§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a Second time;
That any Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)I received some helpful assurances earlier from the Chairman of Ways and Means about the principles of private Bills. The Bill gives me an opportunity to return to some of the issues raised in the special Committee's report on private business procedure.
In the previous debate we witnessed what I often refer to as the blackmail effect, whereby hon. Members can block or slow down the effect of one Bill to peddle constituency interests or other interests. That is a common feature of transport Bills, especially those introduced by British Rail. Examples of London Underground stations not functioning efficiently can be brought to the House's attention on Bills such as this. Unless the promoters improve the Bill, hon. Members may delay it.
If it is reasonable for London Transport to impose penalty fares on people who do not have tickets, surely those people should be able to impose a penalty on London Transport if its facilities are not working. We have heard examples of such failings from my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who mentioned Pimlico, and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who mentioned Wapping.
The Bill should not be promoted as a local private Bill. If people are to be subjected to penalty fares if they travel on trains and buses without a ticket in London, surely the same should apply in Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham or elsewhere. If penalty fares are to be introduced, they should be made the subject of national legislation moved by the Government so that people who move from one part of the country to another know exactly what the rules 580 and regulations are and what the consequences will be if they do not obtain a ticket. There is no possible justification for having one scheme of penalty fares in London but another in Sheffield or elsewhere. The willingness of the House to allow carry-over motions or Bills such as this to proceed under the private Bill procedure is an encouragement to the Government not to take national measures but to allow private business to proceed in a piecemeal way.
§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)One needs to consider all the issues involved while remaining in order. I have been fortunate enough to travel on trains on the continent. It was extremely useful to be able to buy one's ticket on the train. In this country, we have to pay before we get on the train. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is rightly stressing the way in which penalty fares should apply throughout the regions. South Yorkshire had an excellent bus service before it was destroyed by the Tories. London Transport should be considering the system that we previously had in south Yorkshire, which was tremendously popular with the people of south Yorkshire. The tragedy is that British Rail appears to be learning nothing. It is merely seeking ways and means of collecting money, and I do not argue with that, but if people had concentrated their minds a little more we might not have had the tragedy at King's Cross that we discussed earlier today. British Rail should perhaps consider its priorities and try to ensure that people, when travelling, are a great deal safer than they are now.
§ Mr. BennettMy hon. Friend illustrates the point. We should not be considering penalty fares in terms of piecemeal legislation of this kind. There should be one scheme for the whole country so that people who move from one area to another will know what the rules are. It seems very odd to have one set of penalties in one part of the country and another elsewhere. This is a good illustration of the need to develop national legislation to deal with the problem of fare dodgers rather than having individual Bills of this kind. It is thus a good example of a carry-over motion that we could defeat so as to remind the promoters of private Bills that they should not take the House of Commons for granted and should look for ways of developing public rather than private legislation. That would certainly be most useful.
If, on the other hand, the promoters succeed in getting their carry-over motion, they must consider how they intend to justify the penalty system contained in the Bill. The penalty for travelling on a bus or on the Docklands railway without a fare is a £5 fine, but on trains it is £10. In my experience, it is fairly difficult to get on a bus without paying a fare or having the opportunity to do so as there is usually a driver at the entrance or a conductor inside the bus to issue tickets. In most circumstances, therefore, it will be fairly clear whether a person is trying to avoid payment. Moreover, if a person does not have the necessary fare at that moment but has an urgent need to travel it is possible to explain the circumstances to the driver or conductor and hope to be allowed to pay later.
On the railways, and especially the Underground, however, the situation is far more complicated and it is fairly common for people to have to board a train without having had the opportunity to purchase a ticket. Service at Westminster tube station is generally very good, but at 581 11.30 or 11.45 in the evening the individual in the ticket office may be busily engaged in counting the day's takings and unwilling to issue a ticket, preferring the would-be traveller to pay at the other end. That may cause considerable difficulty for the individual who, to satisfy the conditions laid down in clause 5 of the Bill, has to prove that there was no one available to issue a ticket. Perhaps the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is present in the Chamber, can tell us whether a person busily counting the day's takings would count as a person available to issue a ticket even though he might not wish to be distracted from his counting and if the would-be traveller lingers any longer at the window there is a good chance that he will miss the last train. The position is fairly vague.
