Transport (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 (Hansard, 27 March 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It introduces amendments broadly in line with provisions already put into effect in Great Britain by amending the base legislation, the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. It is essentially a miscellaneous provisions order which, if the House will bear with me, requires a little more explanation than usual.
At present in Northern Ireland any vehicle which is used to carry passengers is regarded as a public service vehicle if any charge is made for the carriage. In consequence any organisation which provides a transport service on a non-profit-making basis cannot charge for that service unless the vehicle is registered as a public service vehicle. Such registration results in higher insurance premiums and the need to employ drivers who hold a public service vehicle driver's licence.
These requirements were relaxed in Great Britain by Sections 18 to 21 of the Transport Act 1985. These sections provide that small and large passenger carrying vehicles would not be regarded as public service vehicles when carrying passengers for hire and reward under specified circumstances. Those circumstances are when it is used by a voluntary organisation for the carriage of its own members and to the exclusion of the public at large. The provision gave useful assistance to many voluntary and community organisations and has been well received.
811 In Northern Ireland there has been pressure from many interested parties for similar relaxations to apply. Article 3 would meet that demand by relaxing the public service vehicle licensing requirements for such vehicles used under permits.
Article 4 replaces the existing Section 57(2) of the 1967 Act. The article provides that a person who contravenes a railway by-law shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. Should an offence continue, the article provides for a further fine not exceeding £10 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction.
Trespass on the railway is considered to be a serious offence and is one which has led to a number of fatal accidents. The articles therefore increases the penalty under Section 65(1) of the Act of 1967 for trespass on the railway to level 3 on the standard scale. Northern Ireland Railways has made many prosecutions in recent years for trespassing and it is hoped that this higher level of penalty will act as a deterrent to would-be trespassers.
The provisions of Article 5 seek further to strengthen the law against the offence of fare evasion. Such evasion has been a problem for some years for Citybus, which provides bus services in the Belfast area. Under present legislation a driver who reasonably suspects any passenger of fare evasion may ask the passenger to leave the vehicle or to give his name and address. Surprisingly, if a suspected offender refuses to give his or her name and address there is no power for the bus employee to detain the suspect.
However, under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 a police constable has a power of arrest in circumstances where a name and address are not given. The problem remains of what action is available in those cases where a suspected offender does identify him or herself. At present they can only be asked to leave the bus or they may be considered for prosecution. Experience of the companies in such prosecutions is that the cost and effort involved are not matched by the penalty imposed on the offender. The penalty fare provisions would impose a monetary "punishment" and be easier to operate than a prosecution-based scheme. The penalty fare scheme proposed is based on a similar scheme recently enacted for British Rail.
While fare evasion is primarily a problem for bus operators, it occurs on a smaller scale on Northern Ireland Railways. Therefore, the option to adopt penalty fares is being made available to NIR as well as bus operators. The amount of the penalty fare on both buses and trains would be an amount equal to the full single fare for the journey the person has made plus £5. It is payable within 21 days to the operator.
The other main provision of the order would give statutory backing for grants which have been paid on an extra statutory basis to assist the Northern Ireland Council on Disability. Article 6 would enable the department to make, subject to specified terms and conditions, grants to any body towards expenditure incurred on providing, maintaining or improving transport facilities for the disabled.
812 Articles 7 and 8 introduce, respectively, Schedules 2 and 3 which set out minor and consequential amendments to the Act of 1967, the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and consequential repeals of certain parts of the Act of 1967. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved. —(Lord Skelmersdale).

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this long overdue order. I am sure that all of us share its principal objectives, except that Article 5 will not be agreeable to trespassers and Article 7 will not be agreeable to fare dodgers, as they will have less comfortable and more expensive journeys in future.
We agree that Article 3 will be of considerable value to many voluntary and charitable organisations and their members, provided of course that they keep their buses in a fit and serviceable condition. Likewise, Article 6 will benefit many disabled members of the public. I am sure that this order will therefore command the support of all sides of the House.
There are just two matters which concern me. First, will the Minister please explain why a permit cannot be issued for a large bus, as defined in this order, belonging to an organisation which is primarily concerned with recreation, while a permit can be issued to such an organisation for the use of a small bus? Why is the size of the bus so significant? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Secondly, will the Minister please tell the House on what grounds a permit granted under Article 3 can be revoked? Why is it that the grounds of revocation are not set out in the order? I find it strange that the order, particularly the proposed Section 10C(5), does not specify the grounds for revocation. Unless I missed it, it would seem that a permit can be revoked at the unfettered discretion of a civil servant.
The point is important because the revocation is not appealable. Bearing in mind the discussions in this House over the past few months, it would seem that Section 10C(5) would have been attractive to Henry VIII. However, this is 1990 and revocation of a permit without giving the grounds and without the revocation being appealable is possibly carrying things just a little too far. Again, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
I am sorry to say that that brings me back to an old issue. Section 10C(5), notwithstanding its poor quality, leaves this House untouched and unamended. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, cannot commit the department or give any undertakings on behalf of the department, but if one's reading of the order is correct, it would be extremely helpful if the department could make clear to permit holders when they receive a permit the circumstances in which the permit could be revoked. It would also be helpful if the department published its reasons for revocation.
813 While I very much approve of this order and, indeed, am heartened by some of its articles, it would be appreciated if the Minister could reflect on the two issues I have raised.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree that this is a long overdue amendment to the road traffic legislation in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord said that Article 5 would not be agreeable to trespassers and Article 6 would not be agreeable to fare dodgers. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House would want to be agreeable to those two classes of person.
The noble Lord's major interest and complaint was on the subject of permits. It might be of assistance to him if I explain that the department will issue permits where it is satisfied that there are adequate facilities or arrangements for maintaining in a fit and serviceable condition any bus used under the permit. The department may also by order made subject to negative resolution designate bodies; for example, the Boy's Brigade, scouting associations, disabled associations and so on.
The noble Lord queried the size of bus. The department has given much thought to this aspect and considers that the use of small buses will adequately meet the needs of recreational bodies. That is confirmed by the experience so far in Great Britain, but if it is necessary to reconsider the position I am sure that that will be done on both sides of the water.
The noble Lord complained about the new Section IOC in Article 3. He described it as legislation suitable for the time of Henry VIII. He made the valid point that we have moved on since then, and I agree with him. Permits would be revoked depending of course on the circumstances of the case. He will observe that there is a caveat which I believe is particularly applicable to officials in the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland; that is, subsection (5)(b): in the case of a permit granted by a body designated under section 10B(6), after consultation with that body". Therefore, on that point honour is satisfied. I hope that I have been able to answer some of the questions raised by the noble Lord and I therefore commend the order to the House.

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, I shall not press the matter further, but it would have been of assistance to have made clear on the face of the order the circumstances in which the department can revoke a permit. If the department will reflect on that point, I am content.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, of course I give the undermaking that the department will reflect on that point. My experience of Northern Ireland does not yet allow me to say how regularly these transport miscellaneous provisions orders arise but, as I said, I undertake that the department will reflect on the point made.