House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Jul 1991

Column 851

evasion in this country is the highest in Europe, but he rightly added that we should tackle the causes rather than the symptoms. My hon. Friend made a good point about one-person operation. He asked why the so-called estimate of the amount of fare evasion was higher for buses than for trains, given that more people travel on trains than on buses and that fares are higher on the underground. He concluded that one-person operation was the reason.

We can extend the psychological argument. An inspector will get on to a bus, fine the individual concerned--shaming him in front of the other passengers--and then leave the bus. The fare evader, however, will remain on the bus, fuming and, perhaps, eventually taking out his anger on the other passengers--or, more likely, on the poor old bus driver. Of course, the same kind of thing could happen on the tube, but that would merely result in more vandalism. On a one-person-operated bus, it might result in violence.

As I said earlier in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), London Regional Transport has done no work to establish at what times and in what circumstances fare evasion takes place and who is responsible. I believe that it takes place mostly at night in unmanned stations. London Transport is keen to cut costs and I suspect that, apart from not wanting to pay overtime, it will not employ inspectors in the first place. Therefore the Bill will have no impact on the level of fare evasion at night. If LT decided to employ those inspectors, many would be needed to collect the fares because I suspect that gangs of youths would travel without paying their fares. If those inspectors confronted such gangs late at night in unmanned stations, I am sure that it would lead to violence.

The Bill has come before the House in the past, and the issue of increased violence has been raised many times by myself and my colleagues. It has always been left unanswered. No work has been done on the Bill from one Session of Parliament to the next. LT may throw up an estimate of fare evasion, but it is unable to provide an estimate of the likelihood of violence.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who speaks for LT, made a brief speech of 11 minutes in which he offered little justification for the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks : Disgraceful.

Mr. Cohen : I agree. The only reason why the hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke for 11 minutes was three telling interventions, but each time he failed to come up with an answer. The first intervention came from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, who asked about the trend of fare evasion on the bus and tube over the years. He asked whether it was possible to compare levels of evasion. It is important to know that answer because I believe that there may be a correlation between the level of fares charged and fare evasion. The necessary figures should be produced so that we can make an informed assessment.

Mr. Tony Banks : My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the short speech made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. That reminds me of the occasion when Mr. Canning was asked by someone whether he liked his speech. Mr. Canning replied that that person's speech was short, to which the person replied, "Yes. You know I don't

Column 852

like to be tedious." Mr. Canning replied, "Yes, but it was tedious." I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, South would have made a much longer speech had he been allowed to tell us more about the bus route through my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that my hon. Friend wants to be fair and I am sure that he will recall that the hon. Member for Ilford, South was cut off in his veritable prime.

Mr. Cohen : I accept that, but the hon. Member for Ilford, South was not ruled out of order. However, his brief comments on the bus routes were wrong. He said that the No. 38 and No. 55 buses no longer stopped on Lea Bridge road because of traffic congestion. That is the line put out by LT, but when has it been its policy not to run public transport because of traffic congestion? Surely the object is to get cars off heavily congested roads. Surely that means that LT should run more buses on the roads instead of cutting services.

Only yesterday, I received a letter from LT about the Bill, which mentioned the No. 38 and No. 55 buses. Therefore it should be legitimate to mention those routes in this debate. According to LT figures, 8 per cent. of people in the catchment area use those buses to get to central London. That is a heck of a lot of people--it runs into thousands--and they are now denied those routes.

I accept that those bus routes do not represent the central point of the Bill, but my constituents have been treated in a disgracefully shabby way by the Government. LT consulted me about the Bill because it wanted to know whether I would give it decent treatment. I always give such treatment, but how about a bit of decent treatment for my constituents? I asked LT to give them their buses back, but my request was treated in a cursory and derisory fashion.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South made three incredible statements in the first few minutes of his speech after being challenged. First, he said that he did not know the trend of fare evasion and that he knew the current figures only. That was a pretty poor admission, but in some ways it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault. He does this work because--

Mr. Tony Banks : He is paid a lot of money.