It is often quite difficult to tell whether it will be possible to obtain a ticket at a tube station. There may be a machine issuing 50p tickets, but all the other machines may be shut down and the ticket office closed. In those circumstances, difficulties may arise under clause 5(2)(b)(ii). We should not be considering this legislation through the private Bill procedure. Legislation on penalty fares should be national, not local, because it would then be subject to much more vigorous scrutiny.
A private Bill may or may not be debated on Second Reading. Often it goes through without debate because no one has been alerted to its consequences. A Bill dealing with penalty fares is not really of local interest, so unless someone is especially concerned about the civil rights of individuals—
§ Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South)I do not quite understand what my hon. Friend is saying. Will penalty fares be automatic, regardless of any mitigating defence? For example, what happens if someone decides to extend his journey? What if he were given the incorrect fare when he began his journey? Will mitigating circumstances be taken into account, or will the penalty be automatic?
§ Mr. BennettI must be careful not to stray too far into the detail of the legislation as we are simply debating a carry-over motion. I refer my hon. Friend to clause 5, which deals with penalty fares in trains. I am sure that the fact that the wrong fare had originally been issued or that there was no one available to issue the ticket would be a reasonable defence. I am not sure whether changing one's mind during the journey would constitute a reasonable defence.
I am trying to explain why private legislation is not the best way to deal with these matters. At best, Second Reading takes place between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock—a maximum of three hours. If votes have taken place at 7 o'clock, even less time is available. It is much too short a time to debate such a matter as the rights and wrongs of penalty fares. Following Second Reading, the Bill goes into Committee, where petitioners are heard. If a member of the public is well organised, he may present a petition against penalty fares.
The Government have the opportunity to put their point of view, but there is no opportunity for the detailed scrutiny that a Bill would normally receive in a Standing Committee. The number of Members serving on a public Bill Committee is substantial, and each has the opportunity to table amendments. There would be real scope for those outside to make representations to their 582 Members of Parliament on, for example, what would constitute a reasonable defence—the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo).
Although the public Bill procedure is not perfect—indeed, some would criticise it—it is far more effective than private legislation, which has a Committee of only four people who decide between different vested interests. They act almost as judges. The private Bill procedure is inappropriate for this sort of legislation.
Once a private Bill has been through its Committee stage, it returns to the Floor of the House, and I accept that, from then on, the procedure for Report and Third Reading is exactly the same as that for public Bills. There is a tendency for private Bills to be nobody's responsibility. The Government have a responsibility to put forward public Bills, and the Opposition have a responsibility to scrutinise them. The issues in Bills are then examined. Private legislation is promoted by organisations outside the House. They persuade an hon. Member to pilot a Bill through the House, and often give that hon. Member little information about it. It is then merely a matter of luck whether other hon. Members take the trouble to read the Bill.
I have been amazed at the number of occasions on which I have picked up a Bill, started to raise one or two points in the House, and then other hon. Members have raised a series of other issues because they have taken the trouble to read the Bill and see its implications. It has often been pure chance that I have taken any interest in certain Bills.
It is inappropriate to use private legislation for such a fundamental principle as whether there should be penalty fares for fare dodgers. If fare dodging is a national problem, it should be subject to national legislation.
The way in which private and public legislation can be muddled is interesting. This is a private Bill, and its promoters have tried to get it through Parliament on that basis. However, there is a problem with private legislation, and that is how to take account of inflation when setting fees. The promoters then dodge the problem by using the public Bill procedure to allow the Secretary of State, by order, to prescribe any increase.
We have a peculiar situation. Although the Bill has short-circuited the normal scrutiny of a public Bill to catch fare dodgers, when they consider whether £5 or £10 will be appropriate for all time, the promoters turn to the dodge that, in future, the Secretary of State will be able to lay an order to increase or decrease the amount. They then follow the procedure of least parliamentary scrutiny, and that is to lay an order that is subject to annulment. All hon. Members know the difficulties in praying against an order and defeating it. The process is in favour of the Government and stacked against ordinary hon. Members. If it is reasonable for the promoters of the Bill to take powers to require the Secretary of State to vary penalties from time to time, the matter should be subject to an affirmative order. It will be possible for the House to debate that point when the Bill comes back to the House.
