HC Deb 10 March 1977 vol 927 cc1740-52

9.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter)

I beg to move, That the Transport (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved. The order is a miscellaneous transport one, the main purpose of which is to enable the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, with the consent of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, to transfer to a subsidiary company the functions, assets and staff previously transferred to the holding company from Belfast Corporation at the time of local government reorganisation.

The order would also enable the Department of the Environment, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to make grants to the holding company and its subsidiary companies, to rebate fuel tax duty incurred by bus companies, to provide for grants by the Department of the Environment for concessionary fares on passenger transport undertakings, and to permit alteration in the membership of the Transport Users' Committee. It would increase certain fines for offences on railways and enable the making of regulations about offences for fare evasion on buses. It would confer functions on the Department in relation to the railway company under certain EEC regulations. It would repeal spent provisions in railway legislation.

The proposal was published on 14th September 1976 and was given a wide distribution to statutory and non-statutory bodies, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Press and through Her Majesty's Stationery Office, in addition to the agreed distribution through parliamentary channels. The order as now presented includes points made by these bodies during the consultative period.

The draft order was debated in the Northern Ireland Committee of the House on 16th December 1976 and, while many points of interest about its implementation were raised, the debate did not reveal the need for any modification to the content of the order itself. The draft Order was debated in another place on 3rd March 1977 and was duly approved.

Article 1 of the order deals with its title, commencement and interpretation and provides that Articles 1 and 2 shall come into immediate effect and the other articles on "appointed days "

Article 2 would enable the holding company, with the consent of the Department of the Environment, to transfer to a subsidiary company all or any of the functions previously transferred to the holding company from the Belfast Corporation Transport Department. In effect, this means that Citybus, which at the moment is no more than a trading agency of the holding company, could be translated into a self-contained and self-accounting subsidiary.

Additionally, any staff of the holding company who are wholly or mainly employed in the discharge of these functions, and any plant or equipment necessary to carry out the functions, could also be transferred to the subsidiary company. Any immovable property vested in the holding company could be let to the subsidiary company at a rent to be agreed between the two parties.

Provision is made to ensure that any legal obligations, rights or liabilities relating to any functions transferred to the subsidiary company would be enforceable by or against the subsidiary company. Any staff transferred to the employment of the subsidiary company would enjoy conditions of employment not less favourable than those enjoyed before the transfer.

It is envisaged, as agreed by both unions and employers, that a merger of the Belfast transport undertaking with Ulsterbus is the longer-term objective. For the present, however, the disparities in terms and conditions of employment render this unattainable, and the present proposal to set up Citybus as a separate subsidiary is seen as an interim solution. A merger remains the ultimate objective, and discussions between unions and management will continue towards that end.

A large measure of integration is, however, achieved by having a common administrative headquarters for Citybus and Ulsterbus, with an integrated staff.

The two boards of directors consist of the same personnel, with a single managing director. While Citybus would be the operational company in respect of Belfast bus services, it would not take on the pension and compensation liabilities arising from the old Belfast transport undertaking, which would remain with the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company as at present.

Article 3 would enable the Department of the Environment, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to make grants to the holding company towards operating losses incurred by the subsidiary transport companies, towards the cost, including loan charges, of acquiring property in connection with its statutory activities, and in respect of pensions and compensation to former employees of the Belfast Corporation.

Article 4 seeks to enable the Department of the Environment to increase—with retrospective effect to 12th February 1974—the rate of grant payable to the operator of a bus service to defray the Customs or Excise duties charged on bus fuel. This has been paid to the bus companies on an extra-statutory basis, and we are merely bringing Northern Ireland into line with present Great Britain law.

Article 5 would make provision in regard to concessionary fare schemes provided by passenger transport undertakings. These schemes would be agreed with the Department of the Environment, which, with the approval of the Department of Finance, would be enabled to make grants towards the cost of such schemes. The present concessionary fare provisions are estimated to cost about £1½ million a year, and, while we are very conscious of their serious limitations, particularly in respect of the elderly, additional finance is not at present available to enable us to improve the scheme.

Article 6 would provide for the Department of the Environment, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to make grants to a subsidiary company of the holding company providing road passenger transport services, for capital expenditure on new buses and approved bus stations, depots and so on.

