Session 2008/2009

Second Report

COMMITTEE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Report on Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill
(NIA 15/07)

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT

Ordered by the Committee for the Environment to be printed 4 December 2008
Report: 17/08/09R (Committee for the Environment)

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Membership and Powers

The Committee for the Environment is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Standing Order 46.

The Committee has power to:

• Consider and advise on Departmental budgets and annual plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
• Consider relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of primary legislation;
• Call for persons and papers;
• Initiate inquires and make reports; and
• Consider and advise on any matters brought to the Committee by the Minister of the Environment

The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The membership of the Committee since 9 May 2007 has been as follows:

Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong***
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner**
Mr Alex Maskey*
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithí McKay
Mr Peter Weir

* With effect from January 21 2008, Alastair Ross replaced Alex Maskey on the Committee for the Environment.
** With effect from 15 September 2008 Mr Roy Beggs replaced Mr Samuel Gardiner.
*** With effect from 29 September 2008 Mr David McClarty replaced Mr Billy Armstrong

Table of Contents

Report

Executive Summary

Recommendations

Introduction

Consideration of the Bill by the Committee

Key Issues

Clause by Clause Consideration of the Bill

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

Appendix 4

List of Witnesses

Appendix 5

Other papers submitted to the Committee

Executive Summary

Purpose

1. This report sets out the Committee for the Environment’s consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Key Issues

2. The introduction of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill was welcomed by the Committee. The Committee considered that the key issues relating to the Bill were:

• Own-account sector not currently regulated
• Financial impact of proposed new arrangements for operators
• Definition of ‘operating centre’
• Organised crime
• Poor reputation of Northern Ireland’s haulage system
• Cross border issues
• Exemptions
• Planning
• Enforcement
• Secondary legislation raising powers

3. Members sought a balanced range of views as part of their deliberations on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill and requested evidence from interested organisations and individuals as well as officials from the DOE.

Own-account sector not currently regulated

4. The Committee heard that the road-freight industry in Northern Ireland comprises approximately 35,000 vehicles, each of which weighs more than three and a half tonnes. Only a quarter of the industry is regulated. The Bill is an attempt to widen the industry’s regulations in order to make them all-inclusive. The Committee was supportive of a level playing field for all those in the industry and is supportive of the Bill encompassing the whole of the industry.

Financial impact of proposed new arrangements for operators

5. Many stakeholders expressed concern about the cost implications of the Bill. In addition to the licencing process itself additional costs would be associated with extra paperwork, insurance implications, obtaining professional competence and more time off the road for maintenance. The Department acknowledged that the Bill will place additional responsibilities on some businesses but stressed that most operators already comply with the licencing requirements and industry feedback suggests that fees required for operator licencing would not impact on the viability of businesses. The own-account sector will be able to undertake their own inspections and maintenance work provided they have adequate facilities and procedures. The Committee supported the Department’s proposal to incorporate secondary powers for grants to be made available in connection with complying with the Bill.

Definition of ‘operating centre’

6. The Committee was concerned that the definition ‘operating centre’ would have implications for planning. The Department indicated it would be unable to change the term ‘operating centre’ because it was the term used in GB and widely across Europe. The Department offered to redefine ‘operating centre’ to clarify the dual nature of the term but the Committee did not feel this addressed their concerns and sought an alternative solution – see Planning.

Organised crime

7. Several submissions to the Committee indicated the potential of this Bill to reduce levels of organised crime. The Department noted that a key aim of the Bill is to create fair competition and reduce organised crime through the use of goods vehicles and stressed that the introduction of this Bill will ensure that illegal operators will no longer be able to base their operations in Northern Ireland. The Department also added that by requiring all vehicles to be linked to an operator there is greater opportunity for tracing illegal operators and dealing with them.

Poor reputation of Northern Ireland’s haulage system

8. GB roadside checks have consistently resulted in Northern Ireland operators having one of the worst records for non-compliance within the EU and a poor operational road record in terms of road safety. The Department indicated that a key aim of the Bill is to increase the level of vehicle maintenance compliance and the benefit will be an improvement in the image of the Northern Ireland road freight sector.

Cross border issues

9. Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the Bill would distort operating conditions and competitiveness across the border and businesses would be under pressure to relocate their operating centre. There was also concern about the growing number of vehicles registered in the Republic and being used in Northern Ireland and the effect the introduction of operating licences would have on this trend. The Department told the Committee that the Bill will require all vehicles that are specified on an operator’s licence to be registered in the UK. They also told the Committee that the risk of the Bill increasing the tendency for businesses to move their businesses across the border was not considered to be a major concern within the industry when asked during the consultation process.

Exemptions

10. The Committee received a briefing on the principles on which exemptions would be applied along with a summary of the exemptions currently in place in GB. It was noted that the underlying principle of exemptions would be on the basis of the use of a vehicle rather than its type. The Committee also felt it was important that the highest level of Assembly scrutiny was applied to the power under which exemptions would be made and it recommended to the Department that exemptions should be subject to draft affirmative procedure. The Department agreed to make this amendment.

Planning

11. The Committee had reservations about the potential impact of the introduction of this Bill on planning processes. In particular members were worried about its impact on operators who operated more than one vehicle from home. The Department stressed that there is no read-across from the Bill to planning procedures and existing operators will be phased into the licencing system via a transition process rather than being subject to the Bill as soon as it comes into operation. After much debate the Committee agreed to recommend that the Minister makes a statement during Clause 9 at Consideration Stage of the Bill indicating that having responsibility for both this Bill and Planning, he can give an assurance that the designation of property as an operating centre will in itself not have any read-across to planning action.

Enforcement

12. Although not on the face of the Bill, the Committee considered its enforcement at length and agreed unanimously to make a recommendation that the Department should separate the regulatory and enforcement roles when implementing the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill in Northern Ireland. In addition the Committee considered the appointment of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland and some members expressed a desire to see this Bill used to introduce legislation to bring about the appointment of a Northern Ireland Traffic Commissioner. The Department indicated that at this stage it had no evidence that GB’s traffic commissioner model was the most appropriate for Northern Ireland and also expressed an opinion that it would be outside the scope of this bill. The Committee agreed to recommend that the Department pursued its investigation of the potential of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland to cover a wide range of responsibilities including, but not exclusively, goods vehicles.

Secondary legislation raising powers

13. The Bill contains a number of secondary legislation raising powers and the Committee sought clarity on why the Department had made some powers subject to negative resolution and others required to go through draft affirmative procedure. The Committee subsequently recommended that the Department amended the powers for making exemptions to licencing and the possible future requirement for evidence of professional competence for restricted licences to increase the level of Assembly scrutiny afforded. The Department agreed to amend the clause which sets these powers accordingly.

Recommendations

Separation of Roles

1. The Committee received several letters from stakeholders stressing the need for enforcement of the Bill to be separated from its regulation. How the Department delivers enforcement and regulatory functions is not on the face of the bill and cannot be addressed through amendments. The Committee therefore agreed to make a recommendation that the Department of the Environment should separate the regulatory and enforcement roles when implementing the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill in Northern Ireland.

Traffic Commissioner

2. Separation of enforcement and regulation is achieved in GB by the appointment of traffic commissioners who work with but are separate from the enforcement agency Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), equivalent of the Driver and Vehicle Agency, (DVA) in Northern Ireland. Some members of the Committee suggested the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill should be used to introduce legislation to bring about the appointment of a Northern Ireland Traffic Commissioner and the Committee received several letters from stakeholders supporting this approach. The Department indicated that at this stage it had no evidence that the GB system is the most appropriate for Northern Ireland and also expressed an opinion that it would be outside the scope of this Bill. The Department told the Committee that it intended to investigate the potential of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland to cover a wide range of responsibilities including, but not confined to goods vehicles, and reassured members that should legislation be introduced in the future, it would not require this Bill to be redrafted. The Committee agreed to make a recommendation that the Department of the Environment pursues the feasibility of the appointment of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland, to have statutory responsibility for among other things, Goods Vehicles Operator Licensing.

3. For amendments moved to this recommendation and not agreed see Minutes of Proceedings on 20 November.

Operating Centres – Planning Concerns

4. The Committee agreed the best way to minimise the risk of this Bill having a detrimental impact on planning issues was to recommend that the Minister makes the following statement during Clause 9 at Consideration Stage of the Bill:

5. ‘Following a designation by the Department of a place as an ‘Operating Centre’ under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, the issue of read-across into interest or action by Planning Service may be of concern to some. As Minister of the Department that includes the Driver and Vehicle Agency, Road Safety Division and Planning Service, I want to give you an assurance that the designation of a property as an Operating Centre will not in itself have any read-across to Planning action; nor will it be used by, or influence any action by Planning Service as to the use of the property.’

