§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ 9.52pm
§ Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of greater London and to the efficiency, economy and safety of the operation. Millions of pounds are being lost every year because the system lacks security. It is extremely important that those people who use the system and pay for its service should not suffer the cost while leaving many to get away without paying. According to the annual survey, it has been calculated that no less than £26 million a year is currently lost by London Regional Transport. That loss is far too big to be satisfactory. A proper system for reducing that discrepancy is needed and that is why the Bill is being introduced.
There are many good reasons why the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before the measure can be introduced. He has to be satisfied that there is adequate staffing, adequate availability of machines, that the arrangements for monitoring defective machines are adequate and that ticket inspectors are properly trained. There must be adequate publicity about the introduction of the scheme and there must be a disputes and appeals procedure. Those are important matters and the Secretary of State must examine them carefully and diligently. It would be wrong to assume that he was uncritical about the standards before he was prepared for the Bill to be introduced.
Most of us have suffered the inconvenience of using machines that are not up to standard, and in the past there have been many justifiable criticisms of ticket machines, especially those that are required to give change. Technology is moving quickly and in the near future we can expect major strides in computer and other electronic technology. We think that it is now possible to produce extremely reliable and effective machines. With that in mind we have to grasp the opportunity of being able to take advantage of modern technology, thereby reducing the volume of evasion and fraud in the system.
Questions will be asked about the security of the system and in that respect London Regional Transport is important because the volume of traffic is such that it is not possible for tickets to be checked on trains in the same way as, for example, they are checked on British Rail. The present maximum fare on LRT is £2.90 and a penalty of £10 in relation to that is appropriate. The penalty on the Docklands light railway or on the buses is £5. There is a major difference compared with any system proposed for British Rail, and that is to take account of the lower charges on the Docklands light railway and the buses. The penalty has been geared accordingly.
These powers are required as part of a new system of fare collection and the recognition of the importance of staff being introduced to the customers on the train. The system has worked extremely well on the Docklands light 740 railway where the train captains have a close involvement with the passengers and perform tasks in addition to the mere collection and checking of tickets.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)London Docklands railway is accepting the same philosophy as British Rail—that of open stations and fare collection and checking on the trains—but the rest of the tube system is using appalling barriers. Is that not illogical? If fare collection on vehicles, which has cut down violence on the trains, if not on the stations, can work, why should it not work on the rest of the tube system?
§ Mr. ThorneThe introduction of a train captain has been extremely effective and the system can be reassuring to the passengers. The collection or validation of tickets has been a major problem on the Docklands light railway, so that system is to be replaced. It is not possible for that system to operate completely satisfactorily, so it is necessary to make that change.
Staff can do much and they should be much more involved in the success of the operation. There are many opportunities and it is no longer valid to continue the operation as it has been run for many years. Although fraud has always been a factor, it has substantially increased in recent years and if it is allowed to increase still further, it will be unacceptable, particularly for the genuine, honest fare-paying members of the public who are the vast majority of those who use this transport. It would be wrong to allow those who wish to indulge in fraud to get away with it any longer.
It is important that we realise that there will be major provisions to ensure that genuine travellers who are not trying to evade the fare will be able to call in aid an excuse. The passenger will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if there are no facilities available for ticket sales at the station at which the journey was started. If the passenger transfers to London Underground or Docklands light railway from British Rail and the British Rail station at which he starts has no facilities for sale of tickets, and if a notice was displayed at the station where he started the journey—whether British Rail, London Underground or Docklands light railway station—stating that it was permissible for passengers to travel from that station without a ticket or if an authorised person in uniform informed the passenger to that effect, he would not be liable to pay the penalty.
If a person is asked for his ticket or authority by the London Underground or Docklands light railway authorised official and says that he was not able to obtain it for one or more of those reasons, then it is for the London Underground or the Docklands light railway to prove that the reason is not correct. The onus is on them. If the passenger wishes to raise one of these reasons later, he has 21 days to do so from the day after the completion of the journey. Only then comes the transfer of the burden of proof. If the passenger does not provide the explanation in these terms on the spot or within 21 days, he has to prove that one of the defences applies.
This seems to be an effective and sensible way to conduct this arrangement. It is important that we should introduce it as early as possible so that we can take advantage of the available modern technology so as substantially to reduce the number of people who are defrauding their fellow passengers—a number that is likely to increase if we do not take some firm steps against such a practice.
§ 10.5 pm
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Whenever I listen to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) my memory goes back to county hall in the 1970s, when he was a great believer in strategic planning. If I remember rightly, he was the chair of the central area planning board. Unfortunately, he has now changed his position, but in the past he was committed to some form of strategic planning for London. I hope that eventually he will return to that view.
I am against those who evade payment on London Transport or any other form of public transport. Fare evasion imposes a greater burden on honest fare-paying passengers. We want to ensure that everyone contributes his or her share to the cost. It is not surprising that in principle we all agree that something should be done to reduce fare evasion.
It is also not surprising that more and more members of the travelling public are evading their fares, or attempting to do so. That is connected with the fact that London passenger fares increased by an average of 12.4 per cent. only last month, which was twice the level of inflation. The cost of a weekly inner zone travelcard increased by nearly 20 per cent. When the Government were stripping control of London Regional Transport from the Greater London council in preparation for the abolition of the council. I well remember the then Secretary of State saying that fares would increase broadly in line with inflation. That is another promise that the Government did not intend to keep or have somehow forgotten since control was taken from the GLC in 1984.
The more that the Government put pressure on London Transport to push up the level of fares, the more the public will evade the payment of fares. That is because in many instances they will not be able to meet the new fare levels. I think especially of the unemployed, the low paid and the homeless. There is a correlation between ever-increasing fares and the ever-increasing level of evasion.
The withdrawing of staff leads to an open invitation to the travelling public to avoid paying their fares. I said during the Second Reading of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill that this morning I travelled from East Ham on the District line after a meeting at Newham town hall. There was no one staffing the ticket office. A queue of would-be travellers was waiting to put money into the machine. I did not notice whether it demanded the exact fare or whether it gave change. I heard the train entering the station and as I was anxious to get to the House, as I always am, I decided to leg it down the stairs and jump on the train. I paid my fare at the other end of the journey, but if I had been someone not as well heeled as an hon. Member I might have decided to declare that I had come from the Monument or Tower Hill instead of stating the truth.
The more that the Government force London Regional Transport or any other transport undertaking to withdraw the number of staff on stations, the more the travelling public will seek to avoid paying their fares. It is noticeable that London Underground Ltd. remains committed to substantial staff reductions in its determination to cut costs. I understand that it is about to implement the first stage of its action stations. Such a term suggests that something is taking place when often the reverse is the case. Under the action stations programme, a pilot scheme is to be carried out on the Metropolitan line at 13 stations 742 from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Amersham and Chesham. The present complement of staff will be reduced from 169 to 142. As 20 of the 142 will be ticket examiners, the effective number of staff on stations will be 122, a reduction of about 25 per cent. In addition, London Underground Ltd. has announced the introduction of automatic ticket machines—they are now in place in almost all Underground stations—which will mean the loss of another 1,200 jobs.
It is true that London Underground has said that nearly half those jobs will be redeployed on general station duties and that will increase the availability of staff to help passengers. Nevertheless, the implication of the cuts is that there will be a reduction of about one sixth in the number of staff on London Underground. The more staff that British Rail and London Underground remove from stations, the more fare evasion will increase.
I asked the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) who promoted the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill whether there was any sign of an increase in fare evasion on British Rail in recent years. If it had not increased, why on earth was British Rail proposing such a scheme? The answer was that it had increased. Why cannot Ministers see that there is a correlation between a continual reduction in the number of staff on stations and an increase in ticket evasion?
When British Rail and the Underground were known to be more labour intensive, there was less fraud. There were also more jobs on the system. It is nonsense for the Government to suggest that they are not connected with the problems on British Rail and the Underground.
I very much oppose the Bill because I think that it is cosmetic. It misses the target. It is not directed at the real cause of fare evasion on the Underground or on British Rail, for the reasons that I have given so far.
The Bill refers to fares on buses and the fixed penalties that will be imposed on them. Bus fares are slightly lower than those on the Underground. Perhaps that has something to do with the relative economic prosperity of bus travellers in comparison with Underground travellers. There must be some connection there.
The system is moving towards fewer staff. I have heard Minister after Minister at the Dispatch Box say that the travelling public likes one-person operated buses. I use those buses frequently. I cannot understand why I always manage to travel on one when none of the passengers seems to be happy. I make a point of talking to my fellow travellers and I ask them whether they like the service. The majority of opinion is completely against one-person-operated buses in London. That is the view of the passengers and of other road users.
There are insufficient controls over parking restrictions in the capital. More and more cars and lorries therefore pile up behind one-person-operated buses which stay at a stop for a long time while the poor old bus driver tries to ensure that everyone pays the fare. He must ensure that no one nips through the exit doors—-I have seen that happen frequently.
It is strange that it is apparently OK continually to reduce the number of people working on the mass transit systems, while on the more luxurious transport systems there are more and more people. Only a very strange airline would try to sell the idea of one-pilot-operated planes. A passenger might go to the entrance door and be greeted by the pilot who asks to see the ticket and then says, "Hang on a moment, I've just got to make sure that 743 the engines are started. I will come back and then I'll go round with the drinks after I've switched on to automatic pilot." No one would travel on a plane in those circumstances. The adverts give the idea that passengers are greeted by smiling staff and each airline boasts of its staff-to-passenger ratio. That is considered to be an absolute asset. Why can that not be true for the buses and trains?
The travelling public would prefer to be greeted by the bus conductor or conductress who would show him to a seat, come round with the drinks halfway through the journey and announce the estimated time of arrival and that the passenger would be travelling at approximately ground level. That is the kind of thing people want on London transport.
The more staff that there are operating the transport system, the less fare evasion there will be. That is an obvious and straightforward equation, and I am surprised that it has not sunk into the psyches of Conservative Members that more staffing is the best way of dealing with not only fare evasion but safety and comfort.
The question whether ticket dispensing machines will work has been raised. Some of them are OK, but unless they are regularly maintained—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, South accepts this—they will break down. There will be increasing frustration as people have to queue up to put their money into machines that do not work. The Evening Standard published several articles about the annoyance and anger caused to passengers on London Underground as they found the machines either were inoperative or rejected coins. There are also matters of comfort and safety that neither the Bill, the Government nor London Regional Transport have addressed.
I do not know how often you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, use London Underground, or how often Mr. Speaker or Ministers use it. I know that one or two Ministers do. One of the few advantages of our working hours in this place is that we can usually travel outside the rush hour, and not encounter its full horror. When we do have to travel at the height of the rush hour, it all comes back to us like some horrible nightmare, and we wonder how much longer we must put up with such conditions.
To that discomfort, we now have the added obstruction of automatic ticket barriers, which are supposed to do something about countering fare evasion and smoothing the passage of travellers through the system. All that is rubbish, as anyone who has encountered the new ticket barriers can testify. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to examine the barriers at Westminster underground station. Again, the Evening Standard reported that passengers avoid using the automatic barriers, preferring to queue up at the barrier staffed by a uniformed ticket collector, because other passengers get stuck as they put their tickets into those wretched automatic barriers and find that they do not open.
I do not know who invented that machinery, but whoever it was should be shut into one of those barriers and left there to rot for a few years. He might then realise that those fiendish contraptions, which are now ringing London stations, are unacceptable and a complete waste of public money. There are all kinds of capital items on which London Underground could have used that 744 investment to improve amenities. It is a useless system, just like that used for one-man buses. I guarantee that within a matter of a few years they will fall into disuse and the barriers will be permanently jammed open, if they are not already. I say that because I do not have a great deal of trust in the manufacturers' ability to make sure that those barriers do not jam. One day, people will ask who was the fool who invented the system.
§ Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness)I realise that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does not often stray very far from Newham, but if he were to cross the Channel and travel on the Paris metro he would find there a similar ticket barrier system that has worked well for many years.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. We are moving away from the subject of the Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the point.
§ Mr. BanksI trust that that stricture was not directed at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was keeping to the point. I would very much like to go to Paris. I would go there with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), even though he is not quite my sort.
§ Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)If the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) had been here for the past three hours, he would have heard us exploring all the differences between the Paris metro and the Underground in this country.
§ Mr. BanksIt is all about capital investment, flat fares and a range of other issues. As one of my hon. Friends said, we should not make comparisons based on only one aspect of the system. If we are to make European comparisions we should compare the levels of capital investment, fares and wages, and the number of staff employed. Given our parsimonious attitude to investment, it is not surprising that London's transport system is approaching breaking point and we have to resort to silly, cosmetic, passenger-delaying manoeuvres.
The Bill does not address the real problem. It tinkers with it, as the Government do with so many other aspects of our transport life. The Government's transport policies, like their policies on other matters, actually produce problems; then they come up with some fart-arsed cosmetic idea to try to deal with the problems that they have created.
Ministers, with one or two honourable exceptions, do not use the public transport system. One of the reasons why all Back Benchers want to become Ministers is the chance of getting into one of those chauffeur-driven limousines, reading their red boxes with the light on. As we trudge down into Westminster underground station, the Ministers go past in their cars splashing mud all over us. If they knew what it was like to travel on public transport they would not be defending this wretched little Bill and the silly things that are happening to London transport.
The best way to deal with the problem of fare evasion would be to return to the flat-fare system that the GLC was trying to construct, and keeping fares at a low level. If the system is seen as a service, there will be no excuse for anyone to evade paying fares. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like in Paris."] As hon. Members say, that is what it is like in Paris.
We must start to look on transport as a social service, not a service that must always pay its way in straight 745 revenue terms. A proper social cost analysis for the economy as a whole, whether in London or the whole country, will show us that a flat-fare system would not only deal with the problem of fare evasion but would speed passengers through the system and take private cars off the road, because transport would become both cheap and attractive.
I suppose that the final solution would be a free transport system. I understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch—even for Members of Parliament—but given its economic benefits a flat-fare or free transport system would enable the service to pay for itself over and over again. It would be good for London, the travelling public, the Government and the economy.
I doubt whether that proposal will receive a very sympathetic hearing tonight, but the day will come when Labour Members are sitting on the Government Benches, and we shall return to the sane transport policy that the good old GLC tried to pioneer. That was stopped because we were having so much electoral success with our flat-fare system. Fare evasion was not the problem that it is now. When that day comes, I hope that I shall be standing at the back cheering on my good friend and saying what a wonderful job he is doing as a Minister—
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)I shall be in Paris.
§ Mr. BanksOne hates to think who my hon. Friend might be in Paris with. Who knows? It might be me.
We should be looking at the new system and deciding that having got it wrong for so long we will get it right this time. This is no way to get it right, and that is why I shall vote against the Bill.
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)There is a danger that after the contribution by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) my contribution will seem a little dry. However, it may be convenient if I set out the Government's attitude and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on explaining the Bill so lucidly.
The Government support the Bill, as they support the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill. We believe that London Regional Transport should be allowed the opportunity to levy penalty fares on passengers travelling on its services without having purchased the ticket required. London Underground Ltd. currently estimates that fare evasion costs £26 million a year. Such a measure can therefore benefit only the honest passenger and ease the burden on the taxpayer and the London ratepayer.
LRT of course already has powers to operate a penalty fares system under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, and specifically on the Docklands light railway under the London Docklands Railway Acts of 1984, 1985 and 1986. But because some dissatisfaction was expressed with these powers, the Government established a working group on penalty fares in May 1986 to review the principles which should apply to penalty fares schemes on public transport and to look at the existing provisions concerning LRT services. The Bill before the House is based closely upon the recommendations of the working group.
I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill. Suffice it to say that the Bill underwent considerable scrutiny in 746 another place and a number of changes were made, primarily to ensure that the honest passenger is fully protected. The Committee stage in this House will allow further consideration of those matters, and others.
It should, however, be stressed that an activating order issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be required to bring the powers in this Bill into effect. It will be for LRT to convince us that it can operate a fair and workable penalty fares system on the particular service or services for which it is proposed before an activating order will be issued.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettIs it intended to introduce the system on one underground line at a time, or for the whole network?
§ Mr. PortilloThat will have to be considered at the time. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I set out some of the points on which we shall need to be satisfied.
Before any such order is made the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the system and that these include safeguards to ensure that honest passengers are not penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. He will therefore need to be assured that ticket offices are properly staffed, that the necessary ticket and deferred authority machines are in place, that there are satisfactory arrangements for monitoring and reparing machines, that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the new system, that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the system and are deployed appropriately, and that they have adequate indentification. He must also be assured that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place.
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thanks to your interpretation of the rules, that I said a few words a short time ago about the impact of the Bill on London.
Once again the Opposition find the assurances about the Secretary of State's involvement totally unconvincing. The long list of assurances that the Secretary of State will need before he gives permission for the penalty fare scheme to be implemented led to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). He asked a short but succinct question about whether the system would be introduced on one line or throughout the underground system. It was a sensible question, despite the Minister's mirth. How will the Secretary of State satisfy himself or herself that all the arrangements that the Minister outlined in his brief speech are satisfactory and have been implemented?
