for the risk that they take.

We should discuss in the House whether it will be the policy for inspectors to go round in threes to collect the penalty fare. A much better job for them would be looking after women's safety, rather than collecting the penalty fares. There should be good intercom systems so that if women are employed in the job--I do not begrudge them being employed in protecting other passengers because they do a good job and there are, quite rightly, women police officers--there must be a rapid back-up available.

In this discussion on penalty fares we have not heard what back-up inspectors will have. Will there be any? A train operated by one person might stop in a deep tunnel and there might be violence due to a dispute over a penalty fare. What sort of back-up would there be for inspectors

Column 479

in the middle of a dangerous fracas? We have not heard a word about that in all the various times that the Bill has come before the House, which is quite scandalous.

No penalty fines will be imposed on those using the 38 and 55 buses because those buses have been cut. If they were reinstituted, I would be prepared to consider curtailing my speech, not raise so many issues and perhaps give the Bill a fairer wind. But we have heard nothing from the Government or LRT. They will not take our representations properly into account so the cuts are in place, despite public opposition to them in Leyton.

There could be a severe threat to jobs at Leyton garage because of the cuts on those two popular and useful bus services. I am informed that already an extra 500 people who use those buses to get to the west end and St. Bartholomew's hospital--who pay their fares regularly, would never get a penalty fare if such a system operated because they are model passengers and are only too keen to pay and use good local bus services--will now have to use the tube system that is already chronically overcrowded.

I invite the sponsor and LRT managers to come on the Central line to Walthamstow Central and Leytonstone tube stations in the rush hour. They should get out of their Rolls-Royces and chauffeur-driven cars, and come in the rush hour to see how overcrowded those tube stations are. They are forcing people in the Lea Bridge area of Leyton to join those terrible overcrowded trains. They should come along with some of those residents. Lea Bridge road is a couple of miles away from those tube stations and when the bus is not operating residents have to walk or change buses, which entails long waits. That places an enormous burden on those people who have never collected a penalty fare. However, LRT is punishing them by cutting the local bus service.

The demand for buses is increasing but LRT's reaction is to reduce the service. It has even decided to reduce bus services because it claims that the roads are too congested. What a cockeyed and about-turn way to look at things. LRT should be pressuring the Government to restrict private cars and increase bus lanes and public transport on the routes along the Lea Bridge road so that people will get out of their cars and use public transport. We have heard crazy notions from the board of LRT, which has no idea of the real problems or how to deal with them. The board had abdicated its responsibility for what the Bill calls

"the transport needs for the time being of Greater London and (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation ;".

The feeble and pathetic little measure before the House will impose penalty fares for which no good reason has been given. The purpose is to raise a small amount of income for LRT, but the money will not be spent on the system--it will go into the Treasury coffers and the Government will use it for other wider political services. In the meantime, London passengers are badly treated with late, filthy trains and buses, long delays, dirty stations and poor standards of safety.

I oppose the Bill. I have a file full of representations from constituents who are bitterly angry about cuts in the No. 38 and No. 55 bus services. They are also bitterly angry at the response of LRT, which has not taken their protests into account.

Column 480

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but he does not seem to have described two crimes which I encountered recently in connection with the new gates on the underground. Someone who looks a bit dozy enters the tube station followed by another person who puts a ticket into the machine. The first person, who is obviously without a ticket, takes the ticket of the second person, nips through the gates and on to the platform leaving the genuine ticket holder without a ticket.

The second situation relates to someone leaving the station. He puts a single journey ticket into the machine and is followed by a person who puts in a ticket that is either for several journeys that day or a season ticket. The single journey ticket does not come out of the machine and the person who inserted it lingers long enough to snatch the ticket of the person who is following. I suspect that those two crimes are developing on the underground. Will the penalty system work or will it deter inspectors from chasing that sort of crime?

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend raises two important matters which have been raised before in the House. I have a thick file here, and another in my office, containing letters protesting against the cuts on the No. 38 and No. 55 bus routes. Those files are as big as the ones that I have full of letters from people protesting about the automatic ticket barriers. They gave the same sort of examples as those cited by my hon. Friend of people losing their season tickets. The cost of a season ticket can run into four figures, and will probably go even higher under this Government. The shortage of staff at stations means that criminals know that they can easily get away with that sort of crime. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle that.

Will the Minister put pressure on LRT to spell out its intentions for the automatic ticket barriers? It is introducing a touch-and-pass scheme. What will be the cost of that? It appears that LRT has endless amounts of money to spend on all sorts of ideas that have not been properly thought out and without having consulted. That lack of consultation and democracy lead to appalling schemes which waste vast sums of money. How much will the touch- and-pass scheme cost? Will there be a ticket barrier removal programme? If not, why not? Will the two schemes run at the same time? What about the safety implications of the ticket barriers? In narrow-necked tube stations they are a tremendous safety problem. The Government and LRT have been let off lightly because we have not had another King's Cross. I am very pleased about that, but there have been a number of fires. The automatic ticket barriers are part of a package to catch the fare evader. Penalty fares are another part of that package. London Regional Transport has concentrated on that to the exclusion of all the other problems faced by London passengers, and it cannot even get that policy right, despite having spent millions of pounds on it.

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend mentioned cuts in two bus routes in his constituency--apparently for the curious reason that LRT wants to take the buses off the road because they cause congestion. Clause 3 makes it clear that the Bill applies to any bus or train service. When in operation, one or two people will go around checking tickets. If there is a confrontation on a one-man operated bus, the bus will have to stop while it is sorted out. The money will be demanded and the penalty fare will be imposed. If the inspectors operate frequently, buses will be

Column 481

at the side of the road during any altercations. That works against the argument that LRT used when it withdrew the bus routes.

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remember a standard joke when one-man-operated buses were introduced. It was about the bus that crashed. When the driver was asked what happened, he replied, "I was upstairs collecting the fares at the time." I fear that there will be a similar running joke as a result of this measure. Following an accident, when a driver is asked what happened he will reply, "I don't know--I was inside the bus trying to collect penalty fares."

We do not know the trade union view of the Bill. If I am right and it is likely to lead to more altercations, assaults and violence, bus drivers and conductors and train drivers and guards will bear the brunt of that. Already, horrendous cases have occurred and staff have been killed by passengers following altercations. Immense anger is rightly created among staff at such incidents. Workers at many bus garages in London have gone on strike after colleagues have been severely assaulted or even killed. I recall a funeral procession from Leyton bus garage following the death of a worker due to violence. I fear that the Bill could increase such risks, mainly for inspectors, which is no doubt why they go round in threes. Before long they will be going round in fours and fives, although one wonders how they will make their way through congested trains.

We should have been given the workers' view of the Bill, but the Government hate the workers--they are not interested in the workers and will impose any conditions on them. That is why people have been killed building the Channel tunnel and on building sites--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Member stick to the subject of LRT penalty fares, please?

Mr. Cohen : I am not leaving the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. London Regional Transport inspectors, who are workers, will be at risk. Imagine an inspector collecting penalty fares suddenly meeting a guy determined to get away with it--a fight ensues, out comes a knife and loss of life could result. That is not an unreal scenario.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Is my hon. Friend aware of two problems that will face the staff? First, there is the possibility of an altercation when someone refuses to give his name. Secondly, some fines will be collected on the spot, so inspectors will be carrying largish sums of money and there may be a temptation to take the money off them.

Mr. Cohen : My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. The inspector carrying money will himself or herself become a target. That is all the more reason why, before long, they will be going round in fours and fives. The situation late at night will be particularly dangerous, given that much fare evasion occurs late at night and not just in the rush hours. Is LRT making arrangements, and is there anything in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill about this, to provide banking facilities at each station where money can be deposited?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : It is important for LRT to answer that question clearly. Perhaps the sponsor will intervene to explain the position. If the general public can be convinced that inspectors will not be carrying much

Column 482

money because they will have ample opportunity to bank any money that they collect, people will be dissuaded from assaulting them.

Mr. Cohen : I do not know whether there will be banking points on every station. If there were, LRT would incur considerable capital expenditure because they would have to be secure and staffed. It would be like a Securicor van delivering cash to a bank. An inspector making for such a banking point could become a target for a mugger. There are many serious implications. We have not heard a whisper from LRT about whether there will be a banking point on every station. I doubt whether there will be. If there is not, inspectors will be put at severe risk.