6. For amendments moved to this recommendation and not agreed see Minutes of Proceedings on 20 November.

Introduction

7. The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill was referred to the Committee for the Environment for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 33(1) on completion of the Second Stage of the Bill on 20 May 2008.

8. The Minister of the Environment (the Minister) made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

9. ‘In my view the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.’

10. The Bill proposes to change the licensing system in Northern Ireland particularly in regards to own-account licensing and will bring the system largely, but not wholly, into line with the system currently in place in Great Britain.

11. During the period covered by this Report, the Committee considered the Bill and related issues at meetings – on 24 January, 7 February, 3 April, 24 April, 5 June, 11 September, 25 September, 2 October, 9 October, 16 October, 23 October, 6 November, 11 November, 13 November, 20 November, 27 November, 2 December, 4 December. The relevant extracts from the Minutes of Proceedings for these meetings are included at Appendix 1.

12. The Committee had before it the Goods Vehicles Bill (Licensing of Operators) Bill (NIA 15/07) and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

13. On referral of the Bill to the Committee after Second Stage, the Committee inserted advertisements on 30 May 2008 in the Belfast Telegraph, Belfast Telegraph North West edition, Irish News and News Letter seeking written evidence on the Bill.

14. A total of 3 organisations/individuals responded to the request for written evidence and a copy of the submissions received by the Committee is included at Appendix 3.

15. The Committee was first briefed by officials about the consultation stages and policy development of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill on 24 January and 7 February 2008 and took evidence on the Bill from Departmental officials on 24 April, 5 June, 16 October; Freight Transport Association on 3 April; Road Haulage Association on 24 April; Ulster Farmers’ Union on 25 September; Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland on 2 October; Driver and Vehicle Agency Enforcement officials on 2 October; DOE Planning Service on 2 October. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

16. The Committee began its clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill on 6 November and concluded this on 2 December – see Appendix 2.

Extension of Committee stage of the Bill

17. On 10 June 2008, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 12 December 2008.

Report on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

18. At its meeting on 4 December 2008 the Committee agreed its report on the Bill and agreed that it should be printed.

Consideration of the Bill
by the Committee

19. The Bill has 19 Parts and 6 Schedules as follows:

• Part 1 on operators’ licences which includes the requirement for good vehicles operators to be licenced, the type of licence and exemptions.
• Part 2 on vehicles authorised to be used under a licence and the maximum number of vehicles.
• Part 3 on operating centres to be specified in operators’ licences and the definition of an operating centre.
• Part 4 on vehicles that are authorised or permitted to be used under an operator’s licence.
• Part 5 on the issue and duration of operators’ licences, the determination of applications for licences and determination where objections are made.
• Part 6 on the variation of operators’ licences, the publication of notices and objections and refusals.
• Part 7 on the conditions of licences.
• Part 8 on interim operators’ licences and interim variations.
• Part 9 on revocation, suspension, curtailment and disqualification of operators’ licences.
• Part 10 on periods of review for operating centres and the powers to remove operating centres on review or attach condition on review.
• Part 11 on the transfer of operating centres.
• Part 12 on determinations as to environmental matters.
• Part 13 on the powers of the Department to hold inquiries and appoint assessors.
• Part 14 on the review of decisions and the rights of appeal in connections with operators’ licences.
• Part 15 on the forgery of documents and false statements.
• Part 16 on enforcement including powers of entry, powers to seize documents, obtaining of information, obstruction of authorized persons, prosecutions, detention of vehicles used without an operators’ licence, evidence by certificate and the exercise of enforcement powers.
• Part 17 on miscellaneous issues including fees, the disclosure of information, method of calculating weight of vehicles, large goods vehicles, certificates of qualification and operators’ licences not to be transferable.
• Part 18 on the application of the act to holding companies and subsidiaries, partnerships, the Crown and harbours.
• Part 19 on supplementary provision, regulations, general interpretation, amendments and repeals, commencement and the short title
• Schedule 1 on the meaning of ‘small goods vehicle’.
• Schedule 2 on the transfer of operating centres.
• Schedule 3 on the detention of vehicles used without an operators’ licence.
• Schedule 4 on large goods vehicles.
• Schedule 5 on amendments.
• Schedule 6 on repeals.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 24 January 2008

20. On 24 January 2008 the Committee took pre-legislative evidence from Departmental officials on the proposals for the Bill – see Appendix 2. The Committee was advised that the Department had carried out consultations in 1998 and 2003. The Department stated that there are four reasons for wanting to introduce the changes. The first, and overriding reason, is road safety. The second is the problem of illegal operation. The third is to aid the combating of organised crime. The fourth reason is environmental pressure to ensure that the road-haulage industry plays its part in making sure that its operating centres and vehicles are as environmentally suitable as possible. Members also asked officials about enforcement; fees; illegal operations; operating centres; licensing of drivers; similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland and road safety.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 7 February 2008

21. On 7 February 2008, the Committee took further pre-legislative evidence from the Department on the current situation and the requirements that it is seeking to place on operators – see Appendix 2. The main requirements of the Bill on operators are for all operators of goods vehicles over three and a half tonnes to have an operator’s licence; all operators to satisfy standards of fitness, repute, financial standing, and professional competence in order to obtain certain groups of licences; all operators to be required to have a designated operating centre in Northern Ireland; all applicants to advertise in the local press their desire for a licence and operators to be required to give certain undertakings as part of their licence granting. Members also asked officials about the financial impact of licensing; comparative legislation in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland; displacement of businesses; enforcement; farm vehicles; exemptions and unaffiliated operators.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 24 April and 5 June 2008

22. There were further evidence sessions with Departmental officials on 24 April and 5 June 2008 (see Appendix 2), the latter session following the Second Stage of the Bill on 20 May 2008. The Committee was briefed on the public consultation sessions held by DOE with the industry, enforcement, displacement of businesses, fees, planning issues around operating centres, the philosophy behind the Bill, the operator’s licence, disciplinary powers and exemptions.

Evidence from the Freight Transport Association on 3 April 2008

23. On 3 April 2008 the Committee took evidence from the Freight Transport Association (FTA) – see Appendix 2. The FTA stated that there was an immediate need to raise the image of the road freight transport sector through education and better regulation, and there should be no further delay in introducing the legislative process. The FTA felt that the Bill would improve road safety and operational standards and ensure fair competition. They noted the need to reduce criminality also and were of the opinion that the introduction of this Bill would help to apprehend those involved. They told the Committee that Northern Ireland vehicles are being targeted in mainland Britain due to their poor compliance record and this Bill will help to raise standards. The FTA felt that similar legislation is needed in the Republic of Ireland.

Evidence from Road Haulage Association on 24 April 2008

24. The Committee took evidence from the Road Haulage Association (RHA) on 24 April 2008 – see Appendix 2. The RHA has supported the Bill from the outset. They felt there is a great deal of concern in the haulage industry in Northern Ireland about some of the issues that the Bill addresses, and hauliers are keen to see the Bill become legislation as soon as possible. The RHA stated that, from a wider road-safety perspective, more enforcement will lead to better vehicles on the roads. Statistics show that Northern Ireland is the third worst area in Europe for compliance with the rules and the RHA felt the compliance level should be raised. The RHA was very concerned that similar legislation is not likely to be introduced any time soon in the Republic of Ireland where the RHA feels there is no compliance at all. The RHA noted that in their opinion ‘flagging out’, i.e. the transfer of haulage companies from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, is not a big issue but that a greater problem for them is the fact that non-compliant vehicles will enter from a country that shares a land border.

Evidence from Ulster Farmers’ Union on 25 September 2008

25. The Committee took evidence from the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) at its meeting on 25 September 2008 – see Appendix 2. The UFU was concerned that, as the legislation stands, there is the potential for many agricultural vehicles to get caught up in the legislation. The agricultural industry felt that there is no competition with hauliers and was concerned that the proposals, in their current form, would increase bureaucracy and red tape. Transport for hire and reward must be treated differently from transport of necessity and occasional use. Generally, farmers haul their own products; they do not use transport for hire and reward. Agricultural vehicles are not on the road for 12 months in a year and all such vehicles would require exemptions. The UFU acknowledged that large numbers of hauliers are unfit to be on the road, and the Bill must tighten existing regulations. However, the farming industry does not contribute to many road accidents and would like exemptions for agricultural vehicles in the legislation.

Evidence from Horticulture Forum Northern Ireland on 2 October 2008

26. The Committee took evidence from the Horticulture Forum Northern Ireland (the Forum) on 2 October 2008 – see Appendix 2. The Horticulture Forum NI emphasised that their members are not hauliers and shouldn’t be treated as such. The Forum felt a lack of manpower on the ground to catch offenders is the problem, not the lack of legislation. The administration costs associated with the Bill will add to the overheads under which the horticulture industry is already straining and the horticulture industry felt that there should be exemptions for them.