Secretaries of State are good at giving assurances but they are not very good at coming to the House to explain any breaches that have occurred. I hope that the Minister will intervene during the next 30 seconds and tell me just how the Secretary of State plans to enforce that long list of arrangements. That part of the Bill has not yet been fully thought out.
The figure of £26 million—the cost of fare evasion—has been plucked out of the air. Without repeating my earlier opinion that London Underground does not appear interested in collecting fares late at night, I must say that that estimate is as wild as the £36 million mentioned in connection with Network SouthEast.
747 When representatives of one of the railway unions approached London Underground Ltd. about the amount of late night fare evasion caused by lack of staff, the unofficial view, given him in an aside by management, was that it would not be worth paying staff to work overtime to collect the comparatively small number of fares that 748 were evaded. So when London Underground wants to save on staff, passengers are honest; when it wants a Bill like this passed, they are dishonest and they cost Londoners, and those of us who are unwilling Londoners for a few days a week, a sizeable sum.
Although briefer, the Minister's contribution was no more satisfactory on this Bill than on the previous one. I hope that my hon. Friends will act accordingly.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about ticket barriers. I also agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
There is a great deal of public concern about the deplorable extent to which London public transport has been run down, and it was incredible that the Minister should fail, in his very brief speech, to deal with that concern. He should be ashamed of himself.
When the issue of penalty fares on London Underground came up before, I brought up the subject of violence directed against staff—an immensely serious problem. Only a month earlier, staff at Leyton bus garage had stopped work to bury a colleague who had been killed. I wanted to know whether penalty fares would increase violence against staff who work for LRT. The reply I received failed to address the point and the Bill was expected to go through without doing so.
Now the legislation is here again. We have received only one document from LRT, and it arrived today, the day of Second Reading. Once again, it does not deal with our genuine concerns about the implications of penalty fares for the safety of staff. No one has said anything to me about them.
LRT is forcing this Bill through and treating hon. Members with contempt. That is reason enough to throw the Bill out. I cannot see a case for imposing penalties on travellers. Indeed, it should be the other way around: LRT should compensate passengers for the appalling journeys and risks they must undertake. I notice that British Telecom runs a scheme to reimburse subscribers whose phones are faulty. That is a bit gimmicky, but if it is good enough for Telecom, it should he used by LRT, too.
Serious safety problems for travellers have not been dealt with. I am sure we shall come to some of those in the debate tomorrow, so I do not want to encroach on them now. I realise that we are dealing with the question of penalty fares, but there is the question of such things as the public address system being inaudible and the risk that that can cause. There is also the question of dangerous overcrowding, which could well result in loss of life.
§ Mr. Tony BanksHas my hon. Friend noticed the way in which the public address system on the London Underground always seems to start up just as the doors are closed? As the train is moving out of the station, one can just hear that there is a station further down the line where the lifts are out of action, causing delays. They do not seem to be able to get such messages announced on board the trains; they simply make the announcements at the stations, and it is very frustrating. Has my hon. Friend ever experienced that frustration?
§ Mr. CohenYes, I have experienced it personally, and I have been told all sorts of horror stories about the public address system. Worst of all, a lot of the stories have been told to me after the Fennell report on the King's Cross disaster. It seems that that lesson has not been learnt.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I realise that the hon. Member has been led astray. I am sure he is going to come back to the question of the penalty fares.
§ Mr. CohenI apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing myself to be led astray. The question that was 750 raised was the automatic exit barriers, which, of course, is directly relevant to the penalty fares aspect. I am strongly opposed to the automatic exit barriers. As hon. Members will know, I have put down an early-day motion on that matter.
I think that automatic barriers are a danger in the event of a fire. They could result in more loss of life. A fire on the Underground is not just a one-off event; King's Cross is not a one-off affair. Tonight's "World in Action" reported that in a seven-week period between October and December there were 125 fires on the London Underground. Any one of those could have had fatal consequences, as could these barriers.
In this respect Fennell certainly has not been implemented. Many of the Fennell recommendations have not been implemented, yet these barriers are being put in place and creating problems.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work that he is doing in drawing attention to the shortcomings of this new automatic ticket gate system. Has he seen tonight's Evening Standard which says:
Fire chiefs demand Tube gate changesFire chiefs have ordered modifications to London Underground's controversial automatic gates".They consider that they are unsafe and they would not allow speedy evacuation of a station in—God forbid—another King's Cross type disaster.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We cannot have a general debate on this Bill dealing with the London Underground. It is a fairly narrow Bill restricted to penalty fares. and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Bill.
§ Mr. A. F. BennettOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware that in the letter that we have had from the London Underground specific mention is made of the automatic ticket barriers and the new system of issuing and collecting tickets, to illustrate that it is improving collection. Surely, if it is reasonable for the promoters of the Bill to refer to the new ticketing machines and barriers as part of the build-up to the Bill, it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to make mention of them.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe promoters, of course, do not decide what is in order in the House of Commons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks to the Bill.
§ Mr. CohenI will endeavour to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The key point, of course, is that penalty fares and the automatic exit barriers are part of a joint package from LRT in relation to fare evasion. I am not in favour of either, particularly the automatic exit barriers, which I think are dangerous. They affect each other, so I think that it is in order for me to mention them. Others have concentrated on the subject.