Mr. Cohen : The hon. Gentleman claims that LT does not pay him a lot of money. I believe that he just gets his direct expenses. I think that he is doing the work for a knighthood for services to LT. We are told that everything comes down to finding money for public services and I have no doubt that it could be found from the salaries of the bosses. However, those bosses could not even be bothered to give the hon. Gentleman a decent briefing. The hon. Gentleman's failure to answer the questions is not his fault, but the fault of those highly paid managers at LT who gave him such a poor briefing. I should have thought that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West was obvious and sensible. Surely a sensible person attempting to guess what questions would be asked would have thought of that one. Similarly, I should have thought that my question about the breakdown of LT figures would be anticipated. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Ilford, South was unable to provide the methodology behind those figures. It appears that they are plucked out of the blue.

Column 853

The Minister said that the figures were based on the professional advice received by LT, but I suspect that those figures were provided by LT itself. I remind the House that this is not the first time that such a question has been asked because a Bill of this nature has been before the House on numerous occasions--this is the fifth one. Each Bill is the subject of several debates on several occasions and each time LT has been asked to substantiate the figures for fraud losses. Each time it has failed to provide the answer. All that the hon. Member for Ilford, South could say was that the figures were based on some sort of survey. What survey? Who did that survey? Again, I suspect that it was conducted by LT.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South said that inspectors would not impose penalties on the docklands light railway trains because they are too busy. However, there is enormous overcrowding on the rest of the underground network. If it is all right for inspectors not to impose fines when that line is busy, why are other lines being singled out?

The Minister was not much better briefed than the hon. Member for Ilford, South. He did not seem to know much about the London-Tilbury to Southend line. He said that fare evasion had been reduced by 90 per cent., but he did not know the exact figure. How can he claim that it has been reduced by 90 per cent. when the figures are not known? He failed to say how that figure was arrived at. I suspect that it was plucked out of the air by London Transport. He did not seem to know that that reduction was achieved over only a three-month period. I suspect that it will start to climb again.

Mr. Freeman : The hon. Gentleman is always extremely succinct, logical and clear in his argument, and I have listened to him with much interest. I am sure that the House would like to know whether he opposes the Bill and, if so, on what grounds he does so. So far, he has not disclosed his position or advanced any arguments.

Mr. Cohen : I shall disclose my arguments clearly. I am dealing with the arguments that have been advanced, which is a perfectly legitimate tactic.

The Minister made the interesting point that the collection of penalty fares presents opportunities for new fraud. People will be able to claim to be inspectors and to diddle people out of money. Will authorised inspectors wear a uniform and carry identification? There is absolutely nothing in the Bill about that.

I should like to mention the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is concerned about the Bill but is unable to be here tonight.

Mr. Tony Banks : I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), because he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) are having a meeting in a W Room about the opting-out proposals for Newham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) knows well, we must split our resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is in the Palace but is dealing with other business. He is as assiduous as ever in passing his views to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton.

Column 854

Mr. Cohen : The note from his office says that he is unable to make the meeting tonight because he has an important health meeting to attend, but that he may be able to attend later in the evening. He saw me in the Lobby and told me that it was a meeting on an NHS trust and privatisation of health services in Newham, which is of enormous concern. We all know that the Government are about to privatise the buses, but the immediate issue of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is the health service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South would like to point out that he was unsatisfied with the replies that he received from London Regional Transport to his suggestions. He is not happy with the idea that London Regional Transport will take money from people who have not paid the correct fare--spot fines--instead of taking their names and addresses. He thinks that that will cause trouble and says that London Regional Transport did not give him a satisfactory response when he raised the matter. That is typical of LRT, which has been negligent in responding to issues in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South says that London Regional Transport has no plans to install ticket machines at stations where the booking office may be closed. He feels that it is in its own interest to do that and to provide a machine that produces tickets showing where a passenger boarded in order to prevent fraud. At present, an inspector has no way of knowing where a passenger began his journey. LRT's response to that was unsatisfactory. It is a crucial point, because people who bought tickets at a different station may be accused of fraud, but that point has not been considered by LRT.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South says that when he telephoned London Regional Transport yesterday he was told that the gentleman who knew about the matter would not be in until tomorrow. My hon. Friend said that that shows how much they care about their Bill. That is on a par with how LRT has treated the House tonight and how it has treated the hon. Member for Ilford, South by not giving him a proper briefing to answer basic questions.

LRT could have dealt with the issues that have been raised and Conservative Members would not have had to stay here until 10 pm. However, they know that the payroll vote will ensure the passage of the measure.

