HL Deb 12 June 1984 vol 452 cc993-1011

2.50 p.m.

Further considered on Report.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 45: After Clause 50 insert the following new clause:

("Travel concessions. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements made for travel concessions under this Act as respects all areas within and in the vicinity of Greater London enable persons eligible to receive them in accordance with section 49(7) of this Act to travel for, as a minimum standard, the identical hours of the day as any similar arrangements made under any enactment prior to the appointed day.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to insert a new clause dealing with travel concessions. It deals with only one point. The purpose of the amendment is that any arrangements made for travel concessions under this Bill shall, as a minimum standard, allow travel during hours identical to those in any scheme being operated prior to the appointed day. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee an amendment was agreed which changed the off-peak hours provided in the Bill. That amendment, which was carried, will in effect ensure that the reserve scheme will have the same travelling hours as the existing scheme in Greater London.

I am certain that noble Lords will agree that it would be regrettable and nonsensical if any scheme to be operated by the boroughs was below that standard. In other words, it would be wrong if that scheme had a lower standard than noble Lords have agreed shall operate should a reserve scheme become necessary. I hope that, as your Lordships' Committee has declared its view on the hours for the reserve scheme, the Government will give their full support to this particular amendment.

It must be kept in mind that Clause 49 will permit any single authority, or any two or more authorities, to enter into arrangements with LRT for a concessionary scheme. But the reserve scheme will come into operation only if any scheme of the boroughs does not meet the requirements for scope and uniformity. This amendment would ensure that one of the points of uniformity must be that as a minimum standard the hours allowed for travelling on concession shall be the hours operating under the present scheme, or as may he operating at the appointed day.

I do not think I need go into all the arguments which were so well advanced by my noble friend Lord Pitt at the Committee stage, when the Committee saw fit to approve his amendment for the reserve scheme. All we are saying in this amendment is that what is to be laid down as a definite requirement for the reserve scheme should be laid down for any scheme which may be operated by the boroughs in the form of uniformity that I am suggesting. I hope that it will be kept in mind that one million older persons use concessionary schemes in Greater London, and that in its recent report London Transport say that there are 250 million journeys a year under the scheme. It is a well-used, very popular scheme, and I hope not only that the House will agree with the amendment but that the Government will give it support.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon)

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, the Government have accepted this type of amendment into the reserve scheme, and I am glad to say that we are going to stick to what the Committee wanted on this particular point. I do not cavil at all at what the noble Lord wants, but I should like to explain the difference that we have with him and why we do not want to put this into the Bill as he has stated it. As the House is aware, we have had quite a debate on this topic, and of necessity I shall therefore have to cover some of the same ground again.

Noble Lords opposite would doubtless agree that the essential feature of this amendment is that it seeks to impose on local authorities by statute the existing GLC concession travel scheme. The Government's policy is of course to adopt a more flexible approach. On the one hand, it preserves the discretion of local authorities to make their own decisions as to what travel concessions to provide; on the other hand, it provides a basic fall-back scheme which will come into operation only if the boroughs fail to agree on a uniform scheme. It is of course to this basic fall-back scheme that we have agreed the amendment.

I hope that on reflection your Lordships will agree that this is the best policy. As I have mentioned before in these debates, it has been the policy of successive Governments that local authorities must have discretion over the provision of discretionary fares schemes. That is why Clause 49 basically re-enacts the existing law, enabling local authorities in and around Greater London to make their own voluntary arrangements with LRT, British Rail and other operators in their area. In these circumstances we do not think it right to impose on local authorities the most generous possible scheme. I believe that what the noble Lord is proposing is unnecessarily rigid. Also, of course, we do not know what new ideas might spring up. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, it is a flexible situation, and I would suggest that it is better for the local authorities to remain flexible.

The Government believe that the best approach is to maintain so far as possible the right of local authorities to decide the scope of the travel concessions they provide. They are obliged under the Bill to agree a uniform scheme, and if they do not the statutory scheme will come into effect. But even if that happens, it will still be possible for local authorities to provide benefits on top of the statutory scheme. In this way a reasonable balance will be maintained between the various interests involved.

What we have to bear in mind in our debates on these clauses is that the Government are embodying in statute, for the first time, a specific concessionary fares scheme which the local authorities in London will be obliged to finance; that is, if conditions are such that the scheme automatically comes into operation. I really think that that is going far enough.

The amendment states: the identical hours of the day as any similar arrangements made under any enactment prior to the appointed day". That really is a flexible situation. Who can tell whether, on the appointed day, we shall have the best system? I suggest to the House that what the Government have suggested in this Bill on this topic is the right way forward, and I would ask the House to support it.

Lord Somers

My Lords, surely flexibility is not what is wanted here. It is not the various local authorities upon which this is being imposed: it is upon the regional transport authority itself. For instance, I hardly think that the noble Lord would think it appropriate, when one takes a journey from London to Cornwall, to have different fares for each county through which the line passes. The same applies in a smaller way here. It is the single fare charged by the transport organisation.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I should like to speak in two respects regarding this amendment. The first is to take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has made, as I do not think that he has quite understood the significance of this amendment. It is not a question of a variation in the fares. Each borough, as I understand it, will meet the cost of the concessionary pass for the person entitled to have that pass. In that way it will not matter what the fares are anywhere. Although, as I understand it, London Regional Transport would have their own fare structure, the concessionary pass cost would surely be met by the boroughs as it used to be in past days. I stand open to correction on that if I am wrong, but do not think that Lord Somers' point is exactly relevant. The other point that concerns me is the exact wording of this amendment. The words are: the identical hours of the day as any similar arrangements made under any enactment prior to the appointed day". At the present moment we have this experimental scheme of an additional half hour early in the morning on the buses. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and I both agreed that that particular half hour is quite dangerous and is causing congestion, and that it is not necessary to have that very early morning concessionary fare.