I pay tribute to the Evening Standard for trying to expose the dangers. On "World in Action" tonight, Mr. Richard Warburton, director general of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, described barriers as an obstruction, especially where there is heat and smoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the article in the Evening Standard. I recently 751 tabled a parliamentary question about LRT and London Underground Ltd. not publishing the fire brigade reports. I asked the Minister about
all relevant correspondence, reports and documentation communicated between themselves and the fire authorities for London about the consequences for safety of automatic exit barriers installed at London underground stations; and if he will make a statement.The Minister answered:It is for London Regional Transport, London Underground Ltd. and the London fire and civil defence authority to consider whether to make available such exchanges."—[Official Report, 1 February 1989; Vol. 146, c.210.]That is a negation of the Minister's responsibility, yet there is so much anxiety about the matter. They should publish what the fire brigade has to say about the subject.The travelling public of London have a right to know if the fire brigade says that barriers are unsafe of if any station is unsafe. London Underground is going in the opposite direction. That must be stopped. It is up to the Minister to take more positive action. These barriers are a danger when there are large crowds. They run counter to the operation of London's underground. I shall consider fare evasion later—the unsafe implications of the barriers far outweigh any considerations about collecting fares. There is a far better way in which to collect fares—having proper staffing levels.
I know that we are short of time, so I shall not make a long speech. I could read any number of letters from women with children and passengers with luggage or shopping who find the barriers immensely inconvenient. Even commuting office workers with an umbrella in one hand and a briefcase in the other have written to me saying that they have only two hands and asking how they are supposed to get the ticket into the machine. I have letters from elderly people who are worried about the machines and from people who have paid for expensive season tickets which they put into the machine but do not get back. This is a thoroughly unpopular system which creates congestion and danger.
The machines do not even work. A fit youth can easily hop over them. In "World in Action", the reporter showed the immense congestion and how inconvenient the exit barriers are. He then said that he was travelling on a child's ticket and the machines did not spot it. They are not even effective. They should be withdrawn and no concourses should be closed off, especially after the King's Cross disaster. Hon. Members referred to the Paris metro, but the stations and the concourses there are usually much wider and do not have the safety problems that exist in stations in London. As has been said, the Paris metro operates a much cheaper fares policy so there is not such a great problem of fare evasion. We should be moving towards such a system. The real solution to fare evasion is not automatic barriers or penalty fares but more staff.
§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)Hon. Members are pointing out quite rightly that the priorities being used at present accentuate the problem of fare evasion, but are disregarding the real problem within London Regional Transport. My hon. Friend is making a very good case. Does he agree that London's becoming the most congested and run-down transport system of all the capital cities in Europe?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I am finding it difficult to relate some of his remarks to the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me that his remarks relate to the Bill and identify the particular clause in the Bill to which his remarks relate.
§ Mr. CohenI can give you that assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am told that my remarks relate to my interpretation of clause 2.
The problem is how to tackle fare evasion. London Regional Transport has proposed a package of automatic exit barriers and penalty fares. The alternative, which I think is much better, is a cheap fares policy and increased staffing to collect fares and protect the travelling public. Many women find travelling on the tube an absolute nightmare, a descent into hell. Certainly many women fear taking that risk.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)Does my hon. Friend recall that during a recent debate on London Transport I mentioned the long delay in the repairs to the Pimlico escalator, extending over many months, since last May or June? It meant that many ladies and old and disabled people found negotiating that long stairway so difficult and demanding that they probably felt like evading the fare. Will my hon. Friend take note that when the matter was raised in the other place I am advised that Lord Brabazon immediately replied to the noble Lord who raised the issue? However, no Member of the House of Commons has had the courtesy of any comment from London Transport, although I understand that the escalator may well be in operation in another month or two.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I realise that the hon. Gentleman came in fairly recently, but the Chair allowed a fairly wide debate on the first Bill on condition that the debate on the second Bill would be related strictly to the Bill now before us. It would be an abuse of our procedures, and very unfair to hon. Members who have business after this, to have a wide debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will respond to what I have now said on a number of occasions.
§ Mr. CohenI shall do that, and therefore I shall not respond to the point about escalators, although my hon. Friend will know that at any particular time one in four escalators on the London Underground does not work. However, I shall not respond to that point because of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A better way forward would be increased staffing, a proper railways inspectorate, and for more people to be employed on the London Underground for fare collection, to look after the travelling public and to assist them, with courtesy. The way forward chosen by London Underground, London Regional Transport and the Government will lead to chaos. London will become known as a black spot among European capitals. That is what it has become under the Government. Penalty fares and blocking the way out of stations will simply make congestion and safety problems worse.
The barriers are not cheap—they cost well over £3 million. What a waste of money, especially when London Transport intends to hammer London ratepayers with a 50 753 per cent. increase in the levy order which the House will be discussing in the future. Therefore, they are a waste of money in addition to all the other problems.
The real way to stop fare evasion is a cheaper fares policy. I appreciate that that would create problems. There is already overcrowding and some might say that cheaper fares would make the overcrowding worse. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, that has to be tackled by capital investment. New lines and new rolling stock should be introduced. Some of the rolling stock being introduced now means that more people will have to stand up because—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be taking any notice of the appeals I have made to him. He must restrict his remarks to the Bill and not widen the debate. I have told him on more than one occasion and I must repeat to him that there is other business after this. He can talk for as long as he likes provided he stays in order but at present he persists in being out of order. This is the last occasion on which I am prepared to appeal to the hon. Gentleman in that regard.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am addressing the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? If a check on fare evasion is to be carried out on the trains, which is what I understand the Bill provides, why is it not relevant for my hon. Friend to refer to the rolling stock—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I was addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I am sure that he will take notice of what I have said to him.
§ Mr. CohenI certainly will. I do not intend to evade the important issues and I do not want to filibuster. The points I want to make are too important for me to filibuster and concern the interests of the London travelling public. I am coming to the end of my remarks.
Instead of penalty fares and automatic barriers, which just make everything worse, we need a cheaper fares policy. We need more public investment and cheap, efficient and safe travel. We need a co-ordinated transport system that covers all modes of transport and helps ease the problems of overcrowding. We need a change of direction in investment with more money spent on the tube and less on the roads. We need democracy so that the people who run London Underground and London Regional Transport are subject to the democratic pressures of the travelling public and the people of London. If they were subject to that democratic pressure, I do not believe that they would introduce such penalty fares or the automatic ticket barriers. They would have to argue their case if they were electable. Democracy must be restored to our London transport system if we are to solve some of the problems.
