Examination of Witnesses (Questions 50-59)
MR BRIAN
COOKE, MR
JOHN CARTLEDGE,
MR COLIN
FOXALL, MR
ANTHONY SMITH,
MR ALAN
MEREDITH AND
MR STEPHEN
ABBOTT
23 NOVEMBER 2005
Q50 Chairman: Gentlemen, can you identify
yourselves from my left, please?
Mr Cooke: Brian Cooke, I am the
Chairman of London TravelWatch which until recently was known
as the London Transport Users' Committee.
Mr Cartledge: I am John Cartledge,
the Deputy Chief Executive of London TravelWatch.
Mr Foxall: I am Colin Foxall,
Chairman of the Rail Passengers' Council.
Mr Smith: Anthony Smith, the Chief
Executive of the Rail Passengers' Council.[12]
Mr Meredith: Alan Meredith, Chairman
of the East Midlands Passenger Transport Users Forum.
Mr Abbott: I am Stephen Abbott,
the Hon. Secretary of the East Midlands Passenger Transport Users
Forum.
Q51 Chairman: Thank you. Do any of you
have anything you want to say briefly before we begin?
Mr Cooke: I do not.
Q52 Chairman: Mr Foxall?
Mr Foxall: Very briefly, Chairman.
I am very glad that the Committee is looking at fares because
our research, particularly the National Passenger Survey, which
we are now responsible for, rates value for money in relation
to fares and fares as number two in passenger concerns. As a result,
we have planned a major piece of work on this for the coming year
so we are going to be very interested in what the Committee has
to say about the subject. I have three very short points to make.
Passengers need a smarter fares policy because the existing structure
is too complicated and there are a host of complex issues to reconcile.
We have heard about some already but, for example, yield curves
versus walk-up fares. Fares policy—I think a very important
point—is bound up with what kind of railway we want and
what kind we are going to get. All of that now is complicated
by rising demand which means the industry is looking at demand
management which amounts to putting the railways first and passengers
second rather than the other way round.
Q53 Chairman: Does anybody else want
to say anything?
Mr Meredith: I think the point
we would like to make is trying to buy the bargain price ticket
is a bit like a lucky dip, you do not know what you are going
to get until you come to pay the price. We think this is a result
of the confusion of the fare types, which has already been referred
to, and it does result in rail passengers not necessarily buying
the cheapest tickets. To add to that confusion there is the cost
of the standard ticket which has increased relative to the saver
ticket which in turn is being restricted more and more so that,
in fact, there is a restriction of choice there. Basically we
are supporting the case for a review of the simplicity, standardisation
of terminology and conditions where this is appropriate. To remove
the TOC (Train Operating Company) lottery that it is just a matter
of luck.
Q54 Chairman: Before we get to cleaning
up the structure like that, tell me what ought to be the objective
of the fares policy?
Mr Meredith: It ought to be a
realistic price which reflects the circumstances. Clearly we accept
that at peak times people are going to pay higher fares than off-peak.
Q55 Chairman: Realism. Mr Foxall, do
you agree with that?
Mr Foxall: Yes, I think I do,
but value for money is what I think I am talking about because
we have to look at where we are in terms of demand and what is
available, how you can use the trains. I think what passengers
have reason to expect is value for money.
Q56 Mr Scott: Do you feel that we should
look at how the airlines sell their tickets? I do accept what
was said earlier that not everyone has the Internet but if you
are on the Internet and log on, you tap in where you want to go
and the cheapest fare available comes up. Would you agree that
is a way forward for the rail industry as well?
Mr Foxall: I am very hesitant
about this because we represent passengers and we are about to
undertake a major piece of research, and I do not want to say
things here which passengers do not think. Our job is to find
out what passengers think, it is not what I think that matters.
If you ask me for a guess, I think there is a lot of apprehension
about that sort of system being applied to the railways but it
seems to work quite well, very well for the airlines, but it has
a problem and the problem is that walk-up fares are going to be
dear unless you find some other solution to it. That is why I
made the point at the beginning reconciling these two is very
hard. I do not say that is the right solution but it is clearly
a solution some companies are going for and we have to look at
it in the research we do.
Q57 Mr Scott: Would you agree a more
simplistic approach of the same tickets, the same names of tickets
being available wherever you are?
Mr Foxall: Simplicity is the key
to getting people using public transport. If you understand and
you have information you can use it, if you do not have information
and you do not understand you cannot. I think the present system
is a product of all kinds of things that happened over a very,
very long period of time in different parts of the country. My
guess is that we have to clean it up, not necessarily have a standard
system over the country but we have to clean it up.
Q58 Mr Clelland: We have heard from our
previous witnesses that fares on the mainland of Europe are higher
than in the United Kingdom. Would you agree with that and, if
so, why do you think it is?
Mr Foxall: I think comparisons
are very difficult to make. We heard the discussion between the
Chairman and the witnesses about how you base it and whether you
look at purchasing power parity, costs and indices, how you cost
it out there is a question of what you get. We have a relatively
frequent rail service on many of our main lines, in other parts
of Europe that is not the case. I think those comparisons are
very hard to make and we agree on the face of it they are cheaper,
and some of our fares are significantly dearer, but I think those
comparisons are very hard. I think we have to operate within the
UK and get value for money here.
Q59 Mr Clelland: Do you think there is
a case for arguing fares ought to be lower in the United Kingdom
and, if so, how could that be achieved without further public
subsidy?
Mr Foxall: Clearly you can lower
fares if you increase the frequency and the use of trains. More
passengers mean more revenue. Railway companies actually collecting
fares in some cases would be quite a good thing. Revenue protection
is not always evident, so collecting fares that you are supposed
to be collecting would be a good thing. We are glad to see barriers
going up in various places to increase that. Clearly getting more
people on trains is very important but if you get to a stage where
the trains are so full that people are unsure whether they can
get on the train you may have a negative effect on people's desire
to travel. The basic answer to your question is of course we would
like to see value for money. Cheaper fares is a difficult question
to answer: what is cheap, what is dear? It is what is value for
money to the customer.
12 Passenger Focus were formerly known as the Rail
Passengers' Council (RPC) Back
| 
