---

Column 834

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Paul

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Brien, William

O'Hara, Edward

O'Neill, Martin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Patchett, Terry

Pendry, Tom

Pike, Peter L.

Prescott, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Reid, Dr John

Richardson, Jo

Robertson, George

Robinson, Geoffrey

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Rooney, Terence

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Salmond, Alex

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Short, Clare

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Snape, Peter

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Steinberg, Gerry

Stott, Roger

Strang, Gavin

Straw, Jack

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Turner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith

Wallace, James

Walley, Joan

Wareing, Robert N.

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Wigley, Dafydd

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Worthington, Tony

Wray, Jimmy

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies which have made possible real increases in expenditure on vital public services including social security, education and health ; welcomes the recent recognition by the Social Security Select Committee that real incomes rose across the income scale between 1979 and 1988 ; and deplores the commitment of Her Majesty's Opposition to a National Minimum Wage which would destroy jobs, thereby reducing opportunities and living standards for up to two million people.

---

Column 835

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill (By Order) Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.25 pm

Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South) : London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London, and to the efficiency, economy and safety of the operation.

Unfortunately, millions of pounds are being lost every year because of fare evasion. It is important that the people who use the system and pay for its services should not suffer the total cost, leaving many others to get away without paying.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but he said something interesting. He said that there had been fare evasion every year. Can he give us a run of figures, and tell us how much has been lost each year, going back as far as he wants to go?

Mr. Thorne : I shall come to the current figures later in my speech, and no doubt later in the debate hon. Members will allow me to respond to the questions that arise. I shall do my best to obtain the further information that the hon. Gentleman requests.

According to the annual survey, it has been calculated that no less than £12 million a year is currently being lost on the underground and a further £17 million on the buses. As a direct result of measures recently taken on the underground, fare evasion has been reduced. Nevertheless, the losses are still far too big to be satisfactory. Further measures are therefore needed. That is why the Bill is being introduced. It is similar to the measure passed in 1989, which gave penalty fare powers to British Rail, and whose implementation on the London to Tilbury and Southend line has succeeded in substantially reducing the number of people travelling without tickets.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : The hon. Gentleman spoke of millions of pounds being lost through fare evasion. Where does he get those figures? Does he simply get them from London Regional Transport? How were they substantiated? There is not a shred of evidence. The Bill has been before the House several times, and those figures have not been substantiated, yet they keep being repeated. How does the hon. Gentleman know the figures if they are not collected?

Mr. Thorne : There are firms that carry out surveys which have been found to be accurate in the past. It is not possible to state a precise figure, but nevertheless, in general terms, the surveys have been very accurate. I am confident that the figures are correct and are as near accurate as can be arrived at.

Before the measure can be introduced, the Secretary of State must be satisfied on a number of points--adequate staffing, adequacy of ticket machines, arrangements for monitoring defective machines and for ensuring that ticket inspectors are properly trained. The scheme must also be adequately advertised before it is introduced, and there

---

Column 836

must be disputes and appeals procedures. All these important matters will be carefully and diligently examined by the Secretary of State. It would be wrong to assume that he is uncritical about the standards that must be achieved before he gives his consent. It is at last possible to produce extremely reliable and effective ticket machines, and they are available at all underground stations : they are available 99.9 per cent. of the time and they will give change. There are never less than two machines at any station and there are many more at busy stations. With this in mind, we can take advantage of modern technology and thereby reduce the volume of evasion and fraud in the system.

It is not possible for tickets to be collected on underground trains in the same way as they are checked on British Rail. The present maximum fare on London Regional Transport is £3.10 and a penalty of £10 in relation to that is appropriate. The penalty on the docklands light railway or the buses is £5. It has been specifically geared to take account of the lower charges on the light railway and on the buses.

Validation of tickets has been a major problem on the docklands light railway, so the system has been replaced so that tickets are now validated on issue--but it has become impossible to check tickets at peak periods because the railway is so busy.

Staff involvement is essential to the success of penalty fares and staff will be fully consulted before implementation. Although fraud has always been a factor, it has greatly increased in recent years. It would be quite wrong to allow those who want to indulge in fraud to get away with it any longer than can be avoided. At the same time, it is important to ensure that genuine travellers who are not trying to evade fares can call in aid an excuse.

A passenger will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if there is no facility available for ticket sale at the station from which he started his journey. If he transfers to London Underground or to the docklands light railway from British Rail, and the British Rail station from which he departed has no facilities for the sale of tickets ; and if a notice is displayed at the station from which he started his journey--whether a British Rail, an underground or a docklands light railway station--stating that it is permissible for passengers to travel from that station without a ticket, or if an authorised person in uniform informs the passenger to that effect, he will not be liable to pay the penalty.

Mr. Cohen : The hon. Gentleman said that inspectors would not collect penalty fares on the docklands light railway because it is so busy and because it gets overcrowded at certain times, but so do many other lines. The Central line to my constituency is immensely overcrowded at rush hour, and so are many other lines. So why will inspectors be on very busy tube lines in the rush hour but not on the docklands light railway? is this discrimination?

Mr. Thorne : The hon. Gentleman seems to have the wrong end of the stick. There are captains, not drivers, on the docklands light railway, and one of the responsibilities of such captains is to check tickets--but they do not do so through busy periods. Checking tickets in the rush hour is always a problem. Passengers are responsible for having

---

Column 837

their tickets checked when they leave the station, and will therefore be responsible for paying penalty fares when appropriate. If a person is asked for his ticket or authority by the London Underground or by a docklands light railway authorised official and states that he could not obtain one for one or more of these reasons, it is for the underground or the light railway to prove that that reason is not correct--the onus is on them. If a passenger wants to offer one of these reasons later, he has 21 days from the day of the completion of his journey in which to do so. Only then comes the transfer of the burden of proof. If a passenger does not provide an explanation in these terms on the spot or within 21 days, he has to prove that one of the defences applies. That seems an effective and sensible way to proceed.

The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was the only Member to approach me about this Bill. He has expressed two anxieties. The first concerns bus services to his constituency, in particular bus routes 38 and 55, which were significantly altered on 24 February last year. The changes were made to improve the reliability of the services. Lea Bridge road suffers from bad traffic congestion, which led to severe disruption of services into the west end. Most passengers using services in Lea Bridge road did so only as far as Islington. Most people using the 38 and 55 bus routes into central London started their journeys in Islington. Only 8 per cent. of travellers used the service from Leyton through to central London. By changing the structure of the bus network, LRT has been able greatly to improve reliability, which has brought benefits to far more passengers than those affected by having their links broken. Following the changes, Lea Bridge road is served by routes 48 and 56. Route 48 still runs into the city and 56 covers the old 38 route as far as Islington--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how what he is saying relates to the collection and imposition of penalty fares?

Mr. Thorne : I think that hon. Members have a right to know how their constituencies will be affected by changes in transport facilities, and how penalty fares relate to them. If you feel, Sir, that I am going into too much detail, I shall pass immediately on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Yes, I should like the hon. Gentleman to pass on to the subject of penalty fares.

---