Even at the moment it is not likely to be beneficial to London Transport as a whole to he tied to what is in operation today. If the authority wished to be particularly obstructive, between now and the day of enactment they could provide that the free concessionary pass could be used from 7 o'clock in the morning, and if we passed this amendment with its present wording we could find that the task of getting people to their work in London would be quite impossible. Although I agree with Lord Underhill's point that we require a minimum standard—and I definitely support the hours that have already been passed under Lord Pitt's scheme—the wording of this amendment could be quite dangerous and harmful to London Transport in the way it is set out here.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I can understand the points they are making but, frankly, I cannot understand the attitude adopted by the Government. If the House has decided that we should have, as a reserve scheme, certain hours, it seems not only ridiculous but unfair that should there be a uniform scheme, or a scheme by some of the boroughs, we shall have different hours from those on which the Government will insist being in their own reserve scheme. As I said in my opening remarks, that frankly is absolutely nonsensical and I cannot understand it.

In the light of the point made about the 30 minutes at 9 o'clock on the buses. I can see that the amendment is deficient and I shall consult with a view to bringing forward an amendment at the Third Reading which will be identical with that which the House says it wants for the reserve scheme. I hope that then the Government will accept it but I give notice that we shall be doing that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 46: After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:

("Provisions for the operation of travel concessions by independent transport operators.

.—(I) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State —

  1. (a) subject to subsection (2) below to consider any request received from a London authority in relation to the provision of travel concessions by an independent transport operator as defined in section 48(8) of this Act and, if he considers it appropriate, to direct such an operator to provide travel concessions to persons eligible to receive them in accordance with section 48(7) of this Act similar to those concessions which are from time to time available on services provided by London Regional Transport and the Railways Board;
  2. (b) in relation to paragraph (a) above, if he considers it appropriate, to give directions as to the maximum payments which may be made by a local authority to an independent transport service operator for the provision of travel concessions under this section.

(2) No direction under subsection (1)(a) above shall be made by the Secretary of State for the provision of travel concessions by any independent transport operator unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that financial provision for them will be made pursuant to subsections (1) and (3) of section 49 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted places no obligation on independent operators to participate in a concessionary scheme. It is to be optional whether an independent operator joins in an agreement with a local authority. Most independent operators—as I think noble Lords will agree—will require satisfactory remuneration if they are to get involved in such a scheme. Obviously they will be there in order to derive a profit from their operations.

The amendment provides that there shall be a new clause. It gives the Secretary of State power to direct an independent operator to provide concessionary travel, but this will only take effect at the request of a local authority. Noble Lords will recall that a similar amendment was brought forward at Committee stage. It is being brought forward again today in the light of the arguments which were used against the amendment at the Committee stage.

The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said—and I quote now from col. 183 of Hansard on 22nd May: If the local authority are prepared to pay for them, there seems to be no reason why such operators should not provide them.

I think we can agree there should be no reason; but if an operator does not want to provide them, yet the local authority says it wishes it and wishes to pay for it, we are saying that that independent operator should be directed by the Secretary of State so to do. Therefore the Government have no disagreement on the principle. They just do not feel it should be in the Bill. We believe it should be in the Bill because one could find an area where an independent operator is the only operator on that particular route. Then if the local authority wanted a scheme, and was prepared to pay for it, the Secretary of State should be in a position to direct the operator to provide it, bearing in mind that the operator is going to be paid for it.

The noble Earl also thought it should be possible for two such parties to reach agreement on charges for a scheme rather than to lay down in statute that that should he done. But the amendment will ensure that should there be a failure to agree, a scheme will still go ahead, in the same way that the Bill provides that should there be failure to agree on a uniform scheme for the whole of Greater London the reserve scheme will come into operation. What we are saying is, should there be failure to agree, the Secretary of State will have the power to give direction.

The Secretary of State under the amendment will also fix a maximum payment that will be made by the local authority if he considers it appropriate. The reference to the local authority which the noble Earl advanced at the Committee stage does not apply because the amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall direct an independent operator to provide travel concessions only on a request from the local authority; and the local authority shall pay the figure to the operator that the Secretary of State shall determine. This seems common sense and fair to people living in areas which may be covered only by operators that I hope the Government will accept this amendment.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, I do not think there is much to this amendment but I was listening with some interest to his example and could not help thinking—when he said that if what is on offer is turned down we should need a statutory power in order to enforce it—why could they not go somewhere else in order to get it? I do not see what keeps them on that particular track. The House may like to bear in mind that when an operator applies for a road service licence—whether for the first time or seeking a renewal—it will be open to local authorities, the Passengers' Committee, and individuals, to make objections or other representations to the Traffic Commissioners under subsection (3) (c) of Section 31 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act. I believe we should put that on record.

