HC Deb 24 April 1978 vol 948 cc1137-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

I feel particularly grateful for the opportunity of being able to raise in the House tonight what I regard as an extremely important subject—the growing problem of assaults on London Transport bus crews and public transport personnel in the Greater London area. I think that not only the crews themselves but members of the public will also welcome the opportunity of this subject being debated in the House.

It might seem unduly alarmist to raise this matter as a specific subject rather than just to deal with general matters concerning violence in modern society and law and order in general. Incidentally, I can certainly see the logic of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department attending the debate, and I thank her for coming to the House, rather than a Minister from the Department of Transport being present on the Front Bench.

But I do not think that it is enough just to treat this matter as a general problem. There is a specific problem in connection with the growing number of violent indictments on public transport vehicles affecting bus crews, and in respect of Tube trains and other trains, and there are also those involving ticket staffs and station staffs. But the main problem certainly relates to the buses.

If anyone accused me of being alarmist, I would deny that by saying that last year there were nearly 800 cases of common assault. There were 130 other offences similar to that. If one singles out just serious assaults, including grievous bodily harm, one finds that 237 incidents were reported in 1977, and those are only the reported incidents in the Greater London area on London Transport buses alone. They do not include incidents which presumably do not get reported, the minor incidents which could easily turn into violent incidents, and all the rest of it, and they do not include assaults that occur on other members of the public in public transport vehicles, but only on staff, mainly conductors and drivers.

One-third of the assaults, according to London Transport—and I am grateful to London Transport for the figures that I have been given—occur after school hours. Therefore, this is an indication, as with a large number of violent incidents in London—and I say this with great regret and great reluctance—that once again we must consider the growing and specific problem of juvenile offenders, particularly in the big cities and especially, unfortunately, in London.

There are no conclusions to be reached in geographical terms, other than that—it is equally with great regret that I have to say it—most of these incidents have taken place south of the river. I refrain deliberately from singling out specific areas in Greater London where these violent and horrible incidents have taken place on buses, but that seems to be the pattern that has developed.

Lest there be any mistaken conclusion from other kinds of sociological factors and trends in all this sad and sorry picture, there are no racial conclusions to be drawn either. As much as there may be gangs of hooligans, of whatever race, operating in crowds, there are also incidents perpetrated by single assailants or by assailants going around in a group or in pairs, and they can be from all sorts of ethnic groups.

But the incidents are now serious enough to cause grave anxiety at London Transport and particularly amongst the people who have to suffer them directly, the bus crews themselves. In respect of the Tubes, although this is much less of a problem, as we can well imagine, none the less the number of serious assaults last year, at 58, including station staff and ticket staff, is in itself sufficiently alarming for London Transport to be thinking hard about that as well. The total of common assaults was nearly 140. The increase in recent years has been about 10 per cent. per annum.

I know that London Transport is thinking desperately and urgently about measures that can be taken. Before I get on to that aspect of the matter, I feel that it is my duty to mention one or two of the worst incidents. I am grateful to London Transport for providing me with the sad information in these accounts.

There was the case on 3rd April this year at Ealing Broadway when a driver on a No. 83 bus received an emergency signal from the conductor—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Mr. Dykes

I was just describing some of the worst incidents which had been recorded recently. The driver on a No. 83 bus received an emergency signal from the conductor and went round to assist. Four youths, who had apparently been trying to steal a woman's bag, jumped off as the driver arrived. He was struck in the eye, breaking his glasses, and suffered bruising. Because of the incident he was unable to carry on driving. That driver subsequently collapsed and died in North-wick Park Hospital, which serves my constituency and the whole of the borough of Harrow. The cause of death was registered as coronary thrombosis. That driver came from Harrow. That was one of the worst of the recent incidents.

On 16th April last year the driver of a No. 147 bus, which was stationary at Redbridge Lane at 11 o'clock at night, was approached by a 16-year-old boy and asked what time the bus was leaving. The driver told the defendant, and at that point the youth struck the driver about the head and chest and then kicked him several times. The driver suffered cuts to both legs, bleeding from the nose, bruising to both legs and the lower half of his back. The youth was caught and subsequently fined a princely total of £40.