On this occasion it would be useful for the House not to support the motion and for the Bill to be lost at this point. If London Regional Transport or any other transport undertaking considers it necessary to have penalty fares, it should lobby the Department of Transport to legislate on penalty fares so that people know exactly what is happening.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I have considerable sympathy with the argument, and I can illustrate it by telling the House about my experience this week.
Earlier this week, I had to go to Bonn. I could not go the night before, because we were busy opposing another piece of private legislation even more pernicious than this one. I had to get up quite early in the morning to go to Heathrow. When I got to the Underground station, no one was there. As I had to catch the early flight to attend my meeting, I had to board the train without a ticket. Obviously, one pays at the other end. As far as I can see, one cannot get out at Heathrow without paying, and it was certainly not my intention to do so. I strongly disapprove of those who do not pay their way. There are far too many tax dodgers on the Conservative Benches for us to endorse any other view.
I had completed about three quarters of my journey when an inspector boarded the train. I explained that I could not buy a ticket because there was no one at the Underground station where my journey had begun. He was extremely courteous, and I paid my normal fare. It is wrong that even in London, where there is high unemployment, those responsible for public transport cannot employ people to sell tickets at the beginning of a journey.
§ Mr. RedmondI know from experience that my hon. Friend is impeccably dressed when he travels abroad to represent this country. I wonder what the ticket inspector's attitude would have been had my hon. Friend been wearing overalls? The inspector may have assumed that my hon. Friend was seeking to dodge paying.
§ Mr. HardyAs a matter of fact, a young man wearing jeans, which were not particularly new—I think that is the most charitable way of putting it—was in exactly the same boat and he was treated with considerable courtesy by that honourable and experienced inspector or ticket collector. However, the fact remains that that inspector could have been subject to considerable criticism and abuse because people do not like being put in a position of having to travel without a ticket simply because of the mean approach to the employment of people. As I have said, there is high unemployment even in London. It seems that our society has reached a point where adding to the labour force is regarded as almost a crime if there is any way to avoid doing so. It seems absurd for us to pass legislation that will strengthen that reluctance to employ people and to give them responsible jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is right. This is not the way to deal with matters that involve such serious principles. We should argue this approach in a proper debate, not in this travesty of a procedure where most Members of Parliament feel that, as this is a matter for London Transport, it is not for them. I believe that the principle is important, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has suggested that we should ensure that there is a substantial debate. I hope that the Minister will comment on this matter—
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)indicated dissent.
§ Mr. HardyWell, he should, because he is saying that people are to be frequently placed—perhaps more frequently placed—in the embarrassing position of having to board public transport without having paid the fare and then run the risk of being criticised, embarrassed or made to feel guilty when there are no grounds for criticism, embarrassment or guilt. The Government have a responsibility, and the Minister should be asked to reconsider his negative response—a curt shake of his head —to my suggestion that he intervene.
There is an element of confusion in clause 5(2)(a), although perhaps lawyers in the House would not find it as confusing as I do. It seems that the Minister, or the sponsor of the Bill, may say that my point about people travelling without a ticket has been covered. Clause 5(2)(a) states:
A person … shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare under this section if at the time when and the station where he started to travel on the train service there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey.In other words, he may be excused.It is a bit much that we have to pass a Bill to say that people will be excused a penalty when they are not in any way at fault. Would it not be better to ensure that such a position never arose? Would it not be better to ensure that we do not clutter the House of Commons with unnecessary private legislation when proper employment policies could be pursued? Is that not a sufficient argument for the Minister to take the trouble to get to his feet and say a word or two on the subject? He should reconsider it.
The confusion is that, while there appears to be some degree of exclusion in clause 5(2), paragraph (c) states that if a notice was displayed or an authorised person in uniform gave permission, the penalty would not be applied. If clause 5(2) is satisfactory, why do we need paragraph (c)(i) and (ii)? The Bill should be reviewed and the principles considered. London Transport and any other public transport authority should ensure that it employs a sufficient number of people so that ordinary decent citizens are not severely embarrassed.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)I shall not detain the House for long.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyThat is a nice tie.
