HC Deb 18 February 1975 vol 886 cc1299-308

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

I welcome this opportunity to raise the growing problem of assaults by hooligans on London Transport staff on both bus and rail. There is considerable public concern following the tragic death of a conductor a few weeks ago as a result of a vicious assault while he was on duty.

I was first made aware of the problem some four years ago when I was working at County Hall and was taken on a visit to London Transport where the figures were explained to me. The unions, of course, have known about the problem for rather longer than that. They have been lobbying various Home Secretaries since 1966.

Last year there were 1,059 assaults on bus staff and 273 on railway staff. In 1973 there were 911 assaults on bus staff and 228 on railway staff. In my borough of Bexley during the last 12 months there were eight assaults on bus crews compared with six assaults in the previous 12 months. There have been two incidents recently. Last December a crewman was assaulted twice within a month and threatened with a knife. Recently a driver-operator, while driving a one-man-operated bus—such a bus can carry up to 80 people—was struck repeatedly on the head with a piece of wood. Luckily we have not yet had in my borough an incident quite as ghastly as the case in another borough of a 56-year-old conductress who was sexually assaulted, knocked down and then kicked unconscious.

Time prevents me from coupling with the assaults the vandalism on London Transport. London Transport has told me, however, that about 20,000 light bulbs are destroyed each year along with about 1,000 fire extinguishers, and the annual bill is about £25,000. That bill is met by the travelling public.

It is alarming that youngsters are increasingly responsible for assaults—I believe that they are involved in 30 per cent. of cases. There seems to be no set pattern. When public houses are closing and discotheques are finishing there is a certain rush, as there is when schools finish in the afternoon. I am told that some of the worst assaults have happened outside these set hours. Leaving aside the effect on the victims, the results of such attacks are, first, the loss of mileage by London Transport buses. Secondly there are considerable gaps in the service. Bexley, being an outer London borough, suffers particularly from this. Many of those who curse London Transport for not supplying a bus according to schedule late at night are unaware that the reason is that the driver or conductor has had a punch-up further up the route.

Recruiting is bound to suffer. There is a serious shortage of London Transport staff. The tragedy is that such assaults are turning the travelling public away from public transport at a time when we are all, in all parties, determined to try to get them back on it.

I do not deny that the problem is part of a big problem of violence that haunts the centres of our major conurbations. In part it is connected with the rising levels of juvenile delinquency. Perhaps the inadequacies of the 1969 Act have something to do with that. It is also connected with the shortage of police, particularly Metropolitan Police.

What can and must be done by the authorities? I take the buses first. Certain hooters are being installed. They are complementary to two-way radios, and no substitute for them. About 120 buses out of 6,000 are fitted with such a device, as well as flashing lights. London Transport kindly invited me to a demonstration last Friday, when I was impressed with the hooter that was demonstrated.

The installation of radios is of major importance. I am told that it will take many years to complete the programme. It should be speeded up. Only about 300 sets have been fitted so far. One of the hold-ups is in the provision of sites for the main aerials. I appeal for better co-operation from the London boroughs. I have been told that planning applications take from 12 to 15 months. The Royal Borough of Kensington has apparently delayed since June over an important site. It should be able to work a little quicker than that. Centre Point has considerable potential for at least something—perhaps an aerial. Again, there is a hold up. Perhaps the co-operative movement will be able to help.

There is a need for more channels for the sets. They need at least 20, and I understand that only 15 have been allocated by the Home Office for London Transport. Why is it that a new taxi cab operator appears to be able to get a channel comparatively easily while London Transport stems to be stuck on 15?

Finance is never far from the question. I urge the Government to help with subsidies so that the radios can be installed without delay.

On the Underground, closed circuit television is a possibility in certain trouble spots. London Transport is experimenting with ticket collectors' boxes which give greater protection.

The nub of the matter appears to be that the penalties available, which I believe are sufficient, are not being imposed. I have been appalled by the light sentences being given when the culprit is caught—and it is very rare that he is. In many cases the criminal is out of prison before the bus conductor or conductress is out of hospital and back at work.

Time prevents my going into details, but I have a record compiled by London Transport of offences and sentences. It shows that the position has become ludicrous. A driver was attacked by four youths and kicked and punched about the body, suffering bruising to both legs. Four youths were convicted of assaulting a bus driver, and one was also convicted of fare evasion. They were fined £10 each and ordered to pay £5 costs. That is no suitable sentence.

I take another case. A conductor was punched about the face, causing bruising and damage to his spectacles. A man was convicted of assaulting the conductor and damaging a pair of spectacles. He was conditionally discharged and ordered to pay £8 compensation.

I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether the Lord Chancellor has sent out a letter on the need for sentences which will provide some respectable deterrent. I appreciate that magistrates must have some discretion, but I suspect that the Minister will agree that the position at the moment is totally unsatisfactory. I appreciate too, that it is difficult for the Home Office, but, in the past, the Lord Chancellor has given instructions or guidance, and I hope that this may happen in this case.

Following a meeting on 3rd February between respresentatives of the union and the Home Secretary, apparently the union has been waiting for a statement in the House by the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we may be told what has happened to that statement.

I believe that there is a clear need for the legal powers of the police to be extended. What can the Home Office do to speed this up? I hope that we shall not have to wait for the Law Revision Committee to report.

It has been suggested that London bus crews are public servants and, as such, should have the same protection as law enforcement officers. What are the Minister's views about that? What is the Home Office doing to find out how similar problems have been tackled abroad—for example, in Hamburg or Detroit?

What advice is the Home Office giving members of the public who may witness such an incident? I appreciate that this is a difficult one to judge, but my own advice would be to observe and to report by telephone to the police as quickly as possible. However, clearly there are cases, especially where youngsters are involved—perhaps rowdy kids on the way home from school—where the public should be prepared to step in to protect a conductor or driver. After all, the conductors and drivers are there to help the travelling public, to help individuals, and they should be helped from time to time in return.

Much more must be done to get posters displayed in the proper places on London Transport—for example, in buses and on the Underground—pointing out the penalties for assaults on London Transport staff and drawing the public's attention to the amount of vandalism which takes place on public transport in London.

Much more needs to be done to obtain better public understanding of what is at stake. We all know how public opinion takes a long time to be aroused. It was aroused by the murder a few weeks ago. It was not aroused, apparently, by the record of assaults stretching back many a year.

There is a tremendous need for speedy and determined action by all the authorities concerned. Public transport services in our capital are under a very real threat.

12.33 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)

I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) has chosen to raise the serious problem of attacks on London Transport staff, which, regrettably, have become a feature of urban life in recent years and which are to be deeply deplored.

We were all shocked by the tragic death of Mr. Ronald Jones, a conductor, last month, and on behalf of the Government I take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy to Mr. Jones's family and colleagues.

On 3rd February, the General Secretary and other officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Chairman of London Transport, came to see my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Transport to discuss measures which might improve the situation. My right hon. Friends agreed to take action on a number of points. I think it fair to say that the announcement of the action the Government proposed to take was received with approval by both employers and unions, as evidence of the Government's determination to deal with the problem. My right hon. Friend issued a full Press statement on 3rd February containing the immediate results of the meeting. We hope that the measures to be taken will help to improve the situation.

Mr. Townsend

At this point, will the Minister let us know what is happening about the statement to the House?

Dr. Summerskill

I shall certainly refer the hon. Member's request to my right hon. Friend.

There can be no doubt that misconduct on buses and underground trains, of which assaults on staff are the most serious feature, is a growing problem. The hon. Gentleman gave some figures and descriptions to illustrate this. Perhaps I might supplement his figures.

In 1972, 669 assaults on London Transport staff were reported to the police. The equivalent figure for 1973 was 771. the corresponding figure for 1974 is not yet available, but there can be no doubt it will show a further increase.

Statistics for 1974 are available, however, for the number of incidents on buses considered worthy of report to the police in 1974—and, in fact, 849 such incidents on buses were reported. Not all involved assaults on staff—though most did—and conversely not all assaults will have been reported. Nevertheless it is an alarmingly high figure. Analysis shows, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, that 28 per cent. of these incidents occurred between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. and 22 per cent. between 10 p.m. and midnight. In no fewer than 70 per cent. of the cases—589 in all—the offender was never identified. In a further 190 cases, names and addresses were exchanged, and in 70, arrests were made. These statistics underline the major problem in dealing with assaults on bus crews—the problem of getting police to the scene before the offender has fled.

The total London Transport bus fleet consists of 6,500 buses. They travel many millions of miles every year. This poses particular problems in terms of law enforcement. The Metropolitan Police—whose resources are already stretched in other directions—cannot be everywhere at once. When an assault is committed in present circumstances it will usually take some time for the police to be summoned, and when they arrive the offenders have often long since left the scene. Police must be got to the scene of an assault more quickly if they are to have any chance of catching offenders.