LRT's inept management has treated the House, including Conservative Members, with contempt. The Government are being forced to do LRT's dirty work when the problem could have been resolved even without this debate taking place ; there are bound to be subsequent debates. Whatever the payroll vote does tonight to force the measure through, we will ensure that the issue is raised in future. In addition to the ineptitude of LRT's management, the burden of the Bill on Parliament and so on must have resulted in considerable cost to the taxpayer. After all, this is about the fifth time that the measure has come before the House. All that could have been avoided had the management answered our questions and sorted out the various issues. Instead, the Bill has been blocked whenever it has come up for approval.

When I asked the Minister what the cost was, apart from LRT's expenditure on the Bill, I received the reply that I expected, which was that it was nothing to do with him because private Bills were not his responsibility. Did

Column 855

he really mean to say that all the cuts that he had made were of no consequence? Is he not aware that, when he cuts off the money, services are reduced and fares are increased?

Mr. Freeman : The record should show clearly what is the position this year. I am glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that in 1991-92, the Government have increased the amount of cash grant available to LRT by £50 million. That has occurred in the middle of the financial year. It is a sign of the tremendous support that the Government have given to LRT in difficult financial circumstances.

Mr. Cohen : It is also a sign of the Government's desperation pending the forthcoming general election. The people of London know precisely what a shambles the Government have made of their transport system--how they have neglected it and run it down. The Government are desperate--as they are with unemployment and everything else--and are fiddling the figures, because the bulk of the money that has been put into London Transport has been spent on the Jubilee line. That, too, has been to get the Government out of the mess they have created over docklands by not planning in advance. Office blocks went up, but there was no infrastructure to enable people to get to and from the area. Now the taxpayer is having to pay dearly to create some infrastructure there. It is costing more than would have been the case had there been some planning.

On 6 June this year, the Financial Times commented on the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on London Underground, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office at a price of £24. It said that the report blamed inadequate funding, by successive Governments, for the poor performance of London Underground train services, and it went on to give key figures, on which the Minister should comment, if not today then in due course. The paper said that London Underground, the company which is responsible for the service,

"calculates that, at today's prices, it needs to spend £750 million a year. Of this, £250 million a year is just to halt the further deterioration of existing assets, another £250 million a year is to rectify the consequences of underspending in earlier years, £150 million a year is to increase the capacity of existing lines, and £100 million a year is for safety improvements following King's Cross"

and the death of 31 people in the fire there.

"By comparison, actual investment over the past five years averaged £290 million a year at today's prices."

The Financial Times went on to say that, in an attempt to defend the Government's record on investment in London Underground, "the public transport minister said investment spending would be £442 million this year and more than £500 million in 1991-92"-- as I pointed out, pending the forthcoming election--but still a long way from the £750 million that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said was needed.

The paper continued :

"These figures include sums for the new Jubilee Line extension. The commission's report for next year's spending is £384 million--barely half what London Underground says it needs."

That gives the lie to the boasting statements that we hear time and again from the Minister about the Government's so-called investment in London Transport. Even the increases that the Government are making, pending the general election, leave LRT a long way short of what is needed to get our underground system into a decent state.

Column 856

In an endeavour to discover the true cost of the Bill, the Minister having shifted the responsibility to LRT, I took the matter to that quarter. I received a reply on 5 March from the chairman, Mr. Newton, who said--this is the key point :

"It would not, therefore, be possible to give you a clear simple answer to the question you have asked without the expenditure of very considerable time and cost."

He has clearly taken a leaf out of the Minister's book because he cannot state the cost of promoting such Bills. The chairman then gave examples of the cheapest and of the most expensive. He said that the cost of the Jubilee Line Extension (No. 2) Bill is currently £5.7 million. I have asked him for more details about that figure. I asked him at the beginning of April, but I have not yet had a reply about how that money is made up. The Government do not provide a grant for that. The bill is met by Londoners through their fares and through other contributions because money is removed from the poll tax grant to local authorities.

The chairman also stated that the cheapest Bill was that which dealt with the Angel because it went through unopposed. Even so, it probably cost about £75,000. How much has this Bill cost? It has been before the House five times, so one can imagine that it has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds--probably nearly £1 million. It has failed year after year to be passed, because people such as the hon. Member for Ilford, South have not been properly briefed and the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and other colleagues have not been answered. It is inept management not only to keep the Tories here until late at night, but to incur costs of about £1 million trying to promote the Bill and doing so in such an incompetent fashion.