It seems that the only justification for the new clause might be that it would provide a mechanism for limiting the charge made by independent operators to an amount which the Secretary of State considers reasonable. The Government consider that setting limits as to a reasonable level of reimbursement to cover the fare income forgone in operating a concession would involve an unnecessary level of interference in a private operator's fare structure. We can surely expect the operators and the local authorities to settle such a question among themselves.

The Government do not consider it necessary to compel private operators to provide concessions. It will be in both the operators' and the local authorities' interest to ensure that London's travel concessions can apply on the services of private operators with the minimum of fuss. If, as the noble Lord seems to fear, there is a large increase in the number of independent operators the extension of concessionary travel onto their services will he a natural and sensible development.

The position of the operator providing independent services is different. He has chosen to back his commercial judgment in the market place. He is not answerable to the Secretary of State, or to local authorities as the noble Lord said. If the public do not like his services they will not use them. As I said earlier, they can go somewhere else. If he was the only person providing a service on a particular route at a particular time, and his service was unsatisfactory, it would always be open to LRT, in performing their duty to have due regard to transport needs, to introduce a service of their own. Bus operators are in business to carry passengers and we cannot see that there is any reason for them to refuse income in the way that this amendment would seem to envisage. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with my explanation. I have tried to put our point of view over.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the noble Earl always puts his replies in a very persuasive way; but, when one analyses it, the noble Earl is not really seeing the points that are being made in this particular amendment. If ever there was a case for talking about integration this is it; but we must not use the word "integration" in this House because it is only understood apparently by non-governmental persons. Of course we should like to see agreement; but a Bill must provide that failure to agree a desired concession will be taken up and dealt with appropriately. The noble Earl said that if the public do not like it, they can go somewhere else. We are talking about concessions for aged persons. The independent operators may be the only service on that particular route. That is the real point of the amendment.

I do not propose to divide the House now, but there is still one further stage. I do not want to have a lot of amendments at the Third reading stage; but, frankly, on reading the noble Earl's reply very carefully, if there seems to be a possibility that parts of Greater London could be without concessionary fares because the only person operating is an independent operator, then I believe we have to be fair to the passengers, the aged people, who may be compelled to use that particular service. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.10 p.m.

Clause 51 [Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 47: Page 51, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert— ("(5) Each issuing authority shall be obliged

  1. (a) to issue permits to all persons eligible to receive them under subsection 49(7) of this Act without charge, terms, limitations or conditions;
  2. (b) to make arrangements with the Post Offices for permits to be issued from each Post Office or sub Post Office in the area of that authority.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment I shall put forward dealing with concessionary fares. This proposes the deletion of the existing subsection (5) and replacing it with the new wording as set out in the amendment. I should read what is in the existing subsection (5): The issue of such a permit by any issuing authority shall be subject to such terms, limitations or conditions as the authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, from time to time determine as respects any category of eligible London residents.

This means that there could be changes from the existing arrangements. While one agrees that there could be flexibility, it has already been stated that boroughs may be permitted to make charges. This amendment seeks to lay down that there shall be no variations from existing arrangements, either in the reserve scheme or in any other scheme, which may be put together by London boroughs. The Government have already intimated that there could be charges for permits. That does not apply at present. Should schemes be proposed by the boroughs which the Secretary of State may find acceptable, it would be most unfortunate if, dependent on where a person lived, there could be a charge for the issue of a permit or a permit be issued on varying or different conditions. We should remember that there are 33 London boroughs. It must be remembered, too, that journeys by bus or Underground do not stop at borough boundaries. Most persons have journeys which traverse a number of the borough areas.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment will make it obligatory on each issuing authority concerned to make arrangements for permits to be issued from each post office within the area of that authority. This, as noble Lords will be aware, is what happens under the present scheme. It works well and is well appreciated by pensioners and other persons. Older people find the arrangements most convenient, particularly as most of them use the post offices to collect their pension payments. Further, post office staff are well used to the system and in many cases they are even on personal terms with the applicants.

I hope that the Government will say that this is a sensible amendment. We do not want to have varying schemes. We do not want to find one borough charging for a permit and another borough not and we do not want to see the facilities of the post offices not used in any future scheme. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I am sorry that I am not able to support this amendment. I have a number of reasons for saying that. When I was chairman of the social services committee of Westminster City Council, we issued these concessionary fare permits from the local boroughs. That was before the scheme went over to the Greater London Council. We issued the permits without charge and I always thought that that was a mistake we made. We should have made some purely nominal charge, such as 50p, as I believe some other boroughs did, charging 50p or £1 in those days. The reason I say that is because it came very clearly to my knowledge that a great many people took up those concessionary passes although they were quite unable to travel and never did travel. Indeed, I remember clearly one case of a woman who said that she had taken it in case her chauffeur ever became ill and it would be convenient to have it. A number of bedridden people applied for passes and got them. We issued them and also in those days it will be remembered that there were no photographs on the passes so a pass issued to one person could have been used by anyone else. However, I shall not go into that aspect of it.

We issued permits by post. We first sent a written request to ask someone whether they would like it. They then wrote back and we sent them a free sticker. I know that, by the time we had paid three lots of postage on each of these passes, the cost in postage of issuing them in those days—I am speaking of some time ago—was over £6,000.