Evidence from Driver and Vehicle Agency Enforcement Officials on 2 October 2008

27. The Committee took evidence from the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) Enforcement Officials on 2 October 2008 – see Appendix 2. The DVA broadly supported the enhancements and measures that the Bill will introduce and the additional powers it will give them to tackle non-compliance in the industry. The DVA wants to ensure there is a level playing field for all and that operators maintain their vehicles and comply with all the other legal requirements. The DVA felt that Northern Ireland is currently missing an effective licensing regime to back up enforcement at the roadside.

Evidence from DOE Planning Service on 2 October 2008

28. The Committee took evidence from DOE Planning Service on 2 October 2008 – see Appendix 2. The Planning Service stated that if a haulage business is operating with the benefit of planning permission the Bill will have no impact on their procedures.

Evidence from Beverley Bell, North West Traffic Commissioner on 9 October 2008

29. The Committee took evidence from Beverley Bell, North West Traffic Commissioner, on 9 October 2008 – see Appendix 2. The Commissioner felt that being a road operator is about the promotion of road safety and fair competition. Education is also key to regulation. The Commissioner felt that a quality operator-licensing scheme, whether for ‘own account’ or ‘hire and reward’, would go a significant way to addressing criminal activity. When GB’s VOSA focuses on vehicles from Northern Ireland or the Republic, its hit rate for prohibiting vehicles and drivers is substantially higher than for operators based in the north-west. In GB, there are several exemptions that are related mainly to the use of the vehicle, rather than the type of vehicle, i.e. the type of operation the vehicle carries out. Those vehicles tend to be used for emergency provisions, such as fire brigades and ambulances. There is a general exemption for agricultural tractors used in certain circumstances but the Commissioner urged Northern Ireland to base exemptions on use of vehicle rather than type as there is tendency to abuse current exemptions in GB.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 16 October 2008

30. The Committee took evidence from Departmental officials at the meeting on 16 October – see Appendix 2. Officials briefed the Committee on the secondary legislation raising powers in the Bill. The officials answered members’ queries on particular clauses of the Bill, negative and affirmative resolution procedures, operating centres, the 3.5 tonne limit and the possibility of an independent traffic commissioner.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 6 November 2008

31. The Committee took evidence from Departmental officials at the meeting on 6 November – see Appendix 2. Officials briefed the Committee on parking, planning, in scope and out of scope vehicles and the definition of an operating centre. The Department gave a brief explanation of clauses 1-12, introduced the amendments that would be moved at consideration stage and answered members’ questions. The Committee sought further information on exemptions, the names of the bodies that provide continuous professional development training and certification and examples of how other European countries with land borders address the problems subsection 4(4) is designed to prevent.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 11 November 2008

32. The Committee took evidence from Departmental officials at the meeting on 11 November – see Appendix 2. The Department gave a brief explanation of clauses 13 - 61 and answered members’ questions. The Committee sought further information on the definition of ‘parking’, e.g. does it include vehicles leaving in the early hours, ongoing refrigerated units, high associated noise, vibrations or fumes.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 13 November 2008

33. The Committee took evidence from Departmental officials at the meeting on 13 November – see Appendix 2. The Committee sought further information from the Department on consignment notes and the threshold weight of their applicability, the Department’s views on the Examiner of Statutory Rules paper on the secondary legislation raising power of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, information in relation to how operator licencing legislation applies in other areas of Europe with land borders such as Spain and France and information as to the length of time the role of Traffic Commissioner has been in operation in Great Britain.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 20 November 2008

34. The Committee took evidence from Departmental officials at the meeting on 20 November during its formal clause by clause analysis – see Appendix 2. The Committee took legal advice from the Assembly’s Legal Services on the relevance and weighting of guidance given by the Minister when taking the Bill through Consideration Stage. It subsequently agreed to recommend that the Minister clearly stated that the designation of operating centres would have no implications for planning. The Committee also considered enforcement and regulation of the Bill and the scope it provided for the introduction of a traffic commissioner. The Department clarified its position on the level of Assembly scrutiny that should be applied to various clauses. The Department agreed to accept the Committee’s recommendations for the secondary legislation raising powers relating to exemptions to operator licencing and the introduction of a professional competence requirement for restricted licences to be subject to draft affirmative resolution.

35. At its meeting on 27 November, when no Departmental Officials were in attendance, the Committee agreed to seek further information on how other European countries implement operator licencing and operating centres across land borders. The Committee also considered the Department’s suggestion that clause 50 and schedule 4 be reinstated following the Committee’s recommendation they be dropped during the clause by clause analysis. The Committee asked for more information on the reason for this change relating to the definition of larger goods vehicles and the requirement for consignment notes.

Evidence from the Department of the Environment on 2 December 2008

36. The Department advised the Committee of the options available regarding the inclusion of a definition of larger vehicles (Clause 50) and the requirement for consignment notes (Schedule 4). The Department noted that similar legislation had never been enacted in GB and that it might be preferable to leave it out in the Northern Ireland Bill if there was no intention of implementing it. The Committee asked what implications there were should it subsequently be decided, at either national or international level, that consignment notes for larger vehicles would be compulsory. The Department advised the Committee that this would result in the need for new primary legislation but noted that GB would also have to revisit their primary legislation if this circumstance arose. The Committee agreed to adhere to their recommendation to drop clause 50 and schedule 4. The Committee also agreed consequential amendments arising from this recommendation and from its recommendation that the Department make exemptions and the requirement for professional competence for restricted licences subject to draft affirmative procedure.

Key Issues

37. Having considered the oral and written evidence from the interested individuals and organisations the Committee identified a number of key issues on which further advice was sought from the Department. These were:

• Own-account sector not currently regulated
• Financial impact of proposed new arrangements for operators
• Definition of ‘operating centre’
• Organised crime
• Poor reputation of Northern Ireland’s haulage system
• Cross border issues
• Exemptions
• Planning
• Enforcement
• Secondary legislation raising powers

Own-account sector not currently regulated

38. The Committee heard that the road-freight industry in Northern Ireland comprises approximately 35,000 vehicles, each of which weighs more than three and a half tonnes. Only a quarter of the industry is regulated. The Bill is an attempt to widen the industry’s regulations in order to make them all-inclusive. The Committee was supportive of a level playing field for all those in the industry and is supportive of the Bill encompassing the whole of the industry.

Financial impact of proposed new arrangements for operators

39. The Committee heard concerns about the cost implications of the Bill from a wide range of stakeholders. Not only was the cost of the licencing process itself an issue, particularly for smaller scale operators, but also costs associated with additional paperwork, insurance implications, obtaining professional competence and extra time off the road for maintenance. The Department addressed these concerns with the Committee and acknowledged that the Bill will place additional responsibilities on some businesses but that most already comply with the licencing requirements keeping their vehicles in a roadworthy condition and ensuring their drivers operate within the law. The Department also referred to feedback they had received during wide consultation of the industry which suggested that fees required for operator licencing were not sufficient to impact on the viability of a business. The Department also noted that although the ‘hire or reward’ sector is required to have professionally competent people responsible for maintenance of transport operations this will not extend to the ‘own-account’ sector. The own-account sector will be able to undertake their own inspections and maintenance work but they must ensure that the facilities and procedures for carrying out inspections are adequate and documented. As a result of the inspection and maintenance requirements of the Bill the Department suggested that the number of break-downs would be reduced. They pointed out that it is already a legal requirement for vehicles to be in a roadworthy condition and that this Bill is not adding any further burden on operators. The Committee was also advised that the Department propose to introduce an amendment to the Bill that would enable secondary powers to be raised for payment of grants to such persons or bodies as it considers appropriate in connection with any provision of, or the purposes of, the Bill.

Definition of ‘operating centre’

40. The Committee was concerned that the definition ‘operating centre’ would imply much more than just overnight parking and as a consequence would have implications for planning. The Department indicated it would be unable to change the term because it was used in GB and widely across Europe. The Department offered to redefine ‘operating centre’ to demonstrate that it covered both where a vehicle was parked at night and/or was a place from which goods vehicles were operated. The Department also showed the Committee an example of the public notice that would be issued when an application was made. This will differentiate from the outset between operators who are just parking and those that are using the centre to operate their business from on a larger scale.

41. The Committee did not feel a redefinition of the term or the public notice sufficiently overcame their concerns and a different solution directly relating to planning was sought – see Planning.