I now deal with the substance of the Bill because time is short. I met members of the board of London Regional Transport to discuss what it has done to my constituents' buses, but I received no change. I also met members of the board to discuss the unfair levels of fares. Again, they were not interested. I cannot remember many Yiddish words--my parents would know a lot more--but at that meeting the members acted like shysters, which means con men. They enticed me to the meeting on the grounds that they had something to offer. When I got there they had nothing to offer. When I argued reasonably about what was needed to make the Bill acceptable, they turned my ideas down flat. I got the impression that the only reason they wanted to meet me was to get the briefing for the hon. Member for Ilford, South. That was the act of a group of shysters who are also inept. I spoke to the board about fare levels. The point of trying to implement penalty fares is, allegedly, to tackle fare evasion. I told the board that there was a correlation between the high fares charged and the amount of fare evasion. The board said that there was not--it had not done any research and was not interested, but nevertheless stated that there was no correlation. I suspect that that is why it will not introduce the trends suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West.

We have the highest fares in Europe for what is, incidentally, a deteriorating service. The Evening Standard of 22 April stated : "London gets the worst fare deal in Europe".

The article said :

"London's suffering commuters' crammed into overcrowded trams, Tubes and buses, had their suspicions confirmed today--they get the worst deal in Europe.

Column 857

A new survey reveals that the fares they pay are the highest in Europe--nearly double those in Amsterdam or Frankfurt, almost four times as high as Rome and five times as high as Paris and Athens. The message will embarrass Transport Secretary Malcolm Rifkind The average travel-to-work journey in London costs £1.40, according to the figures from the Association of London Authorities. The cost in the next most expensive city, Copenhagen, is £1.18, followed by Dublin, where the average fare sinks to 85p.

At the bottom end of the scale are Rome, 36p, and Paris and Athens on 32p.

London Transport's Bargain' season tickets are an even worse deal. At £13.80, its three-zone travel card costs a third more than the next most expensive in Dublin and five and a half times that of Madrid's £2.44.

The average commuter fare in the 10 European cities surveyed is only 71p."

The article went on to quote people's views. The Evening Standard always gets Conservative Members to say how disgraceful things are, when in fact the Government are implementing the disgraceful measures.

The Independent , under the headline "London Transport fares the most expensive in the EC", quotes the cost of commuting in Europe. The 10 km journey fares are : Athens, 30p ; Paris, 32p ; Rome, 36p ; Madrid, 49p ; Brussels, 65p ; Amsterdam, 74p ; Frankfurt, 80p ; Dublin, 85p ; Copenhagen, £1.18p ; and London, £1.40p, set against an average fare of 71p. The costs of a weekly 10-journey card are : Madrid, £2.44 ; Rome, 2.48 ; Athens, £3 ; Paris, £3.08 ; Brussels, £4.06 ; Copenhagen, £6.98 ; Frankfurt, £7.36 ; Amsterdam, £7.40 ; Dublin, £10.27 ; and London, £13.80, set against an average of £6.09. London's fares, for a deteriorating service, are shameful. There is a correlation between increasing fare evasion and high fares. It is not surprising that fares are high. When other London Labour Members and I met the chairman and board of London Regional Transport, the manager of London Underground--which contributes to the high fares--said over the dinner table, "So what? These travellers are all from the A and B1 classes, the highest classes in social surveys. They can afford those fares so we can charge what we like. It is best to charge what we like." The manager was merely reiterating the comments of the LRT chairman, Mr. Newton. At an earlier Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to those comments. In effect, the chairman said, "We are pricing people off the tube. It is already overcrowded.If we can increase prices, we can price people off it."

The statement refers to deterring people from travelling. That is what the fares policy seeks to do. The chairman and board of London Underground do not want poor people to travel on the tube. That is why the fares are so high, and the penalty fares are being introduced to target poor people. It is the old philosophy of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who thinks that the unemployed should get on their bikes. He certainly cannot tell them to get on public transport to go and look for jobs, because they are being priced off by management appointed by the Government. Those managers have paid themselves enormous sums ; I shall speak about that issue later.

