Robert Jenrick - fare evasion and truth avoidance

Dr Huw Evans

Judging by his recent self-publicity, former Tory party leader candidate, Robert Jenrick, still holds ambitions to be leader. This article flows from his call for a crackdown on public transport fare evasion.

What Jenrick said

In a video posted on X Jenrick directly challenges people on the London Underground who he says are fare dodgers. He links fare evasion with other things such as graffiti, and says they are ‘chipping away at society’. London Mayor Sadiq Khan is partly to blame: ‘Lawbreaking is out of control. He's not acting. So I did’.

Jenrick also says that nearly one in 25 people who use London public transport are not paying for it and that the ‘state needs to reassert itself and go after lawbreakers’.

[mid-content-banner]

Responding to Jenrick

Hold on… Yes, people should pay but, according to Jenrick, 96% of people (or 24 in 25) do pay. This does not amount to an outbreak of lawbreaking, surely?

Despite the implication behind Jenrick’s claims, Transport for London (TFL), for whom the London Mayor is responsible, has been tackling fare evasion.

A new fare evasion strategy was announced by TFL in April 2025. Alongside uniformed TFL officers, this includes expanding the number of professional investigators to target prolific fare evaders using advanced technology. TFL aim to reduce evasion by 1.5% or less by 2030.

Jenrick’s accusations are wrong. Fare evasion is an issue, but it is not out of control. Furthermore, TFL recognises the issue and is fighting back and were doing so before Jenrick posted his video. Assessing the adequacy of that response would have been legitimate but Jenrick doesn’t do this.

We can agree with Jenrick that fare evasion is wrong though. All passengers should pay. And if they don’t, action should be taken.

Tax evasion

If fare evasion is wrong, so is any form of evasion where there is no attempt to pay something that legally must be paid: like tax, for example. Jenrick didn’t mention tax evasion. It should have been as forms of evasion should be considered together.

Tax evasion is a big issue. A 2024 National Audit Office stated that £5.5 billion was lost due to tax evasion in 2022-23; revenue that could pay for sorely needed extra public services. Applying Jenrick’s narrative, lawbreaking through tax evasion also is ‘chipping away at society’ and the state needs to ‘fight back’.

Prior to its election, Labour published Close the Tax Gap: i.e. closing the gap between tax owed and tax paid, calculated to be £39.8 billion in 2022-23. This includes tax simply not collected, as well as tax not collected due to evasion.

In the Chancellor’s Spring Statement speech, she announced plans to reduce the tax gap and raise over £1 billion in additional tax revenue each year by 2029-30. Most is expected to come from improved tax collection arrangements.
Interestingly, the HMRC Chief Executive has stated that for every £1 spent on compliance work, there is additional tax revenue of £9. In other words, money spent on enforcement can (more than) pay for itself.

Jenrick could have mentioned tax evasion, together with its pernicious effects, and challenged the UK Government regarding the effectiveness of its response. But he didn’t.

[lower-mid-content-banner]

Where does this take us?

Jenrick’s posturing about fare evasion is both partial and misleading. It is partial because, important though it is, he overplays its prevalence and doesn’t acknowledge efforts to fight it.

It is misleading because of what it does not include. Fare evasion is an example of a range of activity, which also includes tax evasion, and needs to be acknowledged in that broader context.

One interpretation of his representation of fare evasion is to meet a political agenda. Mentioning tax evasion or that the London Mayor, through TFL, is fighting fare evasion might not fit within that agenda.

If I am right, he would not be the only politician to adopt this approach. But it is an approach which does the public a disservice, as factual disclosure and accuracy (or truth) are obscured.

Truth is important. I mention two reasons why. Factual disclosure and accuracy improve decision making and accountability; for example, about how to tackle financial evasion and evaluate efforts made to tackle it.

Secondly, it is important because it links in to trust, both in individuals and institutions, such as politicians and political parties.

Unfortunately, on the evidence, Jenrick is not advancing the cause of either.