| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister sent me his apologies and the reason for his absence, which is a very important mission overseas, which I accept. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman also sent his apologies to the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells) indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: The Opposition indicate that that is the case. Perhaps it was remiss of me not to remind the Minister who first answered to make that quite clear to the House. I apologise to the House; perhaps it was my fault for not reminding the Minister that he ought to do that. In future, if the Secretary of State has to be absent, it is always a good thing for the Minister answering to explain to the entire House so that we are all aware of it.
Ticket Touting (London Underground)
3.34 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in relation to the sale of London Underground tickets by unauthorised persons.
London Underground carried out a survey recently. About three quarters of those who responded said that they would give their tickets to a tout--either because they did not see much harm, given that they no longer needed the ticket, or because they considered that the people asking were down on their luck and lacked the money needed to buy a ticket.
It is illegal for people to buy and sell underground tickets, but more important matters are at stake than the relatively small amounts of money involved. Although I shall return to the question of money, I do not consider it to be the main issue.
I only realised the seriousness of the nuisance caused by touts at stations when I encountered the problem in my constituency and in the borough of Waltham Forest. It is especially bad at busy underground stations in central London, but difficulties arise in parts of east London, too.
Passengers are harassed--the gentlest means are not always used--to hand over a ticket that they no longer need, or to buy a ticket from a tout. I have seen passengers at ticket machines being almost surrounded by people wanting them to buy a ticket from them.
Touts especially focus on women, and women with children, as they think that they will be easier targets. Such targeting can be a threatening experience for passengers, but people who have been harassed, or consider that they have been harassed, are reluctant to act as witnesses if a prosecution is brought.
Just last week, I was approached by a passenger as I went home from the House late one evening. He did not know about my Bill, but he asked me when something was going to be done about the touts. He explained that he had refused to hand his ticket over to touts, and that the same people had approached him, repeatedly and in a threatening manner, over the following two weeks as he went into the station on his way to work in the evening. He said that he felt quite threatened.
London Underground staff also suffer from threats, and sometimes are assaulted. I have spoken to staff members, London Underground managers and trade union representatives, and all tell the same story: staff who interfere with the touts' activities and tell them to move on are threatened and, on occasion, physically assaulted. I was told too that some members of staff who approach touts at stations have been followed on their way home. Clearly, those people are not likely to be too keen to get involved and perhaps give evidence.
The problem extends to people who work around underground stations. A newsagent told me that a knife was held to her throat when she objected to people
blocking her news stand as they tried to sell tickets to passengers. Two other people--a florist and a newsagent in my borough--have complained to me that their businesses have suffered because passengers do not want to visit their stalls when touts are hanging around nearby.Ticket touts are a serious problem at many underground stations. London Underground's best estimate is that they cost about £1 million in lost revenue every year. Clearly, that is money that could be invested in the system, but the prime issue is the safety of passengers and staff.
Why is there a need for a change in the law? The degree of offence and level of penalty under the law as it stands make the problem difficult to deal with. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 defines the offence as minor. Ticket touting is not, in itself, an arrestable offence--another offence would have to be committed as well for an arrest to be made. Nor is it recordable: when someone is arrested and charged, the offence is not recorded. Under London Underground byelaws, there is a maximum fine of £50, but, again, the offence is arrestable only if someone refuses to give his name and address. That is not much of a deterrent.
The levels of penalty are not very severe, and because the offence is not recordable, repeat offenders can appear in court again and again, but as far as the magistrate is concerned, they are there for the one offence which appears quite trivial--trying to sell an underground ticket for £1.50, when they did not have authority to sell it. The minor penalties, conditional discharges and tiny fines are no deterrent for repeat offenders.
The Bill would clarify and strengthen the law in this area. I do not believe that the law is the only answer. Part of the answer is for passengers not to give their tickets over when they have finished with them. As with quite a lot of pretty crime, there are links with drugs--some of the people involved undoubtedly want the money to buy drugs. I do not believe that penalties are necessarily the only answer--we need other ways of dealing with the drugs problem. However, there is no question but that we should be able to be tougher on persistent repeat offenders and those who harass passengers. The police should have the power of arrest so that it is much simpler and easier for them to deal with the problem, which would mean revision of the PACE provisions. I believe that it would be useful if the London Underground byelaws were in some way amended and brought into statute law.
That is the purpose of the Bill, which I commend to the House this afternoon.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Mike Gapes and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.
Ticket Touting (London Underground)
Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to the sale of London Underground tickets by unauthorised persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 139].
Orders of the Day
Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
That the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order: Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 42 and Schedule 4; New Clauses relating to Part I; Amendments relating to Clauses 43 to 47, Schedule 5, Clauses 48 and 49, Schedule 6, Clauses 50 to 57, Schedule 7 and Clauses 58 and 59; New Clauses relating to Part II; Amendments relating to Clause 60, Schedule 8, Clause 61, Schedule 9, Clauses 62 to 65 and Schedule 10; New Clauses relating to Part III; Amendments relating to Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 11 and Clauses 71 and 72; remaining new Clauses; new Schedules.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Clause 1
3.43 pm
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 1, line 12, at end insert--
', and is at least 10 hectares in size'.
Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 102, in page 2, line 17, leave out "wholly or predominantly" and insert--
'of at least 60 per cent.'.
No. 306, in page 2, line 21, at end add
', and to which the public has a general right of access'.
Mr. Green: In Committee, the Minister described the Bill as "messy". He was right then, and, unfortunately, he is still right. He will be as aware as anyone that the countryside's dislike of the Government is growing by the week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore respond positively during our debates to our attempts to improve the Bill.
This group of amendments--particularly amendments Nos. 101 and 102--represents an attempt to continue to make this part of the Bill less impracticable: one of our main complaints about the Bill concerns its impracticability. The Government should be aware that as they stir up opposition in country areas with other measures that we have heard about this week, it is all the more important that this Bill should not cause further friction between the Government and their officials, and those who live and work in the countryside. Let me give an example of the effects of many of the measures in part I of the Bill. Every farmer contemplating providing permissive access as part of a stewardship scheme or diversification initiative will now have that income- earning opportunity removed. It is precisely because upland farmers will be the people most affected by the right of access as defined in the Bill that it is important that the provisions in part I should be made as workable, and non-disruptive to their businesses, as possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |