VIOLENCE ON LONDON TRANSPORT

HC Deb 23 May 1980 vol 985 cc972-83

1 pm

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to violence on London Transport. In February 1975 I initiated a similar debate on the same subject. It is a grim comment on life in our capital city that five years later the level of violence is considerably higher and public concern is many times greater. Not long ago British newspapers were full of details of muggings on the New York Underground. It is now our capital that attracts attention for violence on public transport; it is now our city where people fear to ride on trains and buses late at night; it is our constituents, families and friends who are assaulted on our public transport.

We saw the disgraceful scenes that preceded, accompanied and succeeded the England-Scotland football match at Wembley last year. We saw the incidents at Southgate station and Finsbury Park, and the recent violent death on the District Line. Above all, we saw the battle at Neasden-a riot that was a frightening example and warning, and most of those involved were under 14. On that grim Saturday night 200 teenagers fought each other and the London Transport staff, wrecked a train and injured the driver. The Sunday Telegraph reported: There was blood on the pavement where hundreds had fought the night before. The Daily Express reported: Punks, Teds and skinheads are increasingly a hazard for late-night travellers … The ' battle ' in Neasden was the worst in a long line of incidents. I quote from an editorial in The Daily Telegraph: Rising violence on the Underground is no more than a reflection on the increase in violence in Britain generally. But the nature of the Underground system, with its staff shortages, unpoliced trains, unattended stations and long, cavernous passages gives great scope for criminal elements to prey on victims undetected. What are the facts and figures behind such press coverage?

Of course, most of the 6 million passengers who travel on London Transport buses and trains each day do so without witnessing unruly or dangerous behaviour of any kind, but last year 2,000 people were attacked on London Transport. That is an average of more than five each day. This year's figure is expected to be higher.

Those who run our transport system perform a vital service, but they have become the obvious targets for delinquents, drunks, thugs and morons. Five years ago there were 270 assaults on London Transport rail staff. Last year there were 369. Five years ago there were 986 assaults on bus staff. Last year there were 1,169. Of all the assaults on the Underground in 1979, 11 per cent, were by individuals under 17; 73 per cent, by individuals in the 18–21 age group; and 9 per cent, by those in the 22–30 age group.

I was horrified to be told that the worst period of the day for assaults on bus staff was between 3.30 and 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday, when children come out of school. What a chilling indictment of life in London in 1980!

Let me tell the House of two cases of assault brought to my attention by the Transport and General Workers Union, which has been discussing these matters with various Home Secretaries since 1966. A woman conductor aged 56 was sexually assaulted, knocked down and kicked unconscious. The assailants were not found. In another case, a 32-year-old conductor was attacked from behind, kicked and punched, dragged off his bus and thrown through a shop window. Three men were apprehended, and they appeared in court One was cleared of the charge. The other two—believe it or not—received suspended sentences of six mouths' imprisonment.

What can and must be done? I am delighted to find widespread agreement among all concerned about the way forward. It is appropriate to start with penalties. I quote from a Transport and General Workers Union report: Bus crews have had their morale impaired and are increasingly disturbed by what they regard as leniency on the part of the courts … Fines and probation have no real deterrent effect in their eyes. The scale of injuries has reached alarming proportions, from bleeding noses to fractured jaws and from broken arms and damaged eyes to murder. I congratulate the unions on what they do to alert us all to what has been done to their members. For my part, I tell the Minister bluntly that I am appalled by the light sentences being given when the culprit is caught-and it is very rarely that he is caught.

From about 100 cases examined by one union, there were only 13 known prosecutions. The great British public has a great British capacity for looking the other way. In many cases, the attacker never goes to prison. He should go—rather than women who run suburban brothels. In a few cases, the criminal is out of prison before the bus conductor or driver is out of hospital.

Does the Home Secretary consider that the maximum penalty for the offence of assault is sufficient, in view of the recent recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee? If not—and I understand that he does not—when will he do something about it?

I appreciate that magistrates must have discretion, but has not the Lord Chancellor sent out a letter recently on the need for sentences that will provide a respectable deterrent? Are the magistrates too bound up in their own administrative regulations? Should an assault on a uniformed transport worker be regarded as more serious than common assault, as many transport authorities would like? I can see many problems arising from such a proposal.

Have the courts the required armoury of penalties? Can the Minister confirm that parents can, and frequently should, be bound over for the good behaviour of their children? After all, why should a parent allow a 14-year-old boy or girl to be in a disco at 11.30 pm? How often are the parents forced, as they can be, to pay fines imposed on their children? What is to be done to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969?

I turn to the matter of special equipment. Much has been done. There is much more to do. Nearly all buses now have emergency hooters. About 2,800 buses out of 5,000 have two-way radios. Five years ago only 300 buses were so equipped. They need more radio channels. Perhaps we could be told whether they will get them.

On the Underground, there is a requirement for wider use of closed-circuit television surveillance, strengthened windscreens in cabs, and perhaps more assault-proof ticket-collecting booths, for 77 assaults in 1979 were against ticket collectors. I am a little more cautious in asking for more ticket-collecting booths after hearing yesterday of a case in New York where the ticket collector did have a booth—a wooden one—and it was set on fire with him inside it. There should be separate cabs for guards and special locks on all cab doors.

Following the Neasden riots, there has been public discussion of the best way of policing the Underground. The London Transport division of the British Transport police is responsible for policing about 250 miles of track and 280 stations, as well as other LT installations. It has been agreed that their numbers should be increased from about 175 to 500—a remarkable comment, in itself, on the size of the problem. I learnt this morning that that increase was first suggested more than four years ago. Even such an increase would not provide a police presence throughout the extensive network and it is hoped to improve their internal and external communications.

London Transport claims that the cooperation received from the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police has been excellent. Since members of both forces were given free travel on buses and Underground trains, whether on or off duty, they have made about 10 arrests a month and have a strong deterrent effect on vandals and hooligans. The Essex and Thames Valley forces are to be given the same concessions.

Perhaps I could mention, in passing, that substantially more than 20,000 light bulbs are destroyed by vandals each year, along with about 1,000 fire extinguishers. Vandalism is costing London Transport more than £1 million a year, and the bill is met by the travelling public.

In a debate on London on 2 May, a case was made for making the Metropolitan Police fully responsible for policing the Underground. Having listened to all the arguments, I am not convinced that that would be wise. The city forces in New York and Paris have special divisions patrolling the railway system. About 15 per cent, of London Transport's activities take place outside the Metropolitan Police boundary. The special patrol group can be, and frequently is, called in. At Neasden, contrary to press reports, the Metropolitan Police took only eight minutes to arrive.

Apart from the obvious injuries to the crews, assaults that take place on buses lead to a loss of mileage and gaps in services. Many of those in my constituency who curse London Transport for not supplying a bus on schedule late at night are unaware that the reason is that the driver or the conductor has been beaten up further along the route.

Assaults turn the travelling public away from public transport and encourage experienced drivers to leave London Transport. I was staggered to learn that London Transport believes that violence is costing it £½ million a month in lost revenue-another indication of the size of the problem.

I congratulate the Government on organising a recent conference on violence on public transport. By all accounts, it was a great success and a useful exercise in co-ordination.

Having initiated 10 Adjournment debates while I have been an hon. Member, I know that Ministers are sent along on such occasions to comment and not to commit, but I, the House and Londoners want to know whether the Home Secretary has persuaded the Treasury, following the conference to' which I have referred, to give more financial support to London Transport.

Specifically, £3 million a year is needed to pay for the extra British Transport police and between £30 million and £40 million is needed over the next three or four years for equipment such as radios, closed-circuit television and alarm systems. Even if, as I hope, the money is forthcoming, it will take many months to make progress. Without it, the position will rapidly get worse.

I was told this morning that to advertise for, recruit and train the new police would take at least six months. I hope that we shall hear from my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for whose presence I am most grateful, what conclusions have been reached since the conference, which took place several weeks ago.

I hope that containing violence on public transport is one of the few fronts in the fight against crime where progress can be ma de. Undoubtedly, one of the most common causes of assault is poor service. Improving services is surely one measure that will have the support of transport authorities, transport workers and the travelling public.

Better training of transport staff in the way in which they handle the public would improve services and reduce the number of assaults on staff. Friendly, smiling staff will do more to prevent violence than any number of cold electronic eyes.

Even with all London Transport's much publicised problems, no major urban transport authority has a better all-round performance. It is not for nothing that country after country sends teams to 55 Broadway to learn how the job should be done.

Justified fears have been aroused by the violence on London Transport. I have made some suggestions about the way forward. Naturally, the country looks to the Government, who were elected on a strong law-and-order platform, to prove by deeds that they not only care but know, first, how to contain the rising violence on public transport and then how to reduce it. Let us have action this day.

1.12 pm

The parliamentary secretary to the ministry of Transprot (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for giving us the opportunity to talk about this very important matter.

Violence on London Transport is only one manifestation of the increasing level of violent behaviour that appears to be endemic in our society as a whole. It is a serious part of that problem, and one that is getting worse.

The problem of violence on transport is not confined to London. Unfortunately, it occurs throughout British Rail's national network and on many municipal bus undertakings in particular. However, the problem in London is much more serious than anywhere else.

My hon. Friend referred to the recent figures. I can give precise figures. In 1979, 2,252 offences of violence on London Transport services were reported to the British Transport police. Of that total, 1,827 were assaults on staff.

We must keep the matter in proportion. Fortunately, immense numbers of people travel on London Transport each day without encountering or even seeing any signs of violence or difficulty. Nevertheless, on the Underground, and more particularly on the buses, far too much trouble is occurring and far too much lawlessness is being experienced.

The problem is not one to which the Government have suddenly had their attention drawn or which they have suddenly noticed. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport met representatives of the railway unions and the chairman of the London Transport Executive last October. It was following those meetings that the Ministers involved agreed to hold the working conference to which my hon. Friend referred.

The conference was held on 6 May. Even since the meetings last October there have been further serious outbreaks of violence, particularly at Neasden, Fins-bury Park and, I believe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who is beside me on the Front Bench today.

The working conference was chaired by Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport—in particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who is also present. It was attended by representatives of the operators and trade unions involved, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport police and other interested organisations, including those representing transport users. I am glad to be able to say that it seems to be agreed by all those who took part in the conference that it was a success and that it would prove a useful way of preparing for action that would lead to improvements.

In addition to congratulating all who took part, I should like to pay credit to the leaders of the rail unions, who announced at the conference that they would withdraw their industrial action on the Underground to allow time to follow up the implementation of the practical measures recommended at the conference. That underlines that the conference was a success. The rail unions represent the staff in the front line of this difficulty.

The first matters to be examined are the causes and types of violence occurring on London Transport and other public transport systems to see whether anything can be done to minimise the risk, before going on to deal with the violence that is occurring. The hard core of the trouble arises out of hooliganism and some particularly difficult and unpleasant people who make themselves passengers on the public transport system. It must not be overlooked that there is a duty on the ordinary passenger and the ordinary member of the staff to behave properly. In dealing with the hard core, we must not ignore the fact that there is a great deal of avoidable violence involving people who should be ordinary law-abiding passengers.

I am sure that all members of the public, including ourselves, have experienced anger about delays, fare levels and cancellations of trains in and around London, and that can never be an excuse for incidents or disagreements giving rise to violence. It is, however, an unfortunate fact that belligerent passengers, annoyed about delays, cancellations or fare levels, are a major source of assaults on staff. The ordinary member of the public should confine his anger and behave in a more civilised fashion. Bus and train crews can sometimes be unco-operative and unwittingly provoke passengers to anger. There is a need for better training of staff to cope more diplomatically with members of the public in difficult situations.

I turn now to the hard-core problem of the hooligan element on trains, which gives rise to so much concern. Over-consumption of alcohol is a major cause of violence, especially among the young. That is a matter to which we must give attention in relation to public transport.

We also need to look at particular occasions that give rise to the risk of violence, particularly football matches, when large groups of people, predisposed to excitable and violent behaviour, use the transport system. Various measures are being considered by the transport operators and the Football Association to try to reduce the problems associated with football matches.

The England v. Scotland football match has given rise to trouble in the past. We are discussing the possibility of a change of date from the bank holiday weekend in 1981 and also considering the movement of special football trains direct to Wembley, thereby avoiding central London stations. I am sure that ordinary members of the public, who, like myself, usually travel to football matches at Wembley by the Underground, will not complain of any inconvenience and will welcome the fact that a small number of troublesome people in the crowd can be segregated from the ordinary traffic.

A number of transport operators, particularly in London, are going ahead with other physical measures to help control violence and crime. London Transport is using closed circuit television on Northern and Bakerloo line stations and hopes to extend the system over much more of the network. This is obviously expensive. The cost of equipping the entire network is estimated at £30 million to £40 million, spread over three or four years. London Transport is also increasing the number of buses equipped with radio. Trains on the Bakerloo line are already equipped with radios connected to the police and there are plans to extend the system.

Members of the British Transport police are equipped with personal radios, as they work above ground. London Transport is developing a National Coal Board system designed to function satisfactorily underground. Other technical aids either being used or considered by London Transport include a 999 telephone system, office alarms for use by ticket collectors, public address systems, assault warning alarms and plastic anti-assault screens in buses.

If violence breaks out, it is essential that an effective police presence is provided as quickly as possible. The House will share my admiration of the efforts being made by the British Transport police and the Metropolitan Police, often with limited resources, to control crime on London Transport. There have been criticisms from time to time, for instance, about the liaison between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan Police and about their speed of response to incidents. But, as my hon. Friend said, in the case of the Neasden incident, those criticisms turned out to be unfounded. The police were on the scene within 10 minutes of the alarm being given.

On the whole, those criticisms are unjustified. At the moment, we are satisfied that no case has been made for transferring the responsibilities of the British Transport police for policing the Underground system to the already heavily burdened Metropolitan Police.

However, the BTP presence on London Transport is below its existing authorised establishment, which itself may not be enough to cope with the crime problem that now exists on London Transport facilities. We must therefore deal with that problem, but also, where necessary, ensure that liaison between the two forces remains as close as possible so as to create the conditions in which the BTP can discharge its responsibilities more effectively.

Most of these matters were discussed at the conference that I mentioned and their implementation will be for the operators and the unions. However, all concerned, including the Government, agree that there is a need to keep up the momentum and to ensure that the impetus given to the control of violence on public transport in London and elsewhere is not lost.

We are anxious that, where it is within the limits of what is practicable, lack of resources should not prevent the implementation of desirable measures in a reasonable time. The Minister of Transport has therefore already said that, despite present restraints on public expenditure, the Government are interested in the development of proposals by British Rail to set up mobile groups of British Transport police as intervention squads where serious problems occur.

I understand that British Rail proposes to establish mobile units of BTP in London and the principal cities, whose main duties will be to combat late night violence on public transport, to give a swift response to calls for assistance from both the public and other police officers, to augment routine police patrols, to patrol potential or known trouble spots and to assist in the control of football supporters and in special duties relating to the maintenance of public order at demonstrations and other large gatherings involving public transport.

Similarly, London Transport has proposals to increase the establishment of the British Transport police, who police the London Transport system. It has already announced plans to increase the force covering those services from the present 146 officers to 198, but it has said that eventually it would like the size of the force increased to between 400 and 500. The Minister will consider what additional resources might be required for that purpose and the others that I have mentioned and he will see how they might be made available.

As I have said, some of the proposals by London Transport—such as the installation of closed circuit television on stations—will require considerable capital expenditure and will therefore take some time to implement. But my Department and the Home Office will consider all these matters in the light of the resources available, both for London Transport in London and for law and order generally, over the next few years.

The Government, particularly through the Home Office, will also be taking steps to ensure that the law allows offenders, particularly young offenders, to be dealt with effectively. My hon. Friend was right, I am sure, to say that many of the public and staff of the transport network are concerned about the problem.

My Department is urgently considering with other Departments a draft bye-law submitted by the British Railways Board to control the bringing of alcohol on to specified trains.

On the wider question of offenders and penalties, the provision of attendance centres for juveniles aged under 17 is being increased and new centres for boys aged 17 to 20 are to be opened this year. A more rigorous regime has been introduced experimentally at New Hall senior detention centre at Wakefield and at Send junior detention centre at Woking.

The Government also propose to introduce legislation to remove some of the sentencing restrictions at the moment imposed on the courts. They intend to remove the restrictions imposed by section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, which limits the extent to which the courts can, if necessary, imprison offenders aged under 21.

The Government also hope to introduce the long-promised measures to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and to bring forward proposals to introduce residential care orders for juveniles. They have already announced that, subject to the necessary consultations, they are ready to accept the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that the maximum penalty for assault should be increased to six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £1,000.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath referred to the inadequacy of present penalties. The increase to which I have referred was first announced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby at the working conference about which we have spoken. Speeches that have been made recently on behalf of the Government to the effect that the courts might hesitate before imposing long custodial sentences for certain caegories of offence do not apply to offences of violence. The Government remain strongly of the view that custodial sentences are often the only appropriate penalty for the kind of violence that we are considering.

I hope that that is an adequate indication, on an occasion of this kind, of the Government's approach to this problem. I hope, too, that I have satisfied my hon. Friend that the Government regard this as a serious problem, to be tackled with urgency. I hope that he will forgive me for not being more specific about some of his suggestions. It is because the working conference took place only two weeks ago.

Plainly, we cannot promise that there will be any immediate or rapid reduction in the level of violence on public transport in London and elsewhere, but I am confident that the measures that we and the operators are taking—together with those that we hope will be introduced as soon as possible—will, with the cooperation of the transport user, help to reduce the unacceptable level of violence that is now occurring.