I have already mentioned the serious point about high fares and penalties causing increased violence. That will

Column 858

occur especially late at night and on one- person-operated buses, which means that the poor old bus driver will bear the brunt of that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and I are most unhappy about the arrangements for on-the-spot fines.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Does my hon. Friend have any background information on fare dodging on Routemasters? The Bill's powers cover all London Regional Transport--rail and buses. London Routemasters are a fleet of 750 conductor-operated buses that are extremely welcome on high density routes. The Bill is based on a number of guesses made by a firm of consultants and paid for by London Regional Transport. That firm had no better way to make those guesses than anyone else but has now earned several thousand pounds as a result of being engaged by London Regional Transport. Is there a difference between fare dodging on one-person- operated buses and on Routemasters? Clearly, conductors have far more scrutiny of whether passengers have paid their fares.

Mr. Cohen : I cannot provide any figures. Those questions were asked when this Bill was before the House in the past, and we should have had answers from the hon. Member for Ilford, South, who speaks on behalf of London Regional Transport.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right : the Bill has been introduced to continue to facilitate the sacking of conductors and to push on with the introduction of one-person-operated buses. The effects of that policy on fare evasion should have been assessed. I bet anything that, other circumstances being equal, there is less fare evasion on conductor-operated buses, because conductors go around collecting the fares.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a desperate policy to get rid of as many employees as possible, but that it would be cheaper to employ people than buy complicated buses? The ordinary rear-entrance Routemasters are much cheaper than those buses that have doors operated from the front. In general, it would be far better to employ people to prevent fare dodging than support the principle of the Bill, which puts an onus on people to ensure that they have a ticket. In effect, it says that people are guilty if they do not have a ticket and tells them that they can either pay up within 21 days or face court action. Does not my hon. Friend agree that prevention is usually far better than an attempted cure?

Mr. Cohen : The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South makes is absolutely genuine.

One reason I oppose the Bill is because the buses in Leyton that go down the Lea Bridge road were savagely cut and thousands of my constituents were treated in an appalling way. I do not disguise from the House that that is one reason why I oppose the Bill ; I want those buses back on the Lea Bridge road and I want the No. 38 to run to central London again.

However, I also oppose the Bill in principle because of the class discrimination that results from it, which was referred to briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. It will act as a deterrent to stop poor people travelling. If I were to give the Bill a smoother passage, I should want a differentation in the fines imposed on those on income support and those who are hooray

Column 859

Henries. It is no good the Minister and others implying that, because we oppose the Bill, we are in favour of fare evasion, which is absolute nonsense. There must be proper staffing and fares set at a decent level if we are to reduce fare evasion. Those points must be taken into account.

At the meeting I also said that we should increase the penalty fare for hooray Henrys and those who can afford to pay. I would be happy for the fares to be increased for those who can afford to pay, but there should be a much lower penalty for the poor who are already being penalised with high fares. But my suggestion was rejected out of hand. London Underground wrote me a most cursory response at the last minute, which stated :

"We do not accept your contention that low income groups and the unemployed will be particularly penalised nor will they be targeted as a section of society, as you believe. Therefore, we do not propose to make any changes to the Bill."

That was all it said in response to my point that there should be a differentiation in penalty fares.

Mr. Cryer : What my hon. Friend is saying is surprising in view of the fact that, if cases finish up in a magistrates court, as opposed to the summary jurisdiction that the London Transport board is seeking to obtain from Parliament, the magistrate is bound to take into account the financial circumstances of a defendant. Therefore, it appears that London Transport wants one set of rules for its own application of the measures that is quite different and separate from, and in my view inferior to, the set of rules that apply when someone is prosecuted before a magistrates court. That seems to be an unfair set of double standards.

Mr. Cohen : I absolutely agree--that is where we will find class discrimination. When an inspector goes on a tube or bus and fines someone on the spot, the hooray Henries and the A1 and B1 groups referred to by the chairman of London Underground will pay on the spot. They will take out their credit cards to pay. We do not know whether there are arrangements in the Bill for payment by credit card--that is another question to which there was no answer. It is merely stated that appropriate commercial and financial arrangements will be made, but I bet my bottom dollar that there will be a facility to allow people to pay by credit card and cheque. Those who can afford it will be able to get rid of the fine then and there, if that is what they choose to do, but those without money will not be able to do so and will be put through the mill.

In the statement sent to hon. Members, London Transport states that it wants civil proceedings to be used. It says that the penalty will 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 the cases involving flagrant dishonesty when prosecutions will be brought."