Article 7 seeks to extend the membership of the Transport User's Committee The total membership would be at the discretion of the Head of the Department of the Environment.

Article 8 seeks to increase die borrowing power of the holding company from £4 million to £10 million, and Section 51 of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 would be amended accordingly. This increase in borrowing limits does not reflect any worsening in real terms of the public transport industry in Northern Ireland but rather the general effects of inflation over a 10-year period combined with the borrowing needs of two additional subsidiary companies—Northern Ireland Airports and Citybus.

Article 9 is designed to establish that the Department of the Environment should be the competent authority for Northern Ireland in relation to the Northern Ireland Railways Company Limited, or any company by which it is replaced, for the purposes of EEC Regulations Nos. 1191/69 and 1192/69. This provides that the Department may give directions to the company on the operation of its railway system and also that the Department is obliged to make any payments to the company that are required, by those regulations, to be made by the competent authority. Similar legislation—the Railways Act 1974—was passed in respect of British Rail.

Article 10 enables the Department to make regulations concerning the payment of fares on buses, and provides for penalties for fare evasion. This is a new article inasmuch as it did not appear in the proposal as originally published, but hon. Members who were present at the debate in the Northern Ireland Committee may recall that I mentioned the Government's intention to include such a provision.

Article 11 seeks to increase the maximum penalty for improper use of the communication cord on trains from £5 to £25 and to amend Section 22 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868 accordingly. The maximum penalty in connection with the avoiding of payment of fares on railways would also be increased, and Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 would be amended accordingly.

Article 12 is intended to repeal the already spent provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868 and the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act 1911 in so far as they apply to Northern Ireland.

As hon. Members will see, the order is not of a far-reaching nature, each of its provisions being designed to achieve a limited but very desirable objective.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

I think it is appropriate, on what the Minister has described as a miscellaneous transport order, to praise the steadiness of the remarkable men and women who keep the wheels of the transport services turning in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. I do not think that there are many Northern Ireland Members in the Chamber to whom the sight of a burning bus is something out of the ordinary.

I am told that 470 buses have been destroyed since 1970, and the managing director of Ulsterbus and Citybus was quoted in the Irish Times on 19th January as having said: It is like asking in wartime how many planes have been lost. He could not be more precise about the figures. The managing director, he harped back to the war, in which he served not on ours but on the German side. He served with the Afrika Corps. But he is a very gallant gentleman. Once in County Fermanagh he removed a hoax bomb from a hijacked bus. Like a good manager he faces the same risks as his drivers.

What is more, Ulsterbus makes money. I do not think that there are many public transport undertakings left in Europe that do. Unfortunately, the surplus achieved by Ulsterbus, which it is hoped, may amount to more than £2 million in the present year—the current report mentions a profit before taxation of some £1.4 million—is swallowed by the trading losses of Citybus services and the railway company. The Northern Ireland Transport holding Company has a total debt of £3.4 million. As the Secretary of State told us, the borrowing powers of the company are to be increased under Article 8 from £4 million to £10 million.

I do not know whether the proposed merger of Ulsterbus and Citybus will relieve the financial plight of the combined undertaking. I am always a little sceptical about the financial advantages of so-called integration. I am not quite clear what particular advantages are looked for, although on paper there will, of course, be economies. But if there are considerable advantages to be gained from the merger, I am not sure why it is not being pushed forward more rapidly.

If I may turn to the railway company I remind the Minister of the suggestion that trains should be equipped with more efficient means of giving an alarm to the security forces in the event of attack or hijacking. Not long ago I travelled from Portadown to Dublin. I had been looking forward to the trip. I had heard much of the famous "Enterprise Express", but I was disappointed. It was dirty and untidy, and that is not good for morale.