Organised crime

42. Several written and oral submissions to the Committee indicated the potential of this Bill to reduce levels of organised crime. Everyone being required to operate to the same standards would create fairer competition and reduce the opportunity for criminal organisations to use the road freight sector for their illegal activities. Stakeholders also noted that the illegal trading in fuel oil is at epidemic proportions and is a huge loss to the Northern Ireland economy. The Department responded by noting that a key aim of the Bill is to create fair competition and reduce organised crime through the use of goods vehicles and stressed that the introduction of this Bill will ensure that illegal operators will no longer be able to base their operations in Northern Ireland. The Department also added that organised crime cannot function without the ability to move goods around whether this is smuggled fuel or other contraband. Movement requires vehicles, especially goods vehicles, and as most goods vehicles in Northern Ireland are not required to be linked to an operator they can be used in organised crime. By requiring all vehicles to be linked to an operator there is greater opportunity for tracing illegal operators and dealing with them.

Poor reputation of Northern Ireland’s haulage system

43. The Road Haulage Association told the Committee that in GB roadside checks have consistently resulted in Northern Ireland operators having one of the worst records for non-compliance within the EU. The Freight Transport Association similarly stressed to the Committee the need to address the poor operational road record of Northern Ireland’s operators in terms of road safety. The Department indicated that a key aim of the Bill is to increase the level of vehicle maintenance compliance and the benefit will be an improvement in the image of the Northern Ireland road freight sector.

Cross border issues

44. Several stakeholders expressed concerns about the impact of the border in terms of implementing the Bill and the risk of distorting operating conditions and competitiveness between the two jurisdictions. There was concern about the growing number of vehicles registered in the Republic and being used in Northern Ireland and the affect the introduction of operating licences would have on this trend. The Department told the Committee that the Bill will require all vehicles that are specified on an operator’s licence to be registered in the UK. They also told the Committee that the risk of the Bill increasing the tendency for businesses to ‘flagging out’, i.e. move their businesses across the border, was not considered to be a major concern within the industry when asked during the consultation process. The Department noted that the inclusion of Clause 4(4) spells out on the face of the Bill the requirement for operators to have an operating centre and that centre must be in Northern Ireland. They stressed that even if the Bill did not spell this out, as is the case with the GB equivalent legislation, the requirement would still exist.

Exemptions

45. The Committee heard evidence from both the agricultural and horticultural sectors making a case for the vehicles involved in these industries to be exempt from licencing. The Committee received a briefing from the Department on the principles on which it would consider exemptions along with a summary of the exemptions currently applied in GB. It was noted that the underlying principle would be one of use of the vehicle rather than its type. The Department drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that GB is currently reviewing their exemptions and have identified 60 per cent of current exemptions for removal from their list. The Department will take this into consideration when preparing the list of vehicles that will be exempt from operator licences in Northern Ireland. Exemptions come under Clause 1 which was presented to the Committee by the Department as being subject to negative resolution. It was agreed by the Committee that a higher level of scrutiny would be appropriate for this important area and the Department agreed to make exemptions subject to draft affirmative procedure, the highest level of Assembly scrutiny, by amending Clause 57.

Planning

46. From the outset of its scrutiny, the Committee had reservations about the potential impact of the introduction of this Bill on planning processes. In particular members were worried about its impact on operators who had more than one vehicle but still operated from home. Both the Department and Planning Service confirmed that there was no read-across from this Bill to planning procedures. The Department also indicated that the Bill in the format being considered by the Committee would be applying to new applications and that current operators would be brought into the licencing system via a transition process. Details of how the Department would deal with the transition were not available to the Committee as they could not be drawn up until the Bill is in place.

47. The Committee asked the Department if the Minister, who has responsibility for both road safety and planning, could make a statement from the floor of the House at Consideration Stage of the Bill that specified that there would be no direct implications on planning as a result of the introduction of the Bill. The Committee sought legal guidance on the weighting of such a statement and consequently agreed to recommend that the Minister makes the following statement during Clause 9 at Consideration Stage of the Bill:

48. ‘Following a designation by the Department of a place as an ‘Operating Centre’ under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, the issue of read-across into interest or action by Planning Service may be of concern to some. As Minister of the Department that includes the Driver and Vehicle Agency, Road Safety Division and Planning Service, I want to give you an assurance that the designation of a property as an Operating Centre will not in itself have any read-across to Planning action; nor will it be used by, or influence any action by Planning Service as to the use of the property.’

49. Note: The Committee was divided on this issue: Ayes 5, Noes 1

AYES NOES
Roy Beggs Trevor Clarke
Cathal Boylan
Ian McCrea
Alastair Ross
Peter Weir

Enforcement

50. The Committee received several letters from stakeholders stressing the need for enforcement of the Bill to be separated from its regulation. How the Department delivers the enforcement and regulatory functions is not on the face of the Bill so the Committee agreed to make a recommendation that the Department of the Environment should separate the regulatory and enforcement roles when implementing the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill in Northern Ireland.

51. Enforcement of the Bill also raised questions about the appointment of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland on a par with the model of enforcement used in GB. Some members of the Committee suggested the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill should be used to introduce legislation to bring about the appointment of a Northern Ireland Traffic Commissioner and the Committee received several supporting letters from stakeholders for this approach. The Department indicated that at this stage it had no evidence that GB’s traffic commissioner model was the most appropriate for Northern Ireland and also expressed an opinion that it would be outside the scope of this Bill. The Department told the Committee that it intended to investigate the potential of a traffic commissioner to cover a wider range of responsibilities than just goods vehicles and reassured members that should legislation be introduced in the future, it would not require this Bill to be redrafted. The Committee agreed to make a recommendation that the Department pursues the feasibility of the appointment of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland, to have statutory responsibility for among other things, Goods Vehicles Operator Licensing.

52. Note: The Committee was divided on this issue: Ayes 6, Noes 1

AYES NOES
Roy Beggs David Ford
Cathal Boylan
Trevor Clarke
Ian McCrea
Alastair Ross
Peter Weir

Secondary legislation raising powers

53. The Bill contains a number of secondary legislation raising powers. With guidance from the Examiner of Statutory Rules members sought clarity on why some powers would be subject to negative resolution and others required to go through draft affirmative procedure. Members suggested to the Department that some of the powers subject to negative resolution should be changed to enable wider scrutiny on the floor of the House. The Department maintained that in general the scrutiny afforded to negative resolution can be as rigorous as that applied to affirmative procedures but indicated that in principle, where the power involved a change in policy it would consider requiring the regulations to be subject to draft affirmative procedure.

54. Thus when the Committee asked the Department to change the powers for exemptions in Clause 1(2)(d) and the possible future requirement for Certificates of Professional Competence for Restricted Licences in Clause 12(12), the Department agreed to amend Clause 57(9) which sets the power accordingly.

Clause by Clause
Consideration of the Bill

55. The Committee began its clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill on 6 November and completed this on 2 December– see Minutes of Evidence in Appendix 2. The Committee recommended a number of amendments which are outlined below. The wording of the amendments is attached at Appendix 5.

Clause 1 – Operators’ licences

56. Agreed: That the Committee is agreed with clause 1 as amended by the Department.

57. The Committee recommended a further amendment in relation to this clause so that the power to exempt vehicles, Clause 1(2)(d), becomes subject to draft affirmative procedure. The Department agreed to do this by making the necessary amendment to Clause 57(9) within which the power lies.

Clause 2 – ‘Standard’ and ‘restricted’ licences

58. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 2 as drafted.

Clause 3 – Temporary exemptions

59. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Vehicles authorised to be used under operators’ licence

60. Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 4 as amended by the Department.

Clause 5 – Maximum numbers of vehicles

61. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 5 as drafted.

Clause 6 – Operating centres to be specified in operators’ licences

62. The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 1

AYES NOES
Cathal Boylan Trevor Clarke
Peter Weir
Ian McCrea
Roy Beggs
Alastair Ross

63. Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 6 as drafted.

Clause 7 – Application for operators licences

64. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 – Notification of events subsequent to the making of an application

65. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 8 as drafted.

Clause 9 – Publication by Department of notice of application for licence

66. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 9 as drafted.

67. The Committee recommends to the Department that at this clause the Minister allays fears about the implications of this Bill on planning issues by making a statement about the read-across of this Bill to planning – see key issues and recommendations.

Clause 10 – Publication in locality affected of notice of application for licence

68. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 10 as drafted.

Clause 11 – Objections to, and representations against, issue of operators’ licences

69. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 11 as drafted.

Clause 12 – Determination of applications for operators’ licences

70. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 12 as drafted.

71. The Committee recommended an amendment in relation to this clause so that powers to introduce a requirement for certificates of professional competence for restricted licences will be subject to greater Assembly scrutiny. The Department agreed to do this by making the necessary amendment to Clause 57(9) within which the power lies.

Clause 13 – Determination where objections etc are made on environmental grounds

72. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 13 as drafted.

Clause 14 – Issue of operators’ licences

73. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 14 as drafted.

Clause 15 – Duration of operators’ licences

74. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 15 as drafted.

Clause 16 – Variation of operators’ licences

75. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 16 as drafted.

Clause 17 – Publication of notice of applications for variation in any locality affected

76. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 17 as drafted.