All fare evasion could be seen as flagrant dishonesty. What reason is there for the distinction except that poorer people who cannot pay on the spot will be put through the mill of the criminal process. So much money would not have been spent on adverts telling people to get a ticket, not a criminal record, if that were not the intention. The millions of pounds that were probably spent on those adverts would have gone down the drain otherwise, so it is a safe bet that criminal

Column 860

proceedings and criminal records will be kept for the poor. What follows from that but humiliation before the courts, and even vetting?

The Home Office has published a scrutiny report saying that many more people will be vetted when they apply for jobs. A poor person caught out under these procedures will find later that he cannot get a job. He will be discriminated against because his criminal record will show up, whereas a hooray Henry will have paid up right away with his credit card.

That is discrimination ; that is the whiff of hypocrisy referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. Gerald Ronson gets feted and shakes hands with the Queen, while the Government regard the poor as the worst of all criminals because of some petty offence.

The sums of money involved are crucial. A London underground travel pass costs £2.70 a day from Leytonstone to central London, and the most expensive pass costs £3.10. An unemployed man looking for a job might have to follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford and travel around to try to find a job. Even someone who is not looking for a job is entitled to travel round London and make something of his life rather than letting the gloom of unemployment take it over. Such a man will have to spend £2.70 on a travel pass every day. If he buys five a week, one for every working day, it will cost £13.50.

How does that price compare with benefit rates? The Library tells me that a single person aged 16 to 17 entitled to income support may get either £23.65 or £31.15, depending on his circumstances. Someone aged 18 to 24 will get £31.15, and someone aged 25 or older will get £39.65. That could be all that such people receive, yet they are expected to spend £13.50 on travel passes. More than one third of their weekly income would be spent on fares.

We all know what has happened to poor people in the past year. Extra burdens have been imposed on them by the poll tax, fuel costs and other housing costs--rents have been going through the roof--and inflation has been high. Yet even if they buy cheap tickets, poor people can spend more than one third of their income on fares. I could give many other examples. Someone of state pension age--which is 60 for women and 65 for men--may get as little as £52 a week to live on. People below pension age receive unemployment benefit of £41.40. So these poor people have to spend on ludicrously high fares a third of the money that they are given to live on. London Regional Transport, and the Minister, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South, and the 100 Members on the payroll vote who will troop through the Lobby tonight, all say how reasonable and justified the Bill is.

They are not prepared to allow a lower fine for the unwaged. They argue that most fare evaders are As and B1s. They do not believe in charging hooray Henries more and imposing a lower penalty on the unemployed and on 16 and 17-year-olds. The unwaged are charged less for entrance to many other events because their economic circumstances are recognised. It is not that LRT and the Government do not recognise these circumstances--they do not care. LRT is increasing fines to price the unwaged off the tubes and the buses. The chairman of London Underground, Mr. Tunnicliffe, does not only say that all travellers are As and B1s : he wants them to be only As and B1s. He does not want others to be allowed to travel. On-the-spot fines are a facility to enable hooray Henries to get off the hook

Column 861

easily, but they will constitute yet another means of oppression and repression of the poor who dare to travel on our public transport. They are their punishment for daring to do so. LRT was not afraid to squander about £200 million on the ticket barriers described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West as automatic rottweilers. LRT does not care about their safety implications. They are fine in places such as Paris, where the stations have wide concourses, but many of the London stations are narrow, so ticket barriers represent an enormous safety risk. Londoners are fortunate not to have suffered another disaster like King's Cross, but when there is another one--as there will be because of the squalor and under-investment to which I have referred-- probably in the next decade, the ticket barriers will contribute to the loss of life. Neither the management nor the Minister cares about that ; they hope that they will not be in place when it occurs, so they think it acceptable to employ this risk strategy.

The approach has everything to do with reducing staff numbers. Many stations have no staff after 6 pm, which is when a lot of fare evasion takes place. LRT is desperate to reduce staff numbers and is keen to impose many more cuts to which I shall refer if I have the time. but decent staffing levels might provide the answer. Proper staffing levels would also provide a guarantee of safety for women and other passengers that they do not enjoy now.

Those arguments are at the heart of my opposition to the Bill, and I made them to LRT's representatives when they eventually came to see me. I have a letter in which LRT stated that it would be willing to consult right from the beginning. I asked its representatives to come to see me when they had something to offer and could discuss the matter properly--but they turned up only last week.