Why are the city buses losing so heavily while Ulsterbus is profitable? I refer to the report and accounts of the holding company for the year ended 28th March 1976. On page 5 it says Apart from the impact of inflation and the undoubted effects of the economic recession, the organisation is faced with two major problems which are seriously hampering its financial performance. First of all fare evasion and overriding still persists as a major revenue loss and it is felt that a fundamental change in the fare structure is the only answer to this question. Recommendations to this effect have been submitted to Government … Secondly, the Black Taxi Services continue to operate on the high density routes and the consequent loss in revenue is the major stumbling block to the City Bus Services effectively pursuing its target of financial self-sufficiency. We welcome Article 10 which is aimed at reducing the evasion of fares. But why is it that the black taxi services still operate illegally? I say "illegally" because it was made clear by the Minister of State in another place that their activities are illegal and they are carried out with impunity.

On 21st June last year I asked the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the so-called people's taxis scheme of the Falls and Shankill Road. I asked how many had been prosecuted for operating without a licence, for overcrowding, or for breach of the insurance laws. I asked how much revenue these operations were estimated to take away from Citybus Limited, how many such taxis were estimated to operate, and whether the Secretary of State had any evidence of para-military involvement.

The right hon. Gentleman replied that since 1972 there had been 21 prosecutions for operating without a licence and 18 for operating in breach of the insurance laws. There had been no prosecutions, however, for over-crowding, but I can assure hon. Members that overcrowded "black" taxis are a common sight on the streets of Belfast today.

The Secretary of State was unable to give an accurate estimate of the loss of revenue to Citybus, but he said that it might be £1 million. He said that of the 758 licensed taxis in Belfast, about 400 were estimated to be operating specifically in the Falls and Shankhill areas, There were also believed to be some unlicensed taxis operating in these areas in this way. However, he said that there was no specific evidence of paramilitary involvement. That does not mean that there was no para-military involvement.

I do not believe everything I read in newspapers, even in the News Letter. But if half of what is recorded by Mr. Arthur Boyd in his article of 8th February is true, it is profoundly disturbing. It fully justifies the importance attached by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to the "black" taxi service as a main reason for the loss of revenue, which puts the company so much into the red. According to this article, there are about 400 "black" taxis in Belfast.

The "black" taxi business has become a big commercial undertaking and a "legitimate front"—that is not an expression I would use—for the para-military groups on both sides. The article continues: The plain fact is that the law is being flouted. Three policemen told me that they had been told to leave the black taxis alone because they were a political 'hot potato'. The evidence is clear to anyone that the taxis do almost as they like. If we pull in a few for testing, there is trouble. You can get the others blocking off the roads and perhaps a not starting in no time. It's just not worth it. I do not know what degree of credence to attach to this article, but I think that the position is sufficiently disturbing to merit some comment from the Minister when he replies.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford (Belfast, South)

The debate in Committee on this subject began with a reference to the courage and determination of those who are responsible for transportation in the Province. It was repeated tonight. On behalf of my hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist coalition I should like to associate myself with that tribute. I do not wish to detain the House for long, because we have expressed our views on this fully on a previous occasion, but I should like to reiterate some of the questions that were posed then and to which direct answers were not given, for understandable reasons.

We understand that the main purpose of this order is to enable the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to transfer assets and functions to Citybus so that in time it can become a limited company. I turn to Article 6, which deals with the important question of future expenditure on vehicles and property controlled by the holding company. It has been stated that 100 new buses are needed each year to maintain the service. I wonder whether that number is accurate and whether it is forthcoming. Are Citybus and Ulsterbus satisfied with the replacement of stocks?

What is the position concerning old-age pensioners' concessionary fares? The Minister will recall that previously we raised three issues—that there was no free travel in Northern Ireland, that there was twice as much money being spent on the mainland as in Northern Ireland, and that the age qualification in Northern Ireland was 70 compared with 65 elsewhere.

I added a further matter of concern on which no reply was given. In Great Britain about £18 per head is spent on transport. In Northern Ireland the figure is £6 per head. In our previous debate the Minister revealed a health scepticism about this figure. I prefer his scepiticism to the obscurantist views of some of his colleagues, but can he now confirm that the figures of £18 and £6 per head are correct? If so, what is inhibiting him from allocating another £1½ million to bring the per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland up to £7—still a long way off the £18 per head in Great Britain—by a shift in resources which will afford some kind of concessionary fare to all pensioners in the Province and not just the small group in Belfast and those who use the railways? We have not yet had an answer to that question and I should be grateful if the Minister would provide it.