Another incident involved a 65-year-old woman conductor who was on duty at just before midday. A youth boarded her bus and entered the lower saloon. She asked him for his fare. He said that he had no money and would not pay anything. He was told that he would have to pay. He jumped off the bus, but then jumped on again, kicking the woman conductor several times on the leg, and ran off. He was not traced, but following this incident it is unlikely that the woman conductor will be able to continue working.

Recently there has been one of the worst incidents in recent years, as a result of which a life sentence was imposed on an assailant of a bus driver and his conductor, who in a dreadful incident were both stabbed repeatedly. I have in my hand two photographs from two separate editions of the West London Observer showing quite clearly the stab wounds inflicted on Mr. John Heath, the heroic bus conductor who, with his colleague, the driver, suffered these dreadful injuries. Those two men find it difficult to carry on with their work. They are working at the moment, but one can imagine the effect of that incident upon them.

If it is said that I am being alarmist, I reply that I am not. Am I singling out individual incidents and exaggerating them because this does not happen as much as some people think? The answer is in the negative. These incidents have increased enormously in recent years. London Transport is very worried about the situation and so are the bus crews.

What can be done about this growing problem? I believe that all of us in the community of London should get together to consider these problems and various possibilities for action and put them together in some kind of package.

There are no magic or easy answers. I am not suggesting that London Transport has been slow or dilatory in trying to find solutions, or in making suggestions to the police or the Home Office. Furthermore, I am in no way criticising the Government, and I am certainly not criticising the suffering bus crews who have to put up with these attacks. We must examine the background to and the causes of these dreadful incidents, the increase in their numbers and possible solutions.

This problem is too complicated to merit superficial or glib solutions which are not real solutions but just rhetorical references to sloganised possibilities. There are certain strands which have developed recently which perhaps give us the clue to some of these crimes and to what can be done, if not to eliminate them—which would be expecting too much—at least to mitigate their effects and to reduce their incidence in future, if that can be done. This demands a strong lead and guidance from the Government. That is why I have raised the matter tonight.

The evidence shows that many of these incidents are seemingly mindless. They often occur late at night. Many assailants have had too much to drink, which is in itself a difficult problem. It is easier to talk about it than to solve it. The problem is also often to do with fare-dodging or young assailants trying to pay the reduced fare even if they are over age. It is often to do with gangs going around together, waiting until the bus is empty of passengers late at night and then assaulting a conductor or conductress, often elderly, and the driver if he comes from the cab to try to assist the conductor or conductress.

There have been fewer instances pro rata on one-man vehicles. That is probably understandable, in that there is a certain limited amount of physical protection for the operative there. Moreover, the passengers must complete the act of paying the fare on entering the vehicle, rather than paying the conductor.

We must have enormous sympathy for conductors in London over the way in which they struggle and tussle with crowded buses and service the whole bus, particularly a two-deck bus, as is overwhelmingly the case. They have to keep an eye on all the passengers getting on and off, and make sure, if possible, that all the passengers pay their fare.

It has recently been suggested that in order to stop fare-dodging the operatives should impose on-the-spot fines. I have serious doubts about that. In many ways it could make the matter worse. I think particularly of an elderly operative on a deserted route south of London trying to get six aggressive youths to pay a fare when they flatly refuse to do so late at night. The mind boggles.

What can be done? I hope—this is not an old suggestion but is relevant to this modern situation—that magistrates will be more realistic in imposing stiffer fines and other sentences and that the authorities, including Home Office Ministers, will again consider the arguments for a short, sharp sentence. That is better than long-drawn-out prison sentence on an assailant who may indulge in a mindless act which he—and sometimes, regrettably, even she nowadays—regrets later for a long time.

I turn to the physical equipment side. London Transport has already been installing two-way radios and shrill sirens with flashing lights that the bus driver can operate. That must be continued and the programme should be accelerated. I understand that it is not due to be completed until 1981, which seems a long way away in view of this emeregency.

I pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police for their suggestions. They have been discussing the matter with the Government. The use of plain clothes officers, in particular, but also uniformed officers on occasion, can go a long way to reducing the number of incidents, with people being taken into custody by being arrested on the spot, even for a minor incident. There have been a number of experiments along those lines which have appeared to be extremely encouraging.

I come to two specific suggestions that I make with deliberate emphasis, but with great care, because I do not want them to be misunderstood. The Government, London Transport and the Metropolitan Police should at least consider the possibility of using spray dye which cannot be removed and which can be administered by bus operatives on assailants. It would permit identification later, because it could not be removed from the face or hands of the assailants. It sounds drastic and dramatic. I put it forward only as a suggestion, but I should like it to be seriously considered. I must emphasise that such dye does no harm to the person on whom it is sprayed.

I come to a more serious suggestion. Again, I do not want to be misunderstood. On such occasions, the Press naturally use phrases such as "tear gas" which can be misunderstood. But it is now possible to manufacture individual canisters which can be used on one assailant or perhaps two assailants to immobilise them for a few seconds while help is summoned. I know that bus crews will have great hesitation about such an idea. I merely say at this stage that it, too, should be considered.

I also recommend that bus crews should consider self-defence lessons, on a voluntary basis. I do not wish to be misunderstood and I hope that the Minister will not think that I mean that bus crews should become instant judo experts. That would be hopelessly unrealistic. I mean the older operatives might possibly be given limited lessons in self-defence techniques which would help them in these critically difficult situations.

None of these is a perfect solution. It is easy to think of situations, but they usually spring up without warning. Crews have to be on the alert. I raise this matter on a day when a number of garages and routes in London are immobilised because of unofficial action by various garages. That action is totally unconnected with this subject, although there have been stoppages of late services as a result of a fear among bus crews of violent incidents, which have become more regular in recent months.

The industrial action being taken today has to do with the rescheduling of bus services. I regret that this action should be taking place when the bus crews can see that the House is trying to help them. Their action will be inflicting problems on the long-suffering public. Even when we are critical about certain aspects of London Transport services it should not be thought that we are not equally anxious to try to help the bus crews and the public to cope with these terrible incidents, only some of which I have related I could submit a case history of such incidents concerning attacks on bus drivers and conductors.

I come now to the dilemma of the public in all this. Should the public stay out of the way if they see bus drivers and conductors being attacked? Should they have a go? What should they do? The natural advice we would give is for them to keep well away. I believe that the Metropolitan Police would say the same thing. I gather that the Tottenham depot is examining the idea of a perspex screen to protect the operatives of one-man buses. If all of these issues are tackled, the public will benefit. They will feel reassured in that the crews are being protected.

I have put forward possibilities to be examined. This problem will continue and worsen unless drastic action is taken. I hope that matters will not just be left to London Transport but that all of us in London will feel that we are engaged in solving a disturbing and sad problem.

10.13 p.m.

Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for allowing me to reinforce the case he has made so effectively.

This subject of attacks upon bus crews is a matter of some concern in my constituency since many of my constituents work at the Acton depot where London Transport maintains the Underground service. Many other constituents work at the Chiswick depot, which deals with the buses. This is an issue of some proper concern because, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there was a particularly tragic incident at the end of last year which was resolved on 7th April when a Mr. Allan Finney was gaoled for life for stabbing a bus conductor and driver in Acton last November.

I quote from the current edition of London Transport News: Both men were admitted to Hammersmith Hospital. Mr. Gilani"— —that is the driver— had eight stab wounds and a scalp cut. He had been stabbed twice in the chest and in the arm, hand and leg. Some of Mr. Heath's wounds were eight inches deep, penetrating chest and abdomen. The prosecuting counsel, Mr. Jeffreys, said: During an emergency operation his heart stopped but he was revived. Miraculously no major organ had been damaged. Mr. Heath also had face cuts, one of which partially severed his nose. That was a particularly worrying incident because Mr. Finney had previously been gaoled for life in 1968. He was released on licence by the Home Office three months before that incident.

I quote again—this time from what defence counsel was reported to have said— It was surprising, considering his mental background and his propensity for violence, that he had been let out on licence last September, without any form of psychiatric backup. I have written to the Home Office about that case to find out why Mr. Finney was released.

Again in my constituency, there was another incident—my hon. Friend referred to this—when a bus driver died of a heart attack after being called to intervene in an incident involving four or five youths.

As a result of the first incident, which took place at the end of last year, I wrote to the chairman of London Transport to voice my concern at the growing incidence of violence to London Transport staff. He replied on 1st February in these terms: I believe it is quite intolerable that they"— that is, London Transport staff— should be exposed to such pointless hooliganism and brutality while carrying out their duties. He went on to make some comments which should concern the Home Office directly: The Chief Operating Manager (Buses) and the Commander of the British Transport Police (London Transport Area) are shortly to meet the Metropolitan Police to consider what further steps can be taken. If I then think that a further meeting with the Home Secretary is desirable, I shall not hesitate to approach him. I think that the stage may have been reached when the Home Secretary ought to take the initiative and have a chat with the chairman of London Transport in view of the growing public concern. I hope that, if they have a meeting, the Home Secretary—or the hon. Lady—can give every encouragement to London Transport in the measures which it is currently taking.

I quote again from the same letter: You will, of course, be aware of the various measures we have taken to give improved protection to our busmen, including close liaison with local police, the use of our radio cars, the fitting of flashing lights and klaxons to virtually the whole fleet, the equipment of more and more buses with radio and the experimental issue of whistles to staff in certain areas. The problems facing London Transport are problems common to transport operators in other cities, and I think that the Home Secretary may be in a position to encourage best practice from one city to another.

I believe that there is a role here for passengers to help. My hon. Friend touched on this. In all too many incidents, passengers take the attitude that it is not really their concern and they are loth to get involved. I believe that a more positive attitude might be helpful in reducing incidents, especially if passengers can show, before an incident really develops, that the potential aggressor is in a minority and the passengers are on the side of the staff.

I refer, finally, to an article which appeared in The Daily Telegraph last Friday, reporting some comments by Mr. Terry Allan, the transport union bus section divisional officer. He pointed out that For the second successive year, the number of attacks totalled over 1,000. In the past six years busmen have been awarded nearly £500,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and in actions for damages. Mr. Allan pointed out that only the police suffer more assaults, and he went on to say that the alarm system in bus cabs was used in only 25 per cent. of assault cases, often because the driver did not know the conductor was being attacked. I think that there is some scope for improving the system being introduced by London Transport to make sure that the driver knows what is going on. In many cases, of course, the driver is a man and the conductor is a woman, so it is essential that the driver is brought in at an early stage.

I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise the genuine public concern in London, and especially in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend in West London, where we have been singularly unfortunate, and will be able to offer some hope not only to London Transport staff but to passengers so that they are assured that the Home Office and London Transport are doing all they can to get on top of this increasingly serious problem.

10.18 p.m.

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

Although there have been several debates on the themes of law and order and crime prevention, it is some time since the extremely important and serious subject of assaults on public transport staff has been raised in the House, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for providing this opportunity, although, sadly, it was with reference to the recent death of a London bus driver.

Some of the aspects to which I shall refer are the proper concern of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who, I am pleased to see, is here tonight.

Before referring to the difficulties facing public transport personnel in the Greater London area, I shall make some general points bearing on the problem. First, the number of indictable offences of wounding and assault recorded by the police for the whole Metropolitan Police district in 1977 was 12,620, an increase of 6 per cent. over the previous year.

Inevitably, and regrettably, transport workers are not immune from the effects of the incidence of this type of offence. Indeed, their work puts them at particular risk of being unwillingly involved in incidents which may lead to assault, and I agree that everything possible should be done to safeguard against that risk.

Secondly, however hard we try, the risk of an unpleasant incident can never be ruled out. This is not simply a question of police manpower. Although the Metropolitan Police strength is less than desirable—the Government are doing everything they can to help to improve recruitment—it would never be possible for police action alone to eradicate personal assaults. There are things which can be and have been done by police operations to deal with particular local problems, and the Government have shown their determination to strengthen the police. But we must face the fact that no amount of effort, whatever the strength of the police, can guarantee the complete absence of this or any other form of crime.

Thirdly, the powers available to the police are adequate, they consider, in respect of assault on public transport personnel taking place on buses, on the railway and in the Underground.

Finally, the courts already have very considerable powers to deal with violent offenders, and some penalties will be increased substantially when the relevant sections of the Criminal Law Act 1977 come into force later this year. It is for the courts to decide, in the light of the particular circumstances, how they use these powers in an individual case.

The hon. Member for Harrow, East raised the question of bus crews being supplied with dye sprays or canisters of gas to deal with those who assault them. There is always the risk, I think he will agree, that the use of such devices will not only affect the hooligans but could also injure or affect innocent passengers who may be close by. Moreover, I suspect that it could provoke some assailants to an even more violent response. But I note that the hon. Gentleman asked for these measures to be considered as a possibility.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the use of such sprays by the police was raised on an earlier occasion in the House, but then my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rejected the proposal on much the same grounds as I have just given. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has put this suggestion to London Transport, and no doubt it will be considered very carefully. Note has been taken of his suggestion by the Home Office, and it will obviously be noted by the police and by London Transport as well.

With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the chairman of London Transport will be meeting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary following this debate. The idea was that the debate should take place first and then the meeting.

I turn now to the specific problems facing bus crews. Regular consultation is maintained between the Metropolitan Police, the British Transport Police and the London Transport Executive, and information regarding reported incidents is exchanged by the two forces.

In October 1974, as a further effort to co-ordinate police effort and to collate information, arrangements were made for Metropolitan Police inspectors to be appointed as liaison officers at every police station in the area in which an LTE bus garage was situated. Their function is to meet and liaise with the London Transport garage committees and to institute action by police to deal with problems which come to notice.

In addition, reports of incidents on buses are sent to New Scotland Yard by the British Transport Police, and the reports are sent on to the liaison officers. Some incidents of violence fall into a pattern and can be dealt with by appropriate action.

Incidents involving violence caused by drunken behaviour often fall within the above category and can be controlled when anticipated. The garage committee is quick to bring any recurring cases of violence to the notice of liaison officers, who arrange counter-measures by introducing additional foot patrols in the area, and also for extra mobile patrols to follow buses during the problem periods. The arrangements work well, but it is almost impossible to make contingency plans for isolated incidents, sometimes arising from passenger frustration caused by cancelled buses or delays.

Although no central statistics regarding incidents against bus crews are maintained by the Metropolitan Police, the number of incidents notified by the British Transport Police since 1st January 1977 to the end of March 1978 are—common assaults 919, aggravated assaults 237, thefts from crews 44. In other words, over the last 15 months in the whole of the Metropolitan Police district there have been on average fewer than four assaults per week involving bus crews which would have been serious enough to justify criminal proceedings by the police.

Some encouragement may be taken from the fact that common assaults for the first quarter of this year at 113 are lower than for any of the four preceding quarters and compare with 266 in the last quarter of last year. The figures for aggravated assaults show a similar picture, although to a less significant extent—a fall from 46 in the last quarter of last year to 43 in the first quarter of this year.

As regards London Transport Underground, central arrangements are being employed on an experimental basis by co- operation between the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police to deal with anticipated crowd violence arising from travel to and from major sporting events. Following the wave of gang violence and robbery, mainly on the southern part of the Northern Line in 1974, special police squads were employed in the evenings and at weekends in an attempt to protect passengers. Special patrol groups have been used in co-operation with British Transport Police to cover routes on the Underground on which trouble is expected and these have proved highly effective when used.

I understand that closed circuit television surveillance was provided at several Underground stations, proving most effective, and the Home Office research unit is measuring the impact of these installations on the incidence of robbery and theft offences during the first year of operation at four South London stations. Alarm devices of various types have been issued to stations for use by staff when violence threatens. Figures supplied by London Transport for the years 1976 and 1977 show that serious assaults on all staff on the Underground totalled 105 and 148 respectively, on average, approximately two and three per week.

The picture given by the British Railways Board is somewhat similar to that of London Transport. Again action is taken to deal with predictable or likely occasions of violence, and British Railway Police provide police escorts on certain trains carrying football supporters and augment police at stations where trouble is likely to arise. This is done in liaison with the Metropolitan Police. High impact resistant window-screens have been fitted to trains and multiple units, and the board is consulting trade unions about additional protection at bridge parapets in high risk areas. In extreme cases police equipped with two-way radio have ridden beside the driver in an attempt to deal with notorious trouble spots.

The British Transport Police do not keep statistics of assaults for the Greater London area, but in the South-East area I am informed that the figures for all assaults, including common assault, in the three years 1975, 1976 and 1977 were 131, 119, and 118 respectively, and of this latter figure it is estimated that 87 cases were in the GLC area.

I hope that I have sufficiently illustrated that there is no complacency on the part of the Government or the transport authorities involved in seeking measures to prevent violent assaults. The problems of dealing with hooliganism and violent assaults are not unique to the transport industry, or indeed to this county. It is doubtful whether any solution lies ultimately in the powers of the courts or of the police, which can only be invoked after the event.

Preventive techniques seem to offer a more hopeful line of approach and may help to focus—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.