Everyone who uses London Underground cares and worries about the safety implications. They do not want to travel in pig-sty or unsafe conditions; they want an efficient and proper system. They pay enough for it, so they deserve it. They care passionately about having a good London transport system. It is the Government who 754 do not care and show that they do not care. They have a contempt for the travelling public for which they should be exposed.
§ Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)I shall be brief, because some of my points have already been made. I agree with the points made by hon. Members about what is wrong with London Regional Transport. It is, however, necessary to make some points as the two Bills are separate.
I admit that in relation to the previous Bill efforts were made to consult British Rail unions, and I understand that consultations are continuing. However, I am not sure that there have been any consultations with the unions about this Bill. If there were any consultations they were perfunctory. It is a pity that, whichever board or company is concerned, it does not gain the support of its employees in the first place. If there were a spirit of consensus, I am sure that many of our debates would be much shorter.
I know that many London Regional Transport employees are extremely worried about the provisions in this Bill. They do not appear to be consulted by London Regional Transport, London Underground Ltd. or by London Buses. As we are all in favour of cutting the number of fare evasions, it is a great pity that unions are not taken into partnership with the board—in this case London Regional Transport—so that a mutually agreed system can be put forward for the House to consider.
The number of assaults on staff on the London Underground in 1983 was 300; in 1984, 286; in 1985, 364; in 1986, 378; and in 1987, 409. I shall not go into why there is an increase in the number of assaults on staff, but I merely say that it is because of the society in which we live and those who are responsible for that society. I am sceptical that one or two guards, conductors or ticket inspectors will be able to deal with the average late night incident on the Underground when trying to exact a £10 penalty fare from a passenger. As we know, some passengers will have had more drink than is good for them, others will be argumentative and others will respond with violence at the drop of a hat. We know only too well what happens day in and day out on the London Underground. I do not believe that it is good enough that civilians or employees should have to exact the £10 penalty fare from people at the risk of physical harm.
If, of course, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will say that there would be British Transport police on every train or accompanying every penalty fare collector, I may modify my views. It is a sad historical fact that the number of London Underground police has been dropping, until recently, for reasons completely extraneous to London Regional Transport. If more police were employed, the public and employees would be more confident that violence would not occur. I fear, however, that such violence will increase as a result of the Bill.
I shall not dwell on the subject of barriers, which has been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), but I am concerned about the servicing of the fare machines. I am not confident in LRT's ability to operate machines that do not break down and that will always give change. As a result of poor servicing I fear that such machines will soon run out of change and will demand exact fare money only. If one is at a tube 755 station where the machines are either broken or taking exact fare only, I have no confidence that the booking office will be open. If it is, there is bound to be a queue.
The public do not want the guarantee that for 80 per cent. of the time all stations will be functioning from 5.30 am until 12.30 at night. The public want to know that for 98 per cent. of the time all stations will be functioning. I do not believe that that is sufficient and I believe that that guarantee should stand for 99.9 per cent. of the time.
There are about four fare machines at Westminster and LRT should be able to guarantee within 0.01 per cent. that at least one of those machines will work all the time. I do not believe that such a gurarantee can be given. I do not believe that LRT has the will to fulfil that commitment. In common with British Rail, LRT is trying to get machines to take the place of people. That will not work. Has the board of LRT estimated how much it would cost to employ a couple of people at every underground station? There are 200 or more stations. It is easy to calculate how much it would cost to have three shifts of two staff at each station—1,200 staff would cost between £10 million and £12 million. The revenue lost as a result of evasion is put at £26 million and I would not be surprised if the employment of additional staff resulted in a £12 million reduction, if not more, in the cost of evasion. We should not give the Bill a Second Reading unless some estimate has been made of the cost and implications of such additional employment.
If extra staff were employed not only would fare evasion be reduced, but violence and vandalism. We would also have cleaner stations and help could be given to mothers and children. It seems that LRT is not worried about any of those extra benefits; all that it is concerned about is making people unemployed and putting machines in their place. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will deal with that later.
The Bill is not written in the same style as the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill and I believe that it is a little more authoritarian. Clause 5(1) on penalty fares on trains says:
Subject to subsection (2) below, if a person travelling on a train service fails to produce a fare ticket or a general travel authority on being required to do so by an authorised person, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare if required to do so by an authorised person.Both Bills contain similar provisions. Clause 5 (2)(a) says:A person (other than one falling within paragraph (b) below) 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.The clause specifically says that there must be facilities for the sale of the necessary ticket. That means that if such facilities exist the person travelling will be deemed to be in default and liable for the penalty fare even if there is a mile-long queue outside the booking office with many people waiting to buy tickets to other destinations. The Bill does not say that such a queue can be an exception. Clause 5(2)(b) gives an exception because it talks about a person transferring to a service.Clause 5(2)(c)(i) says that the penalty fare is not payable if
there was displayed a notice (however expressed) indicating that it was permissible for passengers beginning a journey at that station.756 Clause 5(2)(c)(ii) says that a person would not have to pay the penalty fare ifan authorised person in uniform gave permission to the same effect.In terms of legalities I am a layman, and on a layman's reading of the Bill it seems that it will make the innocent person guilty and put him into a worse position in terms of proving his innocence. I gave a specific example of a booking point that is open and has a long queue. As far as I can see from the Bill, a passenger will be liable for the penalty fare unless he waits for a long time in the ticket queue.The Bill does not deserve a Second Reading. It is worse than the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill that we discussed earlier, and that is because of the questions that it raises about assault and civil liberties, and because the management of London Regional Transport seems to have made no effort to talk to the unions and employees concerned. I hope that the Bill will be roundly defeated.