Clause 18 – Objection to, and refusal of, applications to vary operators’ licences on environmental grounds

77. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 18 as drafted.

Clause 19 – Variation of Licences: further provisions

78. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 19 as drafted.

Clause 20 – Conditions of Licences

79. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 20 as drafted.

Clause 21 – Interim operators’ licences

80. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 21 as drafted.

Clause 22 – Interim variations

81. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 22 as drafted.

Clause 23 – Revocation, suspension and curtailment of operators licences

82. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 23 as drafted.

Clause 24 – Revocation of standard licences

83. Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 24 as amended by the Department.

Clause 25 – Disqualification

84. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 25 as drafted.

Clause 26 – Revocation, disqualification, etc: supplementary provisions

85. Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 26 as amended by the Department.

Clause 27 – Periods of review for operating centres

86. The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 1

AYES NOES
Roy Beggs Trevor Clarke
Cathal Boylan
Ian McCrea
Alastair Ross
Peter Weir

87. Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 27 as drafted.

Clause 28 – Power to remove operating centres on review

88. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 28 as drafted.

Clause 29 – Power to attach conditions on review

89. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 29 as drafted.

Clause 30 – Transfer of operating centres

90. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 30 as drafted.

Clause 31 – Determinations as to environmental matters

91. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 31 as drafted.

Clause 32 – Power of Department to hold inquiries

92. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 32 as drafted.

Clause 33 – Power of Department to appoint assessors

93. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 33 as drafted.

Clause 34 – Review of decisions

94. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 34 as drafted.

Clause 35 – Rights of appeal in connection with operators’ licences

95. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 35 as drafted.

Clause 36 – Forgery of documents etc

96. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 36 as drafted.

Clause 37 – False statements

97. Agreed: That the Committee areed to clause 37 as drafted.

Clause 38 – Powers of entry

98. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 38 as amended by the Department

Clause 39 – Power to seize documents etc

99. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 39 as amended by the Department

Clause 40 – Obtaining of information etc by authorized persons

100. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 40 as drafted.

Clause 41 – Obstruction of authorized persons

101. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 41 as drafted.

Clause 42 – Exercise of enforcement powers: authorised persons and constables

102. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 42 as drafted.

Clause 43 – Evidence by certificate

103. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 43 as drafted.

Clause 44 – Detention of vehicle used without operator’s licence

104. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 44 as drafted.

Clause 45 – Prosecutions

105. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 45 as drafted.

Clause 46 – Disclosure of information

106. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 46 as drafted.

Clause 47 – Fees

107. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 47 as drafted.

Clause 48 – Operators’ licences not to be transferable

108. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 48 as drafted.

Clause 49 – Certificates of qualification

109. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 49 as drafted.

Clause 50 – Large goods vehicles

110. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 50 being dropped.

111. In response to the Committee’s query about the requirement for large goods vehicles to carry consignment notes as referred to in this clause and schedule 4, the Department proposed the removal of this clause. It has never been enacted in GB and the Department was unable to find any policy rationale to underpin its inclusion on the face of the Bill in Northern Ireland.

Clause 51 – Method of calculating weight of vehicles

112. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 51 as amended by the Department.

Clause 52 – Application of Act to holding companies and subsidiaries

113. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 52 as drafted.

Clause 53 – Application of Act to partnerships

114. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 53 as drafted.

Clause 54 – Application of Act to the Crown

115. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 54 as drafted.

116. During Committee stage the Department told members this clause is not included in GB legislation and Crown vehicles are exempt from operator licencing. The Committee accepted its inclusion in the Bill and the extension of licencing to Crown vehicles in Northern Ireland.

Clause 55 – Application of Act to harbours

117. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 55 as amended by the Department.

Clause 56 – Supplementary provision

118. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 56 as drafted.

Clause 57 – Regulations

119. Agreed: That the Committee agreed clause 57 subject to amendments agreed between the Committee and the Department.

120. All secondary legislation raising powers of the Bill were considered by the Committee during its scrutiny phase. The Committee subsequently recommended that powers to introduce exemptions under clause 1(2)(d) and powers to introduce a requirement for certificates of professional competence for restricted licences under clause 12(12) should be subject to draft affirmative procedure. This requires a further amendment to clause 57(9) which the Department agreed to do accordingly.

Clause 58 – General interpretation

121. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 58 as drafted.

Clause 59 – Amendments and repeals

122. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 59 as drafted.

Clause 60 – Commencement

123. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 60 as drafted.

Clause 61 – Short title

124. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 61 as drafted.

Schedule 1 – Meaning of ‘small goods vehicle’

125. Agreed: That the Committee is agreed to Schedule 1 being dropped.

126. The Committee was advised by the Department that removing schedule 1 altogether and inserting a definition of ‘small goods vehicles’ into clause 1 would allow the definition to be made clear and unambiguous on which vehicles would be deemed in and out of scope of operator licencing.

Schedule 2 – Transfer of operating centres

127. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to schedule 2 as drafted.

Schedule 3 – Detention of vehicles used without operator’s licence

128. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to schedule 3 as amended by the Department.

Schedule 4 – Large goods vehicles

129. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to schedule 4 being dropped.

130. The Committee agreed that schedule 4 should be dropped as explained under clause 50. It was noted that the dropping of this schedule required consequential amendments to clauses 38 and 39.

Schedule 5 – Amendments

131. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to schedule 5 as drafted.

Schedule 6 – Repeals

132. Agreed: That the Committee agreed to schedule 6 as drafted.

Long title

133. Agreed: That the Committee agreed the long title as drafted.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings
Relating to the Report

Thursday 24 January 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Peter Weir
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Ms Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Philip Maguire (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr David Ford

The meeting opened at 10.32 a.m. in public session.

4. Departmental briefing on Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Mr Weir rejoined the meeting at 11.26a.m.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That the Department provides the Committee with details of fees in the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain, details of the number of illegal operators, details of the number of vehicles not up to the required standard and details of the number of people killed or seriously injured

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
31 January 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 7 February 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr David Ford

In Attendance:
Ms Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Philip Maguire (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Peter Weir

The meeting opened at 10.35 a.m. in public session.

4. Departmental briefing on Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on the proposed Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That a letter is sent to the Department for clarification on exemptions for agricultural vehicles and to obtain the number of vehicles that are not affiliated to road haulage organisations

Agreed: That the committee invite the Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association to a future meeting to brief them on the proposed Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
21 February 2008

Thursday 3 April 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Ms Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Chris Corr (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.32 a.m. with Mr Boylan in the Chair.

5. Briefing by Freight Transport Association (FTA) on the Goods Vehicles

(Licensing of Operators) Bill

Representatives from the Freight Transport Association briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That the Committee request clarification from the Department on the position regarding planning consent required for an operating centre and responsibility for administration.

Mr McKay joined the meeting at 11.30am.

Agreed: That the Committee writes to Minister for clarification on North/South co-ordination and on the timescales for legislation.

Agreed: That the Committee request research on the breakdown of small/large operators.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
10 April 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 24 April 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Ms Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Chris Corr (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Trevor Clarke

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.37 a.m.

5. Departmental briefing on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Mr Weir rejoined the meeting at 11.17a.m.

Mr McGlone left the meeting at 11.20a.m and Mr Boylan assumed the Chair.

The main areas of discussion were the current level of enforcement in Northern Ireland, the impact on single operators, the possibility of equivalent legislation being introduced in the Republic of Ireland and the fees structure.

Mr McGlone returned to the meeting at 11.29 and resumed the Chair.

Mr Ford left the meeting at 11.32a.m.

Agreed: That the Department forward information in relation to the current enforcement team to the Committee.

Agreed: That the Department forward the answers to questions raised at the stakeholder briefings to the Committee.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
24 April 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 5 June 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Ms Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Iain Elliott (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Peter Weir

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.33a.m.

6. Departmental briefing on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Mr Gallagher left the meeting at 12.10p.m.

Mr Armstrong rejoined the meeting at 12.11p.m.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Mr Gallagher rejoined the meeting at 12.35pm.

The main areas of discussion were the requirements for operators’ licences, off road parking, the differences in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland operating centres, exemptions and ‘flagging out’.

Mr Ford left the meeting at 12.48p.m.

Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 12.49p.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
12 June 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 11 September 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Ms Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Iain Elliott (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.39a.m.

4. Update on Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

The Chairperson informed members that the Bill was in Committee stage and that the Committee had received 3 responses to its public notice calling for submissions of views on the Bill.

Agreed: That the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Horticulture Forum, Planning Service and DOE enforcement officials are invited to future meetings to give oral evidence.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 12.13p.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
18 September 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 25 September 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Iain Elliott (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Peter Weir

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.34a.m.

5. Briefing by Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) on Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Representatives from the UFU briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Mr Gallagher left the meeting at 11.32a.m.

