Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport - United ...

14 November 2007 Mr Chris Austin, Mr David Mapp <strong>and</strong> Mr Richard Malins
Q36 Mr Scott: You say, underst<strong>and</strong>ably, that the
Government’s concessionary fares policy only looks
at one mode of transport <strong>and</strong> does not consider rail
services, but that extending it to rail services would
need careful thought. Can you see a sensible national
extension of free concessionary fare schemes that
would include some rail journeys without incurring
high costs or overloading already busy trains?
Mr Austin: I think that is a very diYcult thing to do
because it is quite diYcult to distinguish between
short distance <strong>and</strong> long distance travel. They tend to
share the same trains, for example between Coventry
<strong>and</strong> Birmingham <strong>and</strong> Macclesfield <strong>and</strong> Manchester,
<strong>and</strong> you have shorter distance passengers using
longer distance trains. The worry would be for us
that whilst we would welcome the extra business,
providing it was properly paid for, the experience
with the bus industry is that it has led to considerable
overcrowding. We already have a lot of
overcrowding that we are tackling on the rail system
at the moment so if that were to be the case, <strong>and</strong> to
encourage a lot of additional oV-peak traYc, we
would need support to enable us to exp<strong>and</strong> the
capacity of the rail network to cope with it.
Q37 Mr Hollobone: To follow on from Mr Scott’s
point about the Oyster card <strong>and</strong> the diVerential
charging for cash <strong>and</strong> Oyster, in your answer, Mr
Mapp, you said under the current regulatory
framework you are not allowed to diVerentiate the
price. Will that be the case then when the ATOC
companies introduce the Oyster card in London?
Mr Mapp: At the moment I am not aware that the
DfT plans to make any specific change to the
regulatory framework to allow for that. I think it is
true to say that we have argued the case with the DfT
for there to be greater freedom with regard to pricing
<strong>and</strong> indeed for us to be given the ability to
diVerentially price, by which means we will be able
to do that. Whether in the context of Oyster
introduction we would choose to then introduce a
similar pricing regime to that introduced by
Transport for London, I think is a question that we
have not fully addressed.
Q38 Mr Hollobone: As it st<strong>and</strong>s at the moment there
would be a substantial diVerence between a
passenger in London on an overground train on one
of your companies where there would not be a
financial penalty incurred, as on the London
Underground at the moment, in buying a ticket for
cash?
Mr Mapp: That is correct.
Q39 Mr Hollobone: With regard to fare dodging, is
it right that you think that nationally the loss of
revenue from fare dodging amounts to some £400
million or about 8% of revenue?
Mr Austin: That is the figure that we put in our
paper. I would say that it is an informed guess, an
informed estimate. There is no consistent across-theboard
survey of this although individual train
companies do research it on a regular basis. It is our
best estimate of what it is likely to be.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 5
Q40 Mr Hollobone: Is that not an excessive amount
that could go into improving the public transport
system? Given that you are having to make a guess
of what that amount is, should data not be collected
far more comprehensively given the scale of the
problem?
Mr Austin: I think the answer is yes to both of those
questions. It is a lot <strong>and</strong> train operators are doing a
lot to address that, both through gating additional
stations <strong>and</strong> through providing higher levels of
ticket checks on-train, which overcomes the
shortcomings of the gates. In the process of doing
this, they are also building up a much better store of
information <strong>and</strong> time series data to demonstrate
much more accurately the level of losses being
incurred, so the two really go together.
Q41 Mr Hollobone: I think that Mr Malins is of the
view that there is an over-reliance in the rail industry
on introducing barriers to prevent fare dodging <strong>and</strong>
more sophisticated strategies are needed. Mr
Malins, would you elaborate on that?
Mr Malins: My point here that I put in the paper,
<strong>and</strong> I repeat for you now, is that, first of all, as Chris
has admitted, there is no sound or consistent method
of measurement by most TOCs on the extent to
which they have fare evasion or simply ticketless
travel, what I would describe as people who may not
pay their fares for the very reason the Committee
was alluding to earlier on, that it is actually quite
diYcult to buy a ticket in the first place. So we need
to distinguish between people who are deliberately
trying to avoid paying <strong>and</strong> those who find it diYcult
to pay because the facilities are not there. The sort
of numbers that Chris has been talking about would
embrace absolutely everything if the number were
correct—<strong>and</strong> I suspect it might be on the high side.
Q42 Mr Hollobone: Whilst you are on the subject of
whether people are genuinely dodging fares or
accidentally dodging fares, do you have any estimate
of the number of people who are willfully doing this?
Mr Malins: All I can say is that one can draw a little
pie chart which says if you look at the world at large
there are people out there who always want to pay
their fares <strong>and</strong> are committed to doing it. That could
be 80% of the population but it will vary <strong>and</strong> I would
not like to say that is an absolutely correct figure.
Then there are people who if it is made diYcult to
pay they will not bother. Then there are people who
are determined fare evaders. Quite what number
they represent is something that is very diYcult to
get at. I would say that the number Chris quoted is
probably an outside number for fares not paid for all
sort of reasons, some of them in fact not the
customers’ fault. I do not think there is any
consistent measurement within that to know
precisely what the number is <strong>and</strong> therefore what the
reasons are <strong>and</strong> how best to tackle them. The point
I was making to the Committee is I think it is a kneejerk
reaction by train operating companies to revert
to closing stations, which is the system we had years
ago, which meant people were st<strong>and</strong>ing around
getting bored so that we can check people at the
beginning of the journey. The sort of gates that are