§ 11.7 pm
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)I have some specific and short questions for the Minister. First, what is the position on deferred fare authorities? Will he tell us whether they are intended for use only on the Underground system when they have been issued at a British Rail station or is it intended to make them available at all London Underground stations where for some reason machines are not working?
How will the ticket barriers work? Perhaps the Minister could give some guidance about how to proceed through a barrier when one is pushing a pram. I am told that it is extremely difficult to get both the pram and the adult pushing or pulling it through the barrier without either the pram or the adult being snapped at by the closing gates. What happens if a passenger inserts a ticket and the green light comes on, indicating that for some reason or other the ticket is not accepted, especially when many people standing behind are impatient to get out of the station?
The other day I saw a person put in a ticket. The green light came on but before the passenger could read the message he was pushed forward by the person behind him who put in his ticket and the two people came out through the gate. I do not know whether that happened because the gate was not functioning properly or whether it was supposed to happen, but it is fairly frightening when one is at the front of the queue with many people behind and for some reason a perfectly valid ticket is thrown out by the machine.
Will the Minister tell us what is to happen to the monthly, weekly and even daily tickets which are made of fairly flimsy material? They are placed in a plastic wallet and have to be shown on the way out of the station. That suggests that the material of which they will be made will have to be one that the machine will be able to read easily after repeated use.
We hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will be able to reassure us on these points. He should try to ensure that, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, it spends as long as possible in Committee. I am certain that the mood of people in London and of hon. Members is that the Bill should not become law until the new ticketing system on London Underground has worked out all its teething troubles, if that is possible. It would be 757 criminal for the House to give London Regional Transport the authority to carry out a penalty fare system when it cannot operate efficiently the system of collecting fares.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)I have a number of specific questions about compulsory ticket areas. These are defined in clause 2, which says:
A 'compulsory ticket area' means that part of a station which, under the byelaws of the person providing a train service to which this Act applies, passengers are not permitted to enter without a fare ticket, general travel authority or platform ticket".What instructions will be given to staff regarding compulsory ticket areas in an emergency? Ticket inspection staff will be operating in these areas, and they will be trying to check on people going into them. When there is an emergency, they will have to direct people through those areas, so the compulsory ticket area will have to be waived. What sort of instructions is LRT giving about what should happen in an emergency? We do not want compulsory ticket areas in which staff are operating being used as a barrier to people moving. In an emergency, such areas must merge in with the thoroughfares.My hon. Friends have mentioned ticket barriers for leaving stations and the difficulties of inserting tickets and getting the gates to open. What pressure is required to use those barriers in emergencies? I am staggered that these automatic ticket barriers are being installed so soon after the dreadful King's Cross fire. I know that questions have been raised time and again about installing such ticket barriers when the lessons of the King's Cross fire show that there has to be rapid escape from a fire to get away from what is, in effect, the top of a chimney. What sort of pressure is involved? Could, for example, a slightly built woman move the barriers to one side, bearing in mind that she might have a couple of toddlers with her? If there is smoke, panic and fumes, could she move the barrier to one side, as LRT claims?
§ Mr. ThorneWith the leave of the House, I shall reply. We have had an interesting debate and some important points have been made. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was not the only person to mention employment. We must be concerned about that important issue. If people have given their life to an industry, it would be wrong to cast them aside without looking after them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his journey from East Ham this morning, and the difficulty that he had because of the long queue of people waiting for tickets. One of the important aspects of the Bill is that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before he agrees to the implementation of the scheme that there will be adequate facilities for automatic ticket dispensing machines to be available. At about the same time as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was dodging a queue and boarding a train without a ticket, which he admitted, I was feeding my money into an efficient machine at Ilford station, which dispensed a ticket without any problem. There were more ticket machines than people who wanted to use them. There was a hiccup on the network line as some of the overhead cables had malfunctioned at Bethnal Green, but the Underground was able to relieve the pressure from Stratford and the system worked efficiently and effectively.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI ask the hon. Gentleman to complete the story about my travel on the Underground this morning. I paid when I reached Westminster, and I want that to be on record.
§ Mr. ThorneI would not dream of suggesting that any hon. Member did not pay the full fare on reaching his destination. That goes without saying. I accept that there must be a sufficient number of adequate ticket machines installed at East Ham station before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be satisfied that he can allow their introduction.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the reduction of staffing at stations and suggested that it would amount to one sixth of the Underground staff. I hope that one of the main advantages of such a scheme will be to enable the system to redeploy staff.
Several hon. Members have mentioned their concern about safety on the Underground system. As recent events have shown, the public require more British Transport police to be present within the system. Undertakings have been given that over the next 12 months additional personnel will he deployed. I am sure that everyone will agree that with the advantages of new technology we should take the opportunity that is presented to us and redeploy staff where they are most needed.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West and others talked about the breakdown of ticket barriers and the need for comfort and safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the ticket barriers will be of an adequate standard and will not break down, thus causing a gross inconvenience to passengers. Considerable experience with the machines has already been gained in other parts of the world. We can learn from the experience of others, and I trust that we shall have as reliable a system in Britain as they have in Hong Kong and various other countries, where it works extremely efficiently.
I agree that special attention must be given to comfort and safety. It must be understood that the ticket-issuing clerk and the ticket collector will occupy important positions and will both be on duty at all times when the stations are open. They will have access to a button to neutralise the automatic barriers and allow a free flow. That important safety measure will be required.
§ Mr. CohenI have received much correspondence about ticket barriers, and a section of it relates to an explosion—perhaps a bomb—in the Underground system. If the staff could not press the so-called magic button, the gates would remain locked. Is that a possibility?