Only today, I was given official figures showing that unemployment in Leyton and London has risen 60 per cent. over the past 12 months. Those are the people who will be caught by the Bill. LRT's response to my plea for differential fare levels was this :

"We do not accept your contention that low income groups and the unemployed will be particularly penalised. Nor will they be targeted as a section of society as you believe. Therefore, we do not propose to make any changes to the Bill."

LRT, the Minister, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South--who presented the Bill is such peremptory fashion--behave as though the case for differential fares does not exist, but it does.

Even if the differential that I seek is adopted, it will not solve the underlying problem of high fare levels that force the unwaged off the public transport network. In due course, that aspect will have to be addressed by Ministers. It will not be the Ministers who currently hold office, because the Government's rundown of the public transport system is one reason why they will be thrown out at the next general election. However, their successors will have to tackle the issue of fare and income levels, so that poor people can ride.

When, at the beginning of my remarks, I referred to the comments of other hon. Members, the Minister was quick to rise to his feet to ask when I would get to the heart of my speech. Now he sits quietly, because he is not

Column 862

interested. He does not want to tackle the issue of fare levels being more than half the amount that 16 and 17-year olds receive in income support. It seems that he declines responsibility for fare levels, even though he is the Minister for Public Transport--and the secret hand behind the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Ilford, South.

I and my constituents are wondering whether there will be a bus service left on which penalty fares can be applied. I wish that I had more time, because I could say a great deal about deregulation. I have already raised the matter in the House and spoken about the great concerns of many organisations and constituents, who fear that deregulation and privatisation will mean that bus services will be slashed to ribbons. With privatisation, companies will want to go for the profitable routes at profitable times, and other routes will not run.

Recently, I wrote to LRT on behalf of local doctors and asked whether it could send one of the hoppers that it claims make such massive improvements to the new Langthorne health centre where there is great demand. I was told that LRT could not do that. It was not interested in providing a public service. With privatisation, public service will go out of the window. Routes will be run for profit. What use are penalty fares if there are no bus services?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is being very good about keeping in order, but he is just beginning to stray from the substance of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen : I accept that rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that other priorities should be dealt with before the House deals with this Bill.

We are worried that buses will not be operating because of the policies adopted by LRT and the problems that it has not tackled while it has been busy wasting £1 million on the Bill. For example, I have a letter from the leader of Hackney council saying that he is concerned about the Chelsea to Hackney route. Unfortunately, LRT has not drafted a Bill to implement this much-needed route.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South discussed the matter with me briefly and used what I can only call coercion, although it was not from him. He said that LRT would not introduce the Chelsea to Hackney Bill until the penalty fares Bill went through. That argument was used to try to bounce the Bill through. However, LRT has not even drafted the Bill on the Chelsea to Hackney route, let alone put it before the House. So far, it has introduced five Bills, but the one that should have priority has not been introduced. All the established transport and passenger organisations say that such a Bill should have priority even over that for the Jubilee line. Clearly, the game that the management are up to is trying to bounce through this Bill-- which has not been properly thought out or defended and on which it has not briefed the House, or even the hon. Member for Ilford, South--by using the argument that other measures are behind it in the queue and will not be introduced until this Bill is passed. That is scandalous.

Mr. Thorne : The hon. Gentleman is talking a certain amount of rubbish. I discussed the matter with him and explained that, if LRT was losing £29 million a year because of fare evasion, it could not use this money for worthwhile projects such as that which he mentioned. In

Column 863

the interests of the fare-paying passenger, the sooner that an improved public transport system is introduced, the better.

Mr. Cohen : The hon. Gentleman makes an argument for London Transport management getting their finger out and solving the problems that have been mentioned by the objectors to the Bill. The price that I ask is not excessive. I want the No. 38 bus reinstated on the Lea Bridge road/west end route. That is not a great deal to ask. When London Transport cut a bus on the Wandsworth route, the Tories protested and it was reinstated. I want the same treatment for Leyton. Penalty fares should be increased for hooray Henry types and reduced for those who are unemployed or on income support. The intervention by the hon. Member for Ilford, South showed that London Transport should have made a deal and acted reasonably. London Transport came to me last week merely to find out my arguments so that it could brief the hon. Gentleman.

Next Section

Home Page