A £10 fine one week could be increased to £20 the next and could shortly become £50. The inspector would only have to collect one or two fines before he was walking around with £200--an attractive target for a mugger. Attacks on inspectors would increase substantially, but LRT has not given the first thought to that. It has not even started to think about the implications.

I do not mind the idea of a bank on every station. The Government like to privatise everything under the sun. Perhaps we should have banks on every station from which people can obtain cash. That might have other implications, however--I should not put ideas into the Minister's head--but that should not come before the security of the inspectorate, which is my priority.

It is scandalous that trade unions were not consulted. At any rate, we have not been told of their response. LRT cannot be bothered even to put out a statement discussing the issues. Many issues have been raised during the debate, not just by me but in interventions. LRT has been trying to get the Bill through since 1986, but every time it reaches the Floor of the House the same points are raised. A management worth its salt would look at past debates in Hansard and consider its response to the points made. But on every occasion the Bill is introduced in exactly the same form, with unsubstantiated figures and fines plucked out of the blue. None of the important issues about which Members have expressed concern in the past are addressed. That says something about the lack of quality in LRT management.

Mr. Cryer : Will my hon. Friend comment on the order-making powers in the Bill ? Clause 3 gives power to the Secretary of State to make orders containing

"such supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions (including transitional provisions) as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient."

That means that the penalties will be introduced by a statutory instrument under clause 10. It appears that such a statutory instrument will not have to come to the House. The Secretary of State will simply make an order which will come into effect. He has a wide range of powers because the only order required under the negative procedure, which does not have to be debated, is the amount of penalty fares to be described by order

"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

That is contained in clause 6(2). Could the Secretary of State not therefore set the process in train--to coin a phrase--without any further reference to the House?

Mr. Cohen : As I have said before, my hon. Friend has terrific expertise in these matters. He is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and his knowledge of the procedures and workings of the House,

Column 483

and of the wording of Bills, statutory instruments and other regulations, is second to none. His points must be taken seriously. He says that under the Bill orders can be made by a Minister, who will not have to come to Parliament to justify what he is doing. That is serious and it is yet another factor working against the Bill. Earlier we talked about the docklands transport system. It is a woefully inadequate system, and it is pathetic that no proper infrastructure was set up before the development. That is what happens when there are unaccountable planning authorities and also unaccountable transport authorities.

It has been said that there will be lower fines on the docklands light railway than on the buses and tubes in the capital, but what about the docklands riverbus? From what I can gather, it is used infrequently, mainly because it has not been properly developed for the maximum convenience of Londoners, who could make use of it if it had proper stops along the Thames. That is not to say that public money has not gone into it--a vast amount has, yet the fares are astronomical. It is more than £1 to travel one stop. When will Londoners get some value for their money? When will the riverbus be made more accessible to Londoners? Whenever I see it, it is empty--the money might as well be poured straight into the Thames. If someone stows away on the riverbus, will there be an inspector to charge a penalty fare? If so, will it be the £10 which applies to London buses and trains, or the £5 which applies on the docklands light railway? We should have answers to those questions.

Mr. Cryer : I am sorry to intervene as I know that my hon. Friend is pressed for time and is trying to curtail his remarks and to speak as succinctly as possible. Clause 3(1) of the Bill refers to "any bus or train service".

Clearly the riverbus service could come within the ambit of the proposals.

Mr. Cohen : That is a key question. It may be argued that it is a private service and that the Bill does not apply. It is Government policy to hand out millions of pounds of public money to private companies, so public money was involved. Presumably the principle of penalty fares should apply if public money is being defrauded.

Mr. Cryer : I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to clause 3, under which the provisions apply to any other service provided "in pursuance of an agreement with the Corporation by virtue of section 3(2) of the 1984 Act".

What staggers me, and no doubt my hon. Friend, is that the point was not clarified beyond peradventure, as the lawyers say, by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr Thorne) when he was elaborating on why we should pass the Bill. He failed to do that.

Next Section

Home Page