In this connection radio is potentially of very great importance on the theory that a violent assault will usually be preceded by a few minutes of minor disturbance, during which the police may be alerted. Other cities in the United Kingdom, including Leicester and Glasgow, have found bus radios helpful—not only in dealing with assaults, but also in maintaining regular services. London Transport has 300 buses fitted with two-way radios, and the intention is to have 1,000 equipped by the end of the year. Bus operators have been advised that part of the cost of installation can be met by grant. One difficulty is that the public service vehicle regulations do not at present permit bus drivers to speak by radio when their vehicles are in motion. The Department of the Environment is drafting regulations to overcome this problem. There is nothing to prevent their installation or use while stationary.

In addition, two types of alarm system have been under consideration. One is the klaxon or siren alarm, but this carries the risk of confusion with that of an emergency services vehicle. London Transport and others concerned have also been considering the form of alarm which depends on continuous flashing of the indicator lights and sounding the horn. I understand that a number of alarm systems were demonstrated to the police and others interested at the Victoria Garage on Friday 14th February last.

A provisional decision was made in favour of an alarm system which flashes the lights and sounds the horn intermittently and more loudly. London Transport has already equipped some of its fleet with a form of this system on an experimental basis. Amending regulations are being prepared by the Department of the Environment as a matter of urgency.

The Metropolitan Police, for their part, have been doing what they can within the limits of their resources to extend the protection given to bus crews. In October of last year they established a new formal system of liaison with London bus garages. Over 60 garage liaison officers of the rank of inspector have been appointed. They attend the regular meetings of the local garage consultative committees on which employers and staff are represented. They are available for informal consultation at any time. The Metropolitan Police held a seminar on this subject on 31st January which was addressed by representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union and London Transport. They are also taking a close and continuing interest in proposals for alarms and other possible improvements.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regards close liaison between the police and the employers and the unions as an important factor, particularly in the opportunity it provides for identifying the main trouble spots, analysing the causes of the trouble and discussing specific plans for dealing with it.

The Chairman of London Transport has told the Home Secretary that he will propose to his Executive that police officers should be allowed to travel free on buses in the hope that, if they were encouraged to use bus services, their presence would provide added protection for the crews. This proposal is under careful consideration.

My right hon. Friend has also announced his acceptance of the need to give the police more powers to deal with offenders. Of course, they already have the power to arrest where an arrestable offence has been committed and they arrive on the scene in time to apprehend the offender. But they have no power to arrest for a breach of the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1936, which govern the behaviour of passengers and crew members. At present offences against these regulations—they cover a wide range from riotous or disorderly conduct, or refusing to pay one's fare, to spitting or distracting the driver—can be prosecuted only by way of summons.

My right hon. Friends consider this to be the right method of enforcement in principle, but its effectiveness depends on obtaining the offender's name and address. As the regulations stand, an offending passenger may be required by the driver or conductor, or by a police officer, to give his name and address, refusal to do so being in itself an offence. Clearly if the offender leaves the bus without giving his correct name and address he cannot be brought to court. My right hon. Friend announced, following his meeting with London Transport and the union leaders, that the law would be amended as soon as possible to provide the police with powers of arrest to deal with this situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking steps to ensure that the necessary legislation is prepared as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Townsend

Will the hon. Lady confirm that we are not waiting for the Criminal Law Revision Committee to report? That would obviously delay matters.

Dr. Summerskill

If I may I will confirm that point by letter but I think I am right in saying that we are not waiting for the Committee to report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take what I have said as being definite.

The hon. Gentleman raised the extremely important matter of penalties. I know that union leaders are concerned about the penalties imposed by the courts on those offenders who are traced and prosecuted.

As the hon. Gentleman realises, this is a matter for the courts and my right hon. Friend has now power to intervene. However, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has taken the opportunity of an address to a branch of the Magistrates' Association to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem of assaults on public transport workers.

I also wish to refer the hon. Gentleman to some recent remarks made by Judge Sebag Montefiore when sentencing a first offender for punching a bus conductor on an East London bus. The judge said: Bus crews are entitled to look to judges for and the enforcement of law for protection. Anyone who appears before me on such offences, whether he has previous convictions or not, will receive a custodial sentence. I have noted all the other points and suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman and they will receive careful consideration. Those who man our public transport system perform a vital public service. They deserve public support. If assaults continue, there can be no doubt that more men and women will leave the industry—with the effect of reducing the efficiency of London's public transport system. Buses and trains are run for the benefit of the public, but behaviour of this kind can have only the effect, in the long term, of reducing the service available to them. Busmen in particular suffer because they are isolated targets for drunken and loutish misbehaviour. Their morale has been somewhat shaken and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated, the Government intend to do all they can to support them in the vital work they do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to One o'clock.