The main areas of discussion were exemptions, agricultural contractors and the position of agricultural vehicles under the corresponding legislation in Great Britain.

Agreed: That a letter is sent to the UFU requesting further information on the statistics in their submission.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
2 October 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 2 October 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr David McClarty
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance: Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Iain Elliott (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Peter Weir

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.33a.m.

4. Briefing by Horticulture Forum on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Representatives from the Horticulture Forum briefed the Committee and answered members’ question on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

The main areas of discussion were exemptions and enforcement.

5. Briefing by DVA Enforcement officers on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Mr Clarke declared an interest.

DVA Enforcement Officers briefed the Committee and answered members’ question on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

The main areas of discussion were the potential increase in the number of vehicles that will fall within the remit of the Bill, the current numbers in the enforcement team, possible displacement of businesses and the possibility of similar legislation being introduced in the Republic of Ireland.

Agreed: That DOE officials forward statistics to the Committee on the number of enforcement cases and convictions in the last 5 years and a further breakdown of the number of these cases that are duplicate or triplicate.

6. Briefing by DOE Planning officials on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

DOE Planning official briefed the Committee and answered members’ question on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

The main areas of discussion were the interpretation of a planning centre and planning law and the storage and movement of goods.

Mr Gallagher left the meeting at 11.40a.m.

Agreed: That Planning Service forward the Committee written clarification on the definition of an operating centre and the storage of goods.

Mr Clarke left the meeting at 11.47a.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
9 October 2008

Thursday 9 October 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Patricia Casey (Assembly Clerk)
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Iain Elliott (Clerical Officer)

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.36a.m.

4. Briefing by Beverley Bell, Traffic Commissioner, North West Traffic Area on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Beverley Bell, North West Area Traffic Commissioner briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

The main areas of discussion were illegal operations, poor safety standards of vehicles, co-operation with VOSA, appeals mechanism, public inquiries, planning and operating centres.

Agreed: That a letter is sent to the Department for clarification on existing restrictions on parking goods vehicles in residential areas.

Mr Gallagher left the meeting at 11.45a.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
16 October 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 16 October 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Iain Elliott (Clerical Officer)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Daithi McKay

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.34a.m.

4. Departmental briefing on Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill – secondary legislation raising powers

Mr McClarty joined the meeting at 11.10a.m.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on the secondary legislation raising powers of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That a letter is sent to the Department asking where they feel draft affirmative resolution is more important in the Bill.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 1.17p.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
23 October 2008

Thursday 23 October 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Collan Cree (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Peter Weir

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.35 a.m.

6. Committee consideration of Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Issues Paper

Members deliberated over a paper of the issues raised to date from written and oral submissions in relation to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That an updated version of the ‘issues paper’ along with a copy of the ‘key clauses’ document be forwarded electronically to members

12.38pm Mr Ford left the meeting.

12.45pm Mr McGlone left the meeting and Mr Boylan assumed the Chair.

12.45pm Mr McKay left the meeting.

12.50pm Mr McGlone rejoined the meeting and resumed the Chair.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 1.35 p.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
6 November 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 6 November 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Mr John Torney (Principal Clerk)
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithi McKay

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.05 a.m.

4. Clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Mr Clarke and Mr Beggs declared an interest.

Patricia Casey, Bill Clerk, briefed the Committee on the procedural aspects of scrutinising the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Mr Boylan joined the meeting at 10.18a.m.

The meeting was suspended at 10.35a.m.

The meeting resumed at 11.28a.m. with the following members present: Mr McGlone, Mr Ross, Mr Weir, Mr Clarke, Mr Ford, Mr Beggs, Mr McClarty.

DOE officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions as the Committee began its clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Mr Boylan rejoined the meeting at 11.35a.m.

Mr Gallagher joined the meeting at 11.46a.m.

Mr Gallagher left the meeting at 12.16p.m.

Agreed: That DOE forward a paper on exemptions to the Committee.

Mr McClarty left the meeting at 12.24p.m.

Mr Gallagher rejoined the meeting at 12.30p.m.

Agreed: That the DOE forward a list of bodies that provide training for the Certificate of Professional Competence.

Agreed: That the DOE further consider Clause 4 and further brief the Committee at its next meeting.

Agreed: That the DOE provide details of its consultation on the options for operator licensing (i.e. appointment of an independent Traffic Commissioner for NI)

Agreed: That Bill Team provide paper on exemptions for consideration.

Mr Gallagher left the meeting at 12.45p.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
13 November 2008

[EXTRACT]

Tuesday 11 November 2008,
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr David
McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Richard Keating (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Tommy Gallagher

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.09 a.m.

The Chairperson advised members that the meeting would be suspended at 10.55a.m. to facilitate those who wish to mark Armistice Day.

1. Apologies

Apologies are detailed above.

2. Clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Mr Beggs declared an interest.

Mr Boylan joined the meeting at 10.12a.m.

Mr Clarke joined the meeting at 10.13a.m.

The meeting was suspended at 10.55a.m.

The meeting resumed at 11.11a.m. with the following members present: Mr McGlone, Mr McCrea, Mr Ford, Mr Beggs and Mr Boylan.

DOE officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions as the Committee continued with its clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Mr Weir rejoined the meeting at 11.12a.m.

Mr McClarty rejoined the meeting at 11.12a.m.

Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting at 11.16a.m.

Mr Boylan left the meeting at 11.58a.m.

Mr Beggs left the meeting at 12.24p.m.

Mr McCrea left the meeting at 12.24p.m.

Agreed: That copies of the letters from Karen Magill, Tom Wilson and the Consumer Council re the issue of an ‘Independent Regulator’ are forwarded to the Departmental Bill Team.

Agreed: That the note from the Examiner of Statutory Rules on the secondary legislation raising powers of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill is e-mailed to all members.

Agreed: That the Departmental Bill Team provide further clarification on the definition of ‘parking’.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 12.28 p.m.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
11 November 2008

Thursday 13 November 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Roy Beggs

Mr Daithi McKay

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.38 a.m.

4. Clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

The Bill Clerk provided an update on the Examiner of Statutory Rules paper on the secondary legislation raising power of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Mr Boylan joined the meeting at 11.13a.m.

DOE officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions as the Committee continued its clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That the Department provides the Committee with further information in relation to consignment notes and the threshold of their applicability.

Agreed: That the Department provides the Committee with their views on the Examiner of Statutory Rules paper on the secondary legislation raising power of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That the Committee seeks Assembly legal services opinion on the weight given to any Ministerial statement before the Bill is introduced at Consideration Stage.

Agreed: That the proposed Ministerial statement provided by the Department is reviewed and amended.

Agreed: That the Department provides the Committee with information in relation to how EU legislation applies in other areas of Europe such as Spain, France and the Republic of Ireland.

Agreed: That the Department provides the Committee with information as to the length of time the role of Traffic Commissioner has been in operation in Great Britain.

Agreed: That the Freight Transport Association is asked to provide further information in relation to their recent letter regarding the establishment of a Traffic Commissioner.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
20 November 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 20 November 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk)
Mr Hugh Widdis (Assembly Legal Services)
Mr Jonathan McMillan (Assembly Legal Services)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Daithi McKay

5. Clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Mr Beggs and Mr Clarke declared an interest.

The Committee deliberated on a proposal to make a recommendation in its report in relation to the separation of the regulatory and enforcement roles.

Agreed: That the Committee makes a recommendation in its report in relation to the separation of the regulatory and enforcement roles.

The Committee deliberated on a proposal to make a recommendation in its reports that the Department of the Environment pursues the feasibility of the appointment of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland, to have statutory responsibility for among other things, Goods Vehicles Operator Licensing.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 1

AYES NOES
Cathal Boylan David Ford
Peter Weir
Ian McCrea
Roy Beggs
Alistair Ross
Trevor Clarke

Agreed: That this recommendation is included in the Committee’s report.

The Committee deliberated on a proposal to make a recommendation in its report that the Minister makes the following statement at Consideration Stage of the Bill:

‘Following a designation by the Department of a place as an ‘Operating Centre’ under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, the issue of read-across into interest or action by Planning Service may be of concern to some. As Minister of the Department that includes the Driver and Vehicle Agency, Road Safety Division and Planning Service, I want to give you an assurance that the designation of a property as an Operating Centre will not in itself have any read-across to Planning action; nor will it be used by, or influence any action by Planning Service as to the use of the property.’

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 1

AYES NOES
Cathal Boylan Trevor Clarke
Peter Weir
Ian McCrea
Roy Beggs
Alistair Ross
David Ford

Agreed: That this recommendation is included in the Committee’s report.

Members completed their clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill and agreed as follows:

Clause 1 – Operators’ licences

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 1 as amended by the Department.

