PASSENGER FARES (LONDON) (Hansard, 22 March 1972)

§ Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore the powers of the Transport Tribunal relating to the control of passenger fares in London. The House generally and London Members in particular will be aware of the very grave dissatisfaction felt by the travelling public in London about the bus services provided by London Transport, in particular the services which operate within this great metropolis. That dissatisfaction has been going on for almost a decade and is increasing every day. I suggest that hardly one hon. Member representing a London constituency does not receive some complaint about the bus services in his constituency at least once a week. I think this applies more to those of us who represent the outer London boroughs. It is fair to say that in the inner London boroughs the more numerous services tend to assuage some of the anger, despite the ever-increasing fares. But in the outer London boroughs—Ealing, for example—the paucity of the services is such that the frustration of the ordinary travelling public is getting very serious.

It is incumbent upon me also to say that what I have said so far implies no personal criticism of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive and his staff. They have to operate within the limits of the Act, and I realise that they have a very difficult task which they carry out to the best of their ability, as I know from my own experience. But the fact is that, notwithstanding the good will and co-operation of the chairman and his senior officers, there has been no improvement in London Transport bus services, and, what is more, fares are going up and up.

The average Londoner says, "Year in and year out we are asked to pay more for an inferior service which depreciates annually." We have to acknowledge the remarkable patience and contribution made to London Transport by the bus drivers and the conductors, the staff of the Tubes and the maintenance staffs. I pay tribute to them. Often, because of the incredible inefficiency of the bus section of London Transport, much of 1520 the burden of the initial anger of people is vented on the innocent bus conductor or driver. When people have been waiting for half an hour or even 40 minutes they complain that when the buses do come they come in convoys, and say that it is because of the malevolence of the wicked drivers and conductors. Very often the spleen, agitation and annoyance of the travelling public are vented on the innocent bus driver or conductor.

This is one of the reasons why there has been such difficulty in recruiting staff for London Transport. Those of us who are concerned about this matter have been told that better services cannot be provided because, among other things, London Transport cannot attract staff. Because of this there are fewer buses and an inferior service. The London Transport Executive is obliged to pay its way, but because there are fewer passengers there is less money coming in, and the fares have to go up. People are getting fed up.

The London Transport Fares Tribunal had its origins in the Transport Act, 1947, and had power under the general procedure outlined in the Act to regulate fares. Its identity and definition emerged in the Transport Act, 1962. The tribunal was set up by Section 45 of the 1962 Act in the following terms: The Transport Tribunal shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, have power to make orders as respects the following charges of the London Board and the Railways Board, that is to say—

(a) charges for the carriage of passengers by railway on journeys wholly within the London Passenger Transport area, and
(b) charges for the carriage of passengers by road on routes wholly or partly within the London special area …"

The authority of the tribunal was removed by Section 27 of the Transport (London) Act, 1969. The general argument advanced then was that as London Transport's responsibilities were to be handed over to the Greater London Council the councillors of the G.L.C. would be much nearer to the people than the members of the former London Transport Executive and, therefore, there would be no need for the London Fares Tribunal. This has not worked out. I am not making any criticism of G.L.C. councillors, but the envisaged philosophy has not materialised, and the result has been, despite the argument that the 1521 G.L.C. councillors would be closer to the travelling public, that there has been no improvement in London Transport and no reduction in fares.

I should like to explain what this tribunal did. All sections of the community in London, local authorities and professional organisations appeared before the tribunal to appeal against any increase in fares made by London Transport. Quite often the tribunal upheld a decision of the executive, but there were occasions when the tribunal ruled that the full extent of an increase was unacceptable and it was refused. This often had the effect not only of keeping down fares but of making London Transport a little more efficient

I beg the House to allow me to introduce this Bill so that the voice of Londoners can be heard once again in the control of a great public transport system which I believe will be made more efficient by this tribunal.