We also asked previously whether the Minister was happy with the sort of people being appointed to various committees and advisory boards. We were not happy with them because they were only rarely au fait with their remit or able to make a constructive contribution.

Is the Minister satisfied that the members of the Transport Users Consultative Committee will be the sort of people who will ask constructive questions and, through an adequate secretariat, convey their findings and recommendations and meet frequently enough to be able to monitor public reaction to the transport system in the Province?

Has there been any progress on the universal fare structure mooted by City-bus some time ago? This would be helpful in two ways. It would enable many more people in the Province to use public transport, because at the moment some people have to pay exorbitant fares. Secondly, it would be helpful to schoolchildren, who often have to pay two tokens to travel to school in Belfast. For a family with three or four children the cost of fares can become quite high. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress towards a universal fare structure, particularly for schoolchildren?

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Carter

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) prefaced his remarks in this debate—as he did in Committee—with praise for the people working in the Northern Ireland transport undertakings. I echo what he said. The people employed in transport in Northern Ireland, unlike their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, are engaged in an occupation that is not only hazardous, but in which their lives are at considerable risk. Everyone in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom is in their debt.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest went on to talk about the differences in economic viability between Ulsterbus and Citybus. The two operations are not the same. They work in different areas Nevertheless, we should seek to minimise the imbalance between the two undertakings.

The hon. Member said that we were merging the two companies. We are not doing that. In the order we are separating them rather more for reasons other than economy. We are currently reviewing the fare structure and we hope that when a new structure is introduced we shall be able to avoid much of the fare evasion that exists and recoup more from the travelling public.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I thought that I said that it was proposed to merge the two undertakings but that it was some way off. I understand that it is the Government's policy to merge them. What are the special advantages of that?

Mr. Carter

I must have misheard the hon. Member. The merger is a longterm objective and at present there seems to be no likelihood of that being achieved.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest concluded his remarks with general observations about the "black" taxis about which we are acutely concerned. They have an impact on the bus services and the situation is currently under review. I am looking closely at the "black" taxi service to see whether we can bring it to a legitimate state. There are certain problems with the police, because it is not possible for policemen to go about their normal duties in the way that they can in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are not the people on the ground to back up the intentions of the Government in that respect.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) said that I had not answered the points that he raised in Committee. If he checks, he will see that I answered all his questions.

I was also asked about buses that are lost through terrorism. That is a matter for concern particularly to the bus companies and the Government because it is an economic loss. Remarkable as it appears, terrorism does not seem to affect the viability of Ulsterbus or Citybus even though they have lost 40 buses since 1st January. They move with incredible speed to get buses back on the road. I visited a depot in Belfast and I have seen what they can do with completely burnt out wrecks. A collection of bits and pieces of metal and twisted wreckage is quickly turned into a usable bus.

We are not in a position to move at all on concessionary fares. The hon. Member for Epping Forest made unfair comparisons between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The transport undertakings throughout the United Kingdom have different systems. If one compares Northern Ireland with certain other authorities, people in Northern Ireland have the advantage. But, if one compares the majority of the undertakings, the people of Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage.

The hon. Member also raised the question of the cost of the economic support for Northern Ireland transport compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like to know the source of his figures, because it is extremely difficult to compare Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bradford

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is impossible for him to obtain the figures for transportation costs in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain as a whole? My source of information is quite close to his own Department. This was the fundamental question that he did not answer in Committee—why is it impossible to bring up to £7 per capita the amount spent on transportation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Carter

I did not say that it was impossible to answer the question. I do not think that we have got around to answering the point that was raised in Committee. We shall do so. As with most Committee stages, many questions were asked and it takes time to answer them. I would be grateful if the hon. Member would give me the source of his information.

The purpose of the order is to extend the membership of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. After the local elections in May I hope to be in a position to do what the hon. Member asks and to increase the range of membership of the committee.

The hon. Member's final point was one with which I dealt in conjunction with a question asked by the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the fare structure. The structure is under review.

I am in general in support of the objectives of Ulster bus and Citybus in this respect. I hope that when implemented, the new structure will make an impact on the overall economic viability of the transport undertaking.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Transport (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.