The Committee recommended a further amendment in relation to this clause so that powers to exempt vehicles, Clause 1(2)(d), becomes subject to draft affirmative procedure. The Department agreed to do this by making the necessary amendment to Clause 57(9) within which the power lies.

Mr Ford left the meeting at 12.33p.m.

Clause 2 – ‘Standard’ and ‘restricted’ licences

Agreed: That The Committee agreed to clause 2 as drafted.

Clause 3 – Temporary exemptions

Agreed: That The Committee agreed to clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Vehicles authorised to be used under operators’ licence

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 4 as amended by the Department.

Clause 5 – Maximum numbers of vehicles

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 5 as drafted.

Clause 6 – Operating centres to be specified in operators’ licences

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 1

AYES NOES
Cathal Boylan Trevor Clarke
Peter Weir
Ian McCrea
Roy Beggs
Alistair Ross

Agreed: ‘That the Committee is content with clause 6 as drafted’.

Clause 7 – Application for operators licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 – Notification of events subsequent to the making of an application

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 8 as drafted.

Clause 9 – Publication by Department of notice of application for licence

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 9 as drafted.

Clause 10 – Publication in locality affected of notice of application for licence

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 10 as drafted.

Clause 11 – Objections to, and representations against, issue of operators’ licences

Agreed: That he Committee agreed to clause 11 as drafted.

Clause 12 – Determination of applications for operators’ licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed with clause 12.

The Committee recommended an amendment in relation to this clause so that powers to introduce a requirement for certificates of professional competence for restricted licences will be subject to greater Assembly scrutiny. The Department agreed to do this by making the necessary amendment to Clause 57(9) within which the power lies.

Clause 13 – Determination where objections etc are made on environmental grounds

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 13 as drafted.

Clause 14 – Issue of operators’ licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 14 as drafted.

Clause 15 – Duration of operators’ licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 15 as drafted.

Clause 16 – Variation of operators’ licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 16 as drafted.

Clause 17 – Publication of notice of applications for variation in any locality affected

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 17 as drafted.

Clause 18 – Objection to, and refusal of, applications to vary operators’ licences on environmental grounds

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 18 as drafted.

Clause 19 – Variation of Licences: further provisions

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 19 as drafted.

Clause 20 – Conditions of Licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 20 as drafted.

Clause 21 – Interim operators’ licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 21 as drafted.

Clause 22 – Interim variations

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 22 as drafted.

Clause 23 – Revocation, suspension and curtailment of operators licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 23 as drafted.

Clause 24 – Revocation of standard licences

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 24 as amended by the Department.

Clause 25 – Disqualification

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 25 as drafted.

Clause 26 – Revocation, disqualification, etc: supplementary provisions

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 26 as amended by the Department.

Clause 27 – Periods of review for operating centres

The Committee divided: Ayes 5;Noes 1

AYES NOES
Cathal Boylan Trevor Clarke
Peter Weir
Ian McCrea
Roy Beggs
Alistair Ross

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 27 as drafted.

Clause 28 – Power to remove operating centres on review

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 23 as drafted.

Clause 29 – Power to attach conditions on review

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 29 as drafted.

Clause 30 – Transfer of operating centres

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 30 as drafted.

Clause 31 – Determinations as to environmental matters

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 31 as drafted.

Clause 32 – Power of Department to hold inquiries

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 32 as drafted.

Clause 33 – Power of Department to appoint assessors

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 33 as drafted.

Clause 34 – Review of decisions

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 34 as drafted.

Clause 35 – Rights of appeal in connection with operators’ licences

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 35 as drafted.

Clause 36 – Forgery of documents etc

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 36 as drafted.

Clause 37 – False statements

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 37 as drafted.

Clause 38 – Powers of entry

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 38 as drafted.

Clause 39 – Power to seize documents etc

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 39 as drafted.

Clause 40 – Obtaining of information etc by authorized persons

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 40 as drafted.

Clause 41 – Obstruction of authorized persons

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 41 as drafted.

Clause 42 – Exercise of enforcement powers: authorised persons and constables

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 42 as drafted.

Clause 43 – Evidence by certificate

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 43 as drafted.

Clause 44 – Detention of vehicle used without operator’s licence

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 44 as drafted.

Clause 45 – Prosecutions

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 45 as drafted.

Clause 46 – Disclosure of information

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 46 as drafted.

Clause 47 – Fees

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 47 as drafted.

Clause 48 – Operators’ licences not to be transferable

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 48 as drafted.

Clause 49 – Certificates of qualification

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 49 as drafted.

Clause 50 – Large goods vehicles

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 50 being dropped.

Clause 51 – Method of calculating weight of vehicles

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 51 as amended by the Department’.

Clause 52 – Application of Act to holding companies and subsidiaries

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 52 as drafted.

Clause 53 – Application of Act to partnerships

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 53 as drafted.

Clause 54 – Application of Act to the Crown

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 54 as drafted.

Clause 55 – Application of Act to harbours

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 55 as amended by the Department.

Clause 56 – Supplementary provision

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 56 as drafted.

Clause 57 – Regulations

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 57 subject to amendments agreed between the Committee and the Department.

Clause 58 – General interpretation

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 58 as drafted.

Clause 59 – Amendments and repeals

Agreed: That the Committee agreed to clause 59 as drafted.

Clause 60 – Commencement

Agreed: That the Committee is content with clause 60 as drafted.

Clause 61 – Short title

The Committee agreed to clause 61 as drafted.

Schedule 1 – Meaning of ‘small goods vehicle’

Agreed: That the Committee is agreed to the Minister opposing the question that schedule 1 stands part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 – Transfer of operating centres

Agreed: That the Committee is content with schedule 2 as drafted.

Schedule 3 – Detention of vehicles used without operator’s licence

Agreed: That the Committee is content with schedule 3 as amended by the Department.

Schedule 4 – Large goods vehicles

Agreed: That the Committee is content with the Department removing schedule 4.

Schedule 5 – Amendments

Agreed: That the Committee is content with schedule 5 as drafted.

Schedule 6 – Repeals

Agreed: That the Committee is content with schedule 6 as drafted.

Long title

Agreed: That the Committee is content with the long title as drafted.6.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
27 November 2008

[EXTRACT]

Thursday 27 November 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr David Ford
Mr Daithi McKay

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.35 a.m.

4. Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Members deliberated on the Committee’s draft report on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

Agreed: That the information on EU member states previously requested from the Department is requested again.

Agreed: That Departmental officials are invited to a meeting on 2 December to further discuss proposed amendments around Clause 50 and Schedule 4.

Patsy McGlone

Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
4 December 2008

[EXTRACT]

Tuesday 2 December 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Cathal Boylan
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithi McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.08 a.m. with the Deputy Chairperson, Mr Boylan, in the Chair.

1. Apologies

Apologies are detailed above.

2. Clause by clause consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill

Departmental officials briefed the Committee and answered members’ questions on Clause 4 (4), Clause 38, Clause 39, Clause 50, Clause 57 (9) and Schedule 4.

Clause 38

Agreed: That the Committee is agreed with Clause 38 as amended by the Department.

Clause 39

Agreed: That the Committee is agreed with Clause 39 as amended by the Department.

Clause 57

Agreed: That the Committee is agreed with Clause 57 as amended by the Department.

Schedule 1

Agreed: That the Committee is agreed to drop Schedule 1.

The Deputy Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 10.34 a.m.

Cathal Boylan

Deputy Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
4 December 2008

Thursday 4 December 2008,
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

In Attendance:
Dr Alex McGarel (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk)
Mr William Long (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Sean McCann (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Richard Clarke (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Daithi McKay

The meeting commenced in public session at 10.34 a.m. with Mr Boylan in the Chair

7. Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill Report

Mr Beggs declared an interest.

The Chairperson advised members that clause by clause scrutiny of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill had now been completed and that they needed to consider the second draft report on the Bill.

The Committee agreed the main body of the report:

• Membership, read and agreed
• Executive Summary, read and agreed
• Recommendations, read and agreed
• Introduction, read and agreed
• Appendix 1, read and agreed
• Appendix 2, read and agreed
• Appendix 3, read and agreed
• Appendix 4, read and agreed
• Appendix 5, read and agreed

Agreed: That an extract from the minutes of the Committee meeting on Tuesday 2 December is included in the report along with an extract of the minutes from the meeting on Thursday 4 December as agreed by the Deputy Chairperson, and Hansard transcripts from the same dates

Agreed: That the Committee Report be printed.