Councils certainly are not able to issue them for nothing. It is not appreciated that these passes cost money. People think, "I am getting it for free", but they do not appreciate that that means their council will be paying London Transport whatever the value of the pass is. I do not know what the current value of a pass is, but I suppose it must represent £100 or maybe more per year, because a travel card for an ordinary person to travel in London represents £190 per year for a two-section pass. It could be a major expense, and councils do not want to be buying passes for people who have no intention of using them. Therefore there must be some way of controlling who they are being issued to and ensuring that the people receiving them intend to use them. If people do intend to use them, it is the most marvellous thing in the world. It is far better than any amount of social services, it keeps them mobile and active. I am all for them, but I do not want to see the local authorities issuing passes to people who cannot ever get on a bus.

I think that the second aspect regarding the Post Office is the ideal way of issuing permits. It is extremely practical, but again it is not free. At present, the Post Office has an arrangement with the Greater London Council and I am sure that, when the scheme goes over to boroughs, they will be expected to meet the Post Office charges. It is possible that boroughs would prefer to issue their own passes and feel they could do it more efficiently through their own social services schemes. It should be appreciated that because someone has a free pass it is no hardship to go to collect the next one from the council. The idea is to keep people moving around. I think that both paragraphs (a) and (b) of this amendment have disadvantages and, although I think the idea is interesting and things will probably go on in exactly the way that is suggested here, I should not like to see that made compulsory on the boroughs.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made clear, the purpose of this amendment is twofold. In the first place, it seeks to remove the discretion of local authorities in Greater London to place any terms, limitations or conditions on the issue of certain concessionary travel permits. Secondly, it seeks to make it obligatory for local authorities to make arrangements with the Post Office for the issue of the permits.

On the first point I should make it clear that the ability of local authorities to impose any terms, limitations or conditions on the issue of concessionary travel permits as provided for in Clause 51(5) is not a new provision applying only to the reserve scheme. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 49(9) makes it clear that the term "travel concession" means the reduction or waiver of a fare or charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions. That subsection merely re-enacts in relation to LRT the powers which all authorities have under existing legislation.

I return the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made about me, because his own persuasive powers led me to think that perhaps something was different. It is not: the provision merely re-enacts the powers which all authorities have under existing legislation. It would apply to any voluntary scheme as it does to the reserve scheme. I made clear throughout the debates on this subject at Committee stage that the Government believe it is important that as far as possible local authorities should have a discretion about travel concessions. It is, after all, they who have to pay for them and I believe it is only right that they should retain the power to impose any terms, conditions or limitations if they so wish. My noble friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes illustrated this forcefully to the House.

There is, however an important safeguard in Clause 51(5). The Government do not want the operation of the reserve scheme, if it is brought into effect, to be frustrated by boroughs making exorbitant charges. So the Secretary of State will be taking unique powers to make the imposition of any terms, limitations or conditions subject to his approval.

On the second point, I can appreciate, as did my noble friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes, the administrative convenience of travel permits being issued by the Post Office and I understand that the London Boroughs' Association have this possibility very much in mind in devising a uniform voluntary scheme. But I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it would be very difficult for all the permits to be issued by the Post Office if the boroughs decided to impose different terms and conditions on their issue. In the circumstances, my Lords, I do not believe that it would be sensible to impose upon boroughs a view on how the permits should be issued: it should be left to them to devise their own arrangements.

I have gone into some detail on this amendment and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will appreciate what I have been saying.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Earl makes about existing legislation. Before coming to the point about the different schemes, may I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that I live outside London but we have London Transport service facilities. Permits for aged persons are issued from the various council offices. There is a post office 100 yards from me but people have to get on to a bus and go to the nearest council sub-office to get their passes. That seems utterly ridiculous and unfair to pensioners. In the case of post offices, it is not just the Crown post offices which are concerned but also the sub-post offices, which is what we suggest in this amendment. They are all over the place, and most convenient, and we think we should use the offices of a public institution when they are available. The very arguments which the noble Earl used are the sort of arguments that we used against the whole idea of London Regional Transport taking over from London Transport—we are going to have multifarious different schemes of some kind where there ought to be one general scheme.

I can appreciate the point on existing legislation but will have a careful look at what the noble Earl has said about post offices. Is it sufficient merely that he hopes that the authorities will use the post offices, or is it not common sense that where we have a wide network of post offices, a public institution, they ought to be used for this sort of purpose? It may be that we shall come back at Third Reading with amendments of that kind only. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.22 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 48: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:

("Penalty fares.

.—(1) This section and the three next following sections have effect in relation to—

  1. (a) travel on a bus service to which this section applies; and
  2. (b) travel on a train service to which this section applies; if an order under section (Operation of the penalty fares provisions) of this Act is for the time being in force with respect to the service in question.

(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, if at any time during his journey on any bus service to which this section applies on which fare tickets are issued in return for fares paid by persons travelling on that service a person so travelling fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if a person travels on any such bus service on which fare tickets are not so issued without paying the fare (if any) properly payable for his journey on that service, or for any part of his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.

(4) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare —

  1. (a) in a case within subsection (2) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain any necessary fare ticket before the time when he was required to produce such a ticket;
  2. (b) in a case within subsection (3) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to pay the fare in question before the time when he was found to have failed to pay it.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, if at any time during his journey on any train service to which this section applies a person travelling on that service fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.

(6) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare by virtue of subsection (5) above if he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain any necessary fare ticket, or a deferred fare authority applicable to his journey or to any relevant part of his journey, at the time when he started to travel.

(7) A penalty fare payable by any person under this section in respect of any journey shall be an amount equal to—

  1. (a) the minimum penalty; or
  2. (b) the default fare for the journey multiplied by the multiplier; whichever is the greater; and any such penalty fare shall be payable to the person providing the service in question within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day following the date on which the journey was completed.

(8) In subsection (7) above —

  1. (a) "the minimum penalty" means £5 or such other (lower or higher) sum as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe; and
  2. (b) "the multiplier" means ten or such other (lower or higher) figure as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

(9) In any case within subsection (2) or (5) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is

  1. (a) where the whole of the distance travelled on that journey was not covered by any fare ticket produced by the person in question or by any deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel, an amount equal to the full fare for the whole of that distance;
  2. (b) where any part (but not the whole) of the distance so travelled was not so covered, an amount equal to the full fare for that part of that distance;
  3. (c) where the whole or any part of the distance so travelled was covered by a fare ticket so produced showing payment of a fare lower than the fare properly payable for that journey or for the relevant part of that journey, an amount equal to the difference between the fare shown on the ticket and the full fare for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance; and
  4. (d) where both paragraphs (b) and (c) above apply, the aggregate of the amounts applicable under each of those paragraphs.

(10) In any case within subsection (3) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is an amount determined by applying subsection (9) above, taking references (however expressed) to a fare ticket produced by the person in question and the fare shown on any such ticket as references to a fare paid by that person.

(11) In this section "full fare" means, in relation to the whole or any part of the distance travelled by any person on a journey on any bus or train service to which this section applies, the single ordinary fare payable by an adult for travelling on that service for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance on a journey corresponding to the one actually taken (but treated, where it covers part only of the distance travelled on that journey, and also where the whole of the distance so travelled formed part of a journey made partly by way of another service, as a separate journey).

(12) The liability of any person under this section to pay a penalty fare in respect of any journey is subject to section (Exclusion of double liability) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48. In doing so, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53.

Amendment No. 49: As an amendment to Amendment No. 48, in subsection (8), paragraph (a), leave out (15") and insert ("£ 10").

Amendment No. 50: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:

("Interpretation of the penalty fares provisions.

—(1) Section (Penalty fares) of this Act applies to any bus or train service provided by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs or by any other person in pursuance of any agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act which provides that that section is to apply to services provided in pursuance of that agreement.

(2) In this section and the three next following sections "the penalty fares provisions" means section (Penalty fares), this section and the two next following sections.

(3) In the penalty fares provisions —

"authorised person" means a person authorised by the person providing the service in question:

"authority to travel" means any ticket (other than a fare ticket), permit, voucher or other document authorising the person to whom it is issued to travel on any bus or train service to which section (Penalty fares) applies, whether or not subject to any terms, limitations or conditions as to its use;

"bus journey" means a journey on a bus service to which that section applies;

"bus service" has the meaning given by section 43(6) of this Act;

"deferred fare authority" means an authority to travel subject to a condition requiring payment of the fare applicable in the case of the person using that authority for the whole or any part of any journey on which it is used at the conclusion of that journey or otherwise as provided by any terms applicable to its use (whether or not it is also subject to any other terms. limitations or conditions);

"deferred fare" means the fare payable for a journey authorised by a deferred fare authority;

"fare ticket" means a ticket showing payment of a fare for travelling on a bus or train journey and authorising the person to whom it is issued to travel on any such journey for the distance covered by that fare, whether or not subject to any terms, limitations or conditions as to its use;

"train journey" means a journey on a train service to which section (Penalty fares) of this Act applies: and

"train service" means a service for the carriage of passengers by rail.

(4) References in the penalty fares provisions to the fare properly payable for a person's journey on any bus or train service to which section (Penalty fares) applies are references to the fare so payable excluding any deferred fare for the journey: that is to say, the fare payable by a person of the category to which he belongs for travelling on that service for the whole of the distance travelled on that journey, or for such part of the distance so travelled as is not covered by any deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel that applies to his journey on the occasion in question.

This subsection applies in relation to references in those provisions to the fare properly payable for part of a person's journey as it applies to references to the fare properly payable for a person's journey.

(5) References in those provisions to any necessary fare ticket for a person's journey on any such bus or train service are references to a fare ticket required for his journey on the occasion in question which—

  1. (a) applies to his journey on that occasion; and
  2. (b) shows payment of the fare properly payable for that journey.

(6) For the purposes of those provisions, no fare is properly payable for a bus journey and no fare ticket is required for a bus or train journey if the person travelling on that journey has a deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel that applies to the whole of his journey on the occasion in question.").

Amendment No. 51: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:

("Supplementary provisions with respect to penalty fares.

.—(1) Section 25(2) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (arrest of bus passenger without warrant) shall apply where a constable suspects with reasonable cause that a person has become liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of any bus journey as it applies where a constable so suspects that a person has contravened or failed to comply with a provision of any regulations having effect by virtue of that section (regulation of conduct of passengers).

(2) Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 shall apply in the case of any person who has become liable to pay a penalty fare under section (Penalty fares) of this Act as if —

  1. (a)the reference in subsection (1) (offence of failing either to produce the correct ticket, pay the correct fare or give name and address to an officer or servant of a railway company) to his fare from the place whence he started (but not the earlier reference to his fare) were a reference to his fare from that place and the penalty fare; and
  2. (b) the second reference to his fare in subsection (2) (power to detain person failing to give name and address) and the reference to his fare in subsection (3)(c) (offence of giving a false name and address) were each a reference to his fare and the penalty fare.

(3) If in any action for the recovery of a penalty fare payable under section (Penalty fares) it is established that the circumstances fall within subsection (2), (3) or (5) of that section, it shall he for the defence to show that any exception provided by subsection (4) or (6) of that section applies.

(4) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to secure that the requirements of the following provisions of this section with respect to warning notices are met in the case of every bus or train service to which section (Penalty fares) applies.

(5) In the case of a bus service, a warning notice meeting the requirements of subsection (6) below shall be posted in every vehicle used in providing that service or, where any such vehicle has more than one deck, on each deck of that vehicle, in such a position as to be readily visible to persons travelling on the vehicle.

(6) A warning notice posted in pursuance of subsection (5) above shall state—

  1. (a) in the case of a bus service within section (Penalty fares) (2) of this Act, that persons travelling on that service who cannot produce a ticket showing payment of the correct fare for their journey, or for any part of their journey not otherwise authorised, may be liable to a penalty fare; and
  2. (b) in the case of a bus service within subsection (3) of that section, that persons who travel on that service without paying the correct fare for their journey, or for any part of their journey not otherwise authorised, may be liable to a penalty fare.

(7) In the case of a train service, a warning notice meeting the requirements of subsection (8) below shall be posted—

  1. (a) in every station at which persons may start to travel on that service, in such a position as to be readily visible to prospective passengers; and
  2. (b) in every carriage of every train used in providing that service.

(8) A warning notice posted in pursuance of subsection (7) above shall state that persons travelling on that service who cannot produce a ticket showing payment of the correct fare for their journey, or for any part of their journey not otherwise authorised, may be liable to a penalty fare.

(9) Every warning notice posted in pursuance of this section shall state the amount of the current minimum penalty (within the meaning of section (Penalty fares) (7) of this Act) and indicate that a penalty fare may be higher.

(10) Any order under subsection (8) of that section shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

Amendment No. 52: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:

("Exclusion of double liability.

.—(I) Where a person has become liable under section (Penalty fares) of this Act to pay a penalty fare in respect of any bus or train journey ("the relevant journey"), no proceedings may be brought against him for any of the offences specified in subsection (2) below before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (7) of that section; and no such proceedings may be brought after the end of that period if either —

  1. (a) he has paid that fare to the person providing the service before the end of that period; or
  2. (b) an action has been brought against him for the recovery of that fare.

(2) The offences mentioned in subsection (1) above are —

  1. (a) any offence under section 5(3)(a) or (b) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (travelling without paying the correct fare with intent to avoid payment) arising from the relevant journey;
    2. 1006
  2. (b) any offence under byelaws made under section 67 of the 1962 Act (byelaws for railways, etc.) involving a failure to obtain or produce a fare ticket or authority to travel for the relevant journey; and
  3. (c) any offence under section 25(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 of contravening or failing to comply with any provision of regulations for the time being having effect by virtue of that section by failing to pay the fare properly payable for the relevant journey or any part of it.

(3) If proceedings are brought against any such person for any such offence he shall cease to be liable to pay the penalty fare and, if he has paid it, the person to whom it was paid shall be liable to repay to him an amount equal to the amount of that fare.").

Amendment No. 53: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:

("Operation of the penalty fares provisions.

.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the penalty fares provisions shall have effect, as from such day as may be specified in the order, with respect to—

  1. (a) bus services to which section (Penalty fares) applies; and
  2. (b) train services to which that section applies; and different days may be specified under this section with respect to bus services and train services.

(2) Any such order is referred to below in this section as an order activating the penalty fares provisions.

(3) The revocation by the Secretary of State of an order activating the penalty fares provisions shall be without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to make further orders under this section activating those provisions.

(4) An order activating the penalty fares provisions may provide that any provision of a local Act specified in the order (being a provision which appears to the Secretary of State to be unnecessary having regard to the penalty fares provisions so far as they have effect by virtue of the order) shall be suspended while that order has effect; and any such provision shall accordingly be treated, so long as that order has effect, as if it had been repealed.

(5) Without prejudice to subsection (4) above, any order activating the penalty fares provisions, and any order revoking any such order, may contain such supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions (including transitional provisions) as may appear to the Secretary of State to be neccessary or expedient.

(6) No order activating the penalty fares provisions may be made except at the request of London Regional Transport.").

We come now to a very important topic which we raised during our earlier consideration of the Bill and on which, following a number of representations from your Lordships—notably the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, my noble friend Lord Teviot and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—I then gave an undertaking to introduce Government amendments. I apologise for the number of clauses involved here. There are certainly very many more than I envisaged at that time, but the complexity of the different arrangements for paying fares, as well as the inherent differences in travel on buses and the Underground, has made this unavoidable.