§ Mr. ThorneAnything is possible, but I do not think that that is likely to happen. There are special provisions that we must examine for smoke detection, for example. If any smoke is generated from an explosion, it would be noticed. The staff who would be on duty at all times would be present to take care of those situations. I am confident that the staff that we expect to be employed on the Underground will be of such a standard that they will be able to cope with those eventualities.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was particularly concerned about employment. I hope that his fears are unfounded and that we will be able to redeploy staff in the system more effectively and efficiently. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) criticised the Minister for the shortness of his statement. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Leyton was in 759 the Chamber when the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill was debated, but my hon. Friend the Minister gave a longer explanation then. He also explained that he was not the promoter of this Bill and was adopting a neutral position. He was not replying to the debate. That is my job, with the permission of the House.
The danger to staff when collecting penalty fares is a very important and worrying point. I hope that more transport police will be involved and that it will be possible to protect staff who might be in danger. We must bear in mind that there is an undertaking that staff will at least work in pairs. Undoubtedly late at night, after drinking hours, we should expect them to work in threes and fours. In the very near future, possibly before this scheme is implemented, we hope that it will be possible to introduce radios on the system that can work underground. Therefore, a call could be made requesting police to be available at the next station, should that need arise. Staff safety is paramount and it would be wrong to try to introduce a system which put the staff at risk. That would not work.
The hon. Member for Leyton also referred to exits. Where automatic barriers are neutralised to allow free passage, it is possible for between 50 and 60 passengers a minute to pass through each barrier. We must remember that the space allocated for exiting is greater with automatic barriers than with manned. The constriction is greater with manned barriers than with a number of exit points. It should be possible to exit much quicker where automatic barriers are in position.
The hon. Member for Leyton also said that automatic barriers were unpopular. I hope that, like many things, they will become more popular as people become more familiar with them. He also asked about someone using a child's ticket. When a child's ticket is inserted in the machine, it is supposed to switch on a light to show that a child is passing through. One of the duties of the ticket collector is to ensure that the light does not come on when adults are passing through. His attention may have been distracted at that moment, but that is the intention.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned the absence of union consultations. Such consultations have taken place at a very basic level. Now that the process has been started, we hope that it will develop during the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and once it goes into Committee I hope that it will be possible to deal with some of the union fears in more detail and more positively. We should get these matters into perspective. If the proposals had been introduced a year or two ago, they would have been out of date now and we would have had to go through the whole matter again. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Wrexham on that point.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of assaults on staff by passengers who have been drinking, which I have covered, and expressed concern about mechanical breakdowns. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is an effective system for dealing with malfunctioning apparatus. I understand that a control panel will indicate which apparatus is malfunctioning, so that the area supervisor will be able immediately to know if an unacceptable number of machines are faulty and when to send help.
§ Dr. MarekIs the hon. Gentleman saying that there will be an area supervisor at every London Underground station? I cannot see that happening.
§ Mr. ThorneMy understanding is that the machinery at a number of stations will be monitored at one particular location. Signals will be sent from the barriers at each station to a central control point. There will not be a supervisor or mechanics at every station, but if an unacceptable number of machines at any one station malfunction, assistance will be sent as soon as possible.
If long queues form, the staff on duty must indicate that there is an emergency and that passengers will be allowed through. The inspecting staff will be given notice that a number of ticket-dispensing machines have broken down. That will be part of the human input at the station concerned—it will be the responsibility of the staff there to take that decision. Provided a sufficient number of machines are working, such a thing should rarely, if ever, happen.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned inoperative machinery and I have answered that point. Passengers pushing prams will be able to pass through the manned barrier.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettWill the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will always be an alternative to using the mechanical ticket barriers?
§ Mr. ThorneThe intention is that there will always be that option available.
I suppose that two people could pass through the barrier together, but, as the machinery becomes more sophisticated, perhaps that abuse will be defeated. Season tickets, like many other items, can be magnetically read. That can help prevent them from becoming tatty, in the same way that a credit card does not become tatty. I accept that the Bill's Committee stage will be important. All the questions that have been raised must be sorted out then.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked what instructions will be given to staff regarding compulsory exits in ticket areas in an emergency. In most cases, two points will be manned by staff, who will have the ability to neutralise the automatic barriers to permit free exit. The manned barrier will also be in operation, but the intention is that passengers, other than those pushing prams or in invalid chairs, will pass quickly through the opened mechanical barriers.
I hope that those replies deal with all the points that have been raised, and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, so that its provisions may be further clarified in Committee.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 37.
761| Division No. 77] | [11.29pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Amess, David | Carrington, Matthew |
| Arbuthnot, James | Carttiss, Michael |
| Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham) | Chapman, Sydney |
| Arnold, Tom(Hazel Grove) | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Boswell, Tim | Day, Stephen |
| Bottomley, Peter | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Brazier, Julian | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Durant, Tony |
| Fallon, Michael | Mills, Iain |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Forman, Nigel | Needham, Richard |
| Forth, Eric | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Franks, Cecil | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Freeman, Roger | Paice, James |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Gill, Christopher | Portillo, Michael |
| Gregory, Conal | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Ground, Patrick | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Harris, David | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Summerson, Hugo |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Irvine, Michael | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Jack, Michael | Thorne, Neil |
| Knapman, Roger | Thurnham, Peter |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Wallace, James |
| Lightbown, David | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Maclean, David | |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Mans, Keith | Mr. Irvine Patnick and |
| Miller, Sir Hal | Mr. Roger King. |
| NOES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Marek, Dr John |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &R'dish) | Meale, Alan |
| Buckley, George J. | Michael, Alun |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Clay, Bob | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Cohen, Harry | Nellist, Dave |
| Cryer, Bob | Parry, Robert |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Patchett, Terry |
| Dixon, Don | Pike, Peter L. |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Prescott, John |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Ruddock, Joan |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Foster, Derek | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Galbraith, Sam | Snape, Peter |
| Graham, Thomas | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Hardy, Peter | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Haynes, Frank | |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Mr. Tony Banks and |
| Loyden, Eddie | Mr. Martin Redmond. |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read a Second time and committed.