§ Mr. CohenYes, I have a nice tie, and a nice pair of braces too, which I am wearing for the first time tonight. But I digress. The Minister is leading me down the wrong path.
I do not object to the carry-over motion, although I agree that this matter should be subject to national rather than local legislation. I agree, too, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that tickets should always be available for people when they set out on a journey. They should not be forced to travel without tickets. That relates to employment, and people should be employed in those jobs as they provide an important service.
I am worried about penalty fares and would not like them cast in stone. There must be flexibility. All hon. Members will know of cases of violence against those who work on our buses and tubes. There have been appalling cases, involving deaths. Only recently work was stopped at Leyton garage for the funeral of a bus conductor who was 585 assaulted and died as a consequence. I am worried that if we set penalty fares in stone they could become a reason for violence. Even if the sum involved is small, a person who does not have that small sum might think it better to hit the conductor or driver and get away without being caught. At present there is a big advertising campaign about getting a ticket rather than a criminal record, and I agree with that, but violence is connected to that.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettDoes my hon. Friend agree that if inspectors are expected to collect penalty fares, as is proposed, the inspector will end up carrying large sums if he catches many offenders? The legislation should discourage people from carrying substantial sums. The more we can persuade people to pay other than in cash, so that no one is tempted to assault an inspector and grab the money, the better. If this were national legislation, we should consider the safety of inspectors who collect penalties.
§ Mr. CohenThat is an excellent point. I agree that in the present climate vast amounts of money should not be carried around because that is almost an invitation to assault.
I have not been fully briefed by LRT—perhaps other hon. Members have—about potential violence and how it could flow from penalty fares. The promoters do not seem to have made that clear. For example, have the trade unions been consulted? I should have thought that that was vital.
I acknowledge that the courts have an important role to play. In general, I favour lighter penalties. I make no bones about that. This country imposes some of the heaviest penalties in Europe. I think that sentences should be much lighter. However, we should take into account the social element in sentencing and the courts must deal rigorously with assaults on bus drivers, tube workers and others in the public transport services. I am in favour of harsher sentences in those circumstances.
There is also the question of fares. At the moment, fare increases are well above the rate of inflation, and that seems to have been so for a number of years. That may mean that more people will be tempted to try to avoid paying their fares, which again could lead to potential violence. I should not object to penalty fares if they were being introduced against a background of cheap fares, 586 giving people no excuse for trying to avoid payment, but while fares are increasing well above inflation there is a problem.
§ Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)Clause 8 requires a person to give his name and address if he cannot pay the penalty fare immediately. Has LRT considered that if a person's name and address are on the computer the information must then be covered by the Data Protection Act 1984? There seems to be no recognition of that in the Bill.
§ Mr. CohenThat is a very good point. I was once described by a Home Office Minister as an aficianado of data protection. If I went into that question, I would be here all night.
I have expressed my view about the potential for violence. I would ask LRT to comment on how penalty fares may affect it.
§ Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)I take part in the debate as a Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen, but I also have a personal interest in ensuring that the Bill is the best that can be produced. It seems to me that it would not do any harm for LRT to take the Bill away and bring it back in a much improved form.
My hon. Friends have made all the points that need to be made. It is important that those who have to exact penalty fares should not be subjected to violent attacks. Would it not be better if the system were properly staffed so that it was difficult to escape payment? That would mean that fewer penalty fares would have to be collected.
Clause 5(5) implies that a person is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. Surely it would be better to phrase that provision so that a person is deemed innocent until proved guilty. I wonder whether the employees represented by their unions have been properly consulted.
It must be in the interests of everybody that no one should get away with not paying the proper fare. That is anti-social, wrong, and it should be stopped. But should it be stopped in this way? I do not believe that the Bill is the right way forward.
It would not do any harm whatever for London Regional Transport to take the Bill away and perhaps talk to the unions, the London boroughs and people in the community to find out how they would want such a system to operate.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed on Monday 14 November.