The Government agree wholeheartedly with those noble Lords who have drawn attention to the magnitude of fare dodging on London Transport services and to the need to take this opportunity to put matters right. In 1982 fares evasion cost London Transport as much as £40 million. As a result of lower fares and simplified ticketing arrangements, as well as a publicity campaign, London Transport succeeded in reducing this figure to an estimated £25 million in 1983. Nevertheless, this is still a very large sum, representing almost a 5 per cent. loss on revenue received. And this loss, caused by relatively few defaulters, has to be met by the majority of honest travellers. It effectively adds 6 per cent. to the fares which they would otherwise have to pay. Clearly, this points to the need for steps to eradicate the enormous losses which currently take place.

As your Lordships are aware, it is the Government's aim to ensure that LRT reduce costs, improve efficiency and generally provide better value for money. London Transport are already planning for the introduction of automated fares collection and ticket issue. In the longer term, when the proposed new Underground ticketing system is fully operational, there will be automatic gates at central stations and open-barrier suburban stations. In these circumstances the opportunity for increased fares evasion is obvious. Indeed, I will go further and say that unless steps are taken to place a clear obligation on travellers to pay the proper fare for their journeys with an appropriate penalty if they do not, it will be impossible to achieve the savings which we want to see.

Before describing how the penalty fares system will work, perhaps I could take the opportunity to set the record straight on one or two matters which may be of concern. In preparing these measures, the Government have given very careful thought to the need to protect the civil liberties of the individual. It is for this reason that the measures include a number of safeguards for travellers.

In the first place, I would like to make it clear that the proposal before your Lordships is not, as was erroneously reported in some newspapers, for an on-the-spot fine. What the proposal amounts to is that, as part of the conditions of travelling on LRT services, travellers will be liable to a surcharge (or a penalty) if they do not pay the proper fare. What is involved, therefore, is not the creation of a new criminal offence with a fine being exacted other than in accordance with the due process of law; it is simply the creation of a new civil liability. Although it will be possible for the traveller to pay this surcharge on the spot, he will have 21 days in which to pay. If he chooses not to pay, then LRT's redress for the recovery of the penalty fare lies only in a civil action in the county courts. These new conditions will be prominently displayed at stations, on trains and on buses to ensure that travellers are fully aware of their liabilities. The new measures do not disturb the existing criminal law, under which it is an offence to travel with intent to avoid payment. I will return to this in a moment.

The second point I wish to make is that the proposals ensure that travellers will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if they had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a ticket. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has authorised me to give an undertaking that the measures will not be introduced on the Underground until he is satisfied that appropriate equipment is in place to ensure that a reasonable opportunity exists for obtaining an appropriate ticket or authority to travel. The measures in these new clauses can only be brought into effect by order of the Secretary of State, at the request of London Regional Transport; and the measures can be revoked by the Secretary of State if unforeseen difficulties occur. There is no question that these provisions will come into operation on the appointed day for the Bill itself.

Perhaps I could now describe, quite briefly, the purpose of the five clauses under consideration. The first new clause (Amendment No. 48) provides that if a person does not pay the proper fare for the whole or any part of his journey, he will be liable to a penalty fare of either £5 or ten times the amount of the unpaid fare, whichever is the greater. There will be no liability to a penalty fare if the travellers had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a fare ticket for the journey in question. The clause also defines the terms and method of calculation for a penalty fare. The second new clause (Amendment No. 50) provides that the penalty fare system will apply on all LRT bus and train services, on services of any subsidiary of LRT, and on services of any person operating under an agreement with LRT where that agreement states that the penalty fares provisions are to apply. This clause also sets out definitions of terms used concerning fares, tickets, journey and so on.

The third new clause (Amendment No. 51) contains supplementary provisions to enable the name and address of a traveller to be obtained if he is liable to a penalty fare and to extend the current powers of arrest, on failure to give a name and address, to the penalty fares provisions. This clause also places a duty on LRT to ensure that warning notices about liability for penalty fares, and about the minimum amount, are displayed at every station, in every train and on every deck of every bus. Any order varying the penalty fare will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.

The fourth new clause (Amendment No. 52) provides that a traveller will not have a double liability for an offence relating to fares. If he is liable for a penalty fare no proceedings can be brought within a period of 21 days. Any liability to prosecution will be discharged by payment of the penalty fare within that period of time. On the other hand, if proceedings are brought after the 21-day period against a person for offences relating to non-payment of fares he will not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

The final new clause (Amendment No. 53) provides for the Secretary of State to bring the penalty fares provisions into effect by order, at the request of LRT, for bus services and train services separately. The clause also sets out provisions relating to revocation of the orders and the suspension of similar provisions in local Acts which appear to the Secretary of State to be unnecessary when the new provisions are brought into effect.

I have explained that these measures create a new civil liability for non-payment of the proper fare. This will apply equally to those who, for example, innocently override with every intention of paying, and those who travel with intent to avoid payment and who will remain liable, even if they do not pay the penalty fare, to prosecution.

The Government are well aware that extending sanctions in this way into new areas almost inevitably restricts the freedoms of some innocent people; and that the measures may be perceived as an extension of criminal sanctions. The Government have considered this aspect very carefully. We have been able to see no alternative to the approach embodied in these clauses if the provisions are to be effective in their purpose; namely, to help to eradicate the high level of fraudulent travel on London's public transport. At the same time, I and my right honourable friend will be taking careful note of the points made today in your Lordships' House. If these clauses can be improved I give your Lordships a firm assurance of my determination that this will be done and that the necessary refinements will be brought forward at Third Reading. I go further than that. If on maturer consideration further improvements are identified before these provisions come into effect, we shall seek to implement them in amending legislation. I hope, with these undertakings, we can now debate these important new measures with the seriousness they deserve. I beg to move Amendment No. 48.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale)

My Lords, I now have to call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 48, Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 48, Amendment No. 49:

[Printed above: col. 1004.]

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am not clear whether, in terms of the procedures of this House, if I speak on this amendment to the amendment I can then speak on the amendment itself. I will speak just to the amendment to the amendment at this moment, as I would prefer to reserve my other comments.

Lord Denham

My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. My noble friend can of course speak on both if she wants. Her amendment has been called and the debate is on that, but she can of course speak to the parent amendment as well.?

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, do I have the alternative of speaking separately to both amendments?

Noble Lords

No.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I have to speak on both simultaneously. Thank you very much for that clarification. In that case, I shall deal with the amendment to the amendment first. I have suggested a penalty fare of £ 10 rather than £5 for several reasons. One was to bring it more into line with the penalty paid as a fixed penalty charge for car parking in the wrong spot. I thought that £10 was not an unreasonable sum. I also thought that it was more of a deterrent than the proposed minimum £5. But since putting this amendment down I have had consultations with London Transport and I think I am persuaded by them that £5 is a more practical figure at this initial stage. Their research has shown that people are much more likely to have £5 on them and the real intention is to enable people to settle this matter then and there, rather than to choose the 21-day deferred system for payment. So I think, as there is provision in my noble friend's original clause for a variation of this amount should £5 become completely out of date as time goes by, I would not press my amendment to the amendment.

I should like now to go on to speak to Amendment No. 48. I welcome it and I am very glad that the Government have brought the amendment forward, particularly when I see how very complicated it is. Although I asked for this and thought it a fairly simple thing at the early stages of the Bill, it is quite apparent from the detail that has gone into it that it is far from simple. I can see that most of the complexity arises from the need to protect people and to introduce the essential safeguards. I welcome those.

The London Regional Passengers' Committee would also support the introduction of a penalty fares system provided these safeguards were introduced. The safeguard of the gravest importance is the ability in some way to obtain a ticket at the beginning of your journey, either a ticket or an authority to travel, which is what it is proposed to introduce in the areas where it will not be possible to get a ticket, so there will be at least a machine issuing one with an authority to travel and never a need to get on the Tube without this authority. I understand that it is possible for this scheme to be introduced on the buses very soon but that it might well be five years before the Tube scheme could come into being. Nevertheless, this is the time to produce the law in relation to this.

I welcome the fact that this will be a civil matter and that passengers will therefore have the choice of paying a standard fare or a penalty fare. The penalty fare will be for failure to produce the correct ticket and not just for failure to have one. At the present time LT can prosecute but in order to win the case they have to prove an intent to defraud. Under this civil matter it will not be necessary to prove any intent because it will not be a question of fraud; it will simply be a choice of civil contract to choose a standard ticket or a penalty rate ticket.

The present prosecutions are brought under the Theft or Forgery Acts, and this will continue. Where it is believed that there is a serious attempt to avoid payment of the fare, or a repeated habit of someone trying to do this, or a forgery such as altering a ticket, which is apparently quite a common occurrence nowadays where people will try to alter the date on a ticket to make it appropriate, it is prosecuted under the Forgery Act. This right will remain. Many people are afraid that this penalty fare will take away a degree of their liberty. I do not think they appreciate that at present it is an offence to travel without a ticket but that the means of prosecuting and bringing the person without a ticket to any point where he makes recompense for it is much more complicated and difficult.

A very important point is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that notices will be displayed at all the stations and in the buses. I have asked London Transport to take up the matter with the International Public Transport Body, which has its home in Brussels, and to try to devise some type of international symbol. After all, these "on-the-spot fines", as they are called in other countries, or "penalty fares" as they would be in this country, are in operation now in so many places. In this country they are already in operation in Tyne and Wear on the Metro, where the minimum is £3, and in Manchester, where the penalty is five times the fare due. I could go through a great list—and perhaps other speakers may do so—of France, Brussels, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Germany. There is a great list of places where this type of structure is already in operation; and I think there is a need for an international sign, for example, in the same way as we have road signs, so that anyone getting on transport in any country operating this system will know that they must have a ticket for the journey; otherwise, they will be liable.

I would not wish to continue for too long, but I should like to mention that I have had a most extraordinary letter from one transport users' group who say, among other things, that when you are travelling on a bus—and they underline this comment—ignorance of the correct fare is the norm. I find that hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe that lost and even illegitimate passenger miles will be detrimental to London Transport. I find that the fear, as expressed in the letter, that a penalty fare will force people to change to car, bike or foot is rather unbelievable. I think that if London Transport really has so many passengers travelling illegitimate miles who will feel obliged to give up London Transport because they are going to have to pay a fare, we would be well off without those people right from the start. So although that letter has come, I really pay little regard to it.

There are people who are concerned as to what will happen to someone who is ticketless and perhaps has just been forgetful. In such cases that person will still have the right to defend themselves at the end of the 21 days. They can refuse to pay. They can go and present in a court the same defence as they have now. This will not rule out that alternative procedure. So I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. I hope that it will be carried.