Cathal Boylan

Deputy Chairperson, Committee for the Environment
11 December 2008

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

24 January 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Tommy Gallagher
r Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithí McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Donald Armstrong Mr John Brogan Mrs Gillian McIntyre

Department of the Environment

1. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Department of the Environment (DOE) officials Mr Donald Armstrong, Mrs Gillian McIntyre and Mr John Brogan will brief the Committee on the proposed goods vehicles (licensing of operators) Bill. On 24 August 2007, we were initially informed of the intention to introduce the Bill, and, on 26 September 2007, the Committee wrote to the Department requesting a timetable for the progression of the Bill. We have received the Department’s response, and we also have information relating to the Department’s two previous consultations on the matter, the first of which was in 1998 and the second in 2003. The Department has also notified members of its intention to rename the Bill from the road freight (licensing of operators) Bill to the goods vehicles (licensing of operators) Bill.

2. Perhaps, Mr Armstrong, you could give a brief run-through of what is anticipated in the proposed Bill, and after that, members can ask questions.

3. Mr Donald Armstrong (Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

4. We have submitted a briefing paper on the topics that we wish to address. I will begin by describing the context from which the proposed Bill has emerged and by mentioning some of the terminology that is used therein. I will give a brief overview today of what we are aiming to do, but, obviously, we will return regularly to talk to the Committee in greater detail about certain aspects of the proposed legislation.

5. As a backdrop to the current situation, the Department of the Environment, through its road safety division, is responsible under the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 for the regulation of vehicles that carry passengers or goods for hire or reward. The road safety division is responsible for developing policy and introducing legislation, which is then implemented by the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) from its headquarters in Coleraine.

6. The road-freight industry in Northern Ireland comprises approximately 35,000 vehicles, each of which weighs more than three and a half tons. Only a quarter of the industry is regulated. The regulated quarter is known as the hire-for-reward sector. In that sector, organisations carry goods for other people, that is to say, haulage companies. The unregulated section of the industry is known as the own-account sector, and that applies to organisations such as Tesco and Sainsbury’s. Those companies have a business to run, and part of that involves them carrying their own goods.

7. The proposals that we will outline are an attempt to widen the industry’s regulations in order to make them all-inclusive. That is the context in which the Bill is being proposed.

8. Moving on to the commitments that have been made in the past, the Chairman referred to the consultations that took place in 1998 and 2003. Following the consultation of 2003, the then Minister with responsibility for the environment, Angela Smith, gave a commitment in May 2004 that the development of the legislation would proceed, based on the proposals that resulted from that consultation. More recently, the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee — which was considering how to combat organised crime — gave a commitment that the Department would endeavour to formulate proposals fairly quickly. That has not happened, because the timetable for that was based on one that was devised in Westminster. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee expressed concern at what it perceived as the delay in introducing the proposals. The proposals were part of the Westminster programme, and, with the restoration of the devolved Administration, they are now for the Assembly to formulate.

9. In 1991, before any of the consultations took place, a review into road-freight licensing in Northern Ireland recommended that the system should be expanded. The matter went out to consultation in 1998, and the responses to it were broadly favourable — although I hasten to add that neither consultation met with an overabundance of responses.

10. Members have been given a copy of the summary of the responses to the 2003 consultation. You will find that, although there were objections to expansion of the system, on balance, the responses either made no comment or were favourable. Some of the organisations that registered opposition to the 2003 consultation firmly support and are on board with the current process.

11. To understand the content of the consultations and the proposals, I refer members to the policy memorandum document that we have submitted. It sets out, in fairly good detail, the backdrop to the legislation and what the Department is trying to achieve. Given that that memorandum is comprehensive, covers the detail of the consultation and contains some valuable information, members may wish to lean heavily on it as a working document. Therefore, I commend it for your perusal and consideration.

12. I will talk about the communication process in which the Department is involved. Our basic philosophy is to make compliance with regulation as easy as possible, while making non-compliance as difficult as possible. Our goal is to introduce legislation and regulations to which people find it easy to adhere. Therefore, our consultations put great emphasis on talking to industry representatives to find out what is important to them, how they can work with the legislation, and then to introduce appropriate regulations. At the same time, we must be tough: there is no point in introducing regulations if we are not going to enforce them, so we must ensure that the enforcement regime is sufficiently tough and strong to make non-compliance difficult.

13. We have worked with a large number of stakeholders in the industry. Over the past couple of years, we have talked to stakeholders, including the Road Haulage Association (RHA) and the Freight Transport Association (FTA). Around two years ago, the then Minister with responsibility for the environment set up a road freight forum for Northern Ireland, through which departmental officials meet regularly with industry representatives. We talk about the issues that affect them and the proposals that we are seeking to introduce. Over the past few years, we have been in continuous touch with representatives of the industry to ensure that the key stakeholders are on board and are au fait with and supportive of our plans.

14. In the past couple of weeks, we have widened that net and spoken to other organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses. We have arrangements made to meet the Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Institute of Directors and local authorities. We have met with representatives of the transport managers from the 26 local authorities, and we hope to build on that interaction with key stakeholders in the industry to ensure that we deliver legislation that they are happy with and so that they feel that we have gone along with them to some degree.

15. We plan to embark on briefings with the freight industry over the next couple of months. That process will begin on 18 or 19 February and continue until the middle of March. We will invite as many people as possible from the industry to those briefings, and we will mail every single registered keeper in the own-account sector who has a goods vehicle that weighs over three and a half tons. We hope to explain what we are trying to do, the impact that it will have on them, how much it will cost and what the benefits will be. We will try to get feedback from those vehicle keepers so that we can introduce regulations that will be easy to work with. We will happily provide the Committee with a report of the outcome of those briefings.

16. There are four reasons for wanting to introduce the changes. The first, and overriding reason, is road safety. It is fairly common knowledge that the standard of compliance with roadworthiness in the road-haulage industry is not good. A survey that was carried out in 2005 showed that 18% of goods vehicles on the road were found to be non-compliant with roadworthiness standards. Although the results of a survey that has been carried out since then have not been finally tabulated, that figure has increased significantly. Therefore, the regulation and improvement of the industry will address a major road-safety issue.

17. There is a record of bad driver behaviour, such as drivers who abuse the drivers’ hours regulations, who overload vehicles, who do not properly check their vehicles daily. There is a history and a culture of non-compliance in the road-freight industry, and, on a road-safety basis, we want to address that issue through better regulation and sound enforcement.

18. To compound that, information that we are getting from traffic commissioners and the police in GB indicates that the standard of Northern Ireland haulage-industry vehicles that reach GB is not at all good. We must improve the image of the industry by ensuring that road-safety standards are implemented.

19. Secondly, there is the problem of illegal operation. There is a feeling that several operators are operating illegally, undercutting legitimate business and placing financial strains on it. We are trying to create a level playing field where everybody is regulated, where there is sufficient enforcement to impose the prescribed standard and where the opportunities to participate in illegal operations will be reduced.

20. Thirdly, as I said earlier, the head of the Civil Service gave the commitment that legislation would be introduced as a tool to aid the combating of organised crime. Organised crime still exists, but it needs vehicles to work. If we can tie down the vehicles and link them all to a registered operator, we will have another tool to help combat organised crime.

21. Finally, we face environmental pressure to ensure that the road-haulage industry plays its part in making sure that its operating centres and vehicles are as environmentally suitable as possible.

22. As a result of the consultations, several proposals were considered. The first was to do nothing, which is not really an option. That would mean that one quarter of the industry would remain regulated, with those operators paying the regulation fees and so forth, while the rest of the industry would not be regulated, paying nothing. That option is not equitable.

23. The second option was to adopt the same systems that are in GB, which has a traffic-commissioner system in which everybody is licensed.

24. The third option, which is that with which we went, was to adopt the GB model to some degree but to have local variations. That is the model that the Minister proposed to implement and that we hope to introduce through the proposed Bill.

25. What will the legislation mean in practice? I will run through the topics quickly, and we can go over them again in more detail at a later meeting to determine how the legislation addresses those issues. All operators will have to be licensed; there will be continuous licensing, which will be phased by renewals and reviews every five years; those applying for operator’s licences will be required to advertise locally so that representations can be taken from those who will be affected; environmental conditions will be applied to the operating centres from which the operators will work; and operators will be required to give maintenance undertakings on how they manage and keep their fleet, which is a big road-safety issue.

26. At present, the powers of traffic commissioners in GB are discretionary, while those in Northern Ireland are non-discretionary and limited. The powers that will be available to traffic commissioners in GB will be adopted by the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland.

27. Finally, the Bill will create the power to impound vehicles that are used illegally. That measure will help to toughen our enforcement powers.

28. The Chairperson: Thank you for that overview. The idea is that, as part of the Committee’s scrutiny process, you will return to the Committee in a few weeks’ time — at some time around 7 February 2008 — to provide more detail on the Bill. The next step will be to begin the same process that Committee members undertook — those of us who were involved — when scrutinising the Taxis Bill. We will also hold a few pre-evidence sessions. The Committee will receive a lot more detail on the proposed Bill as it progresses.

29. Do any members wish to ask any further questions?

30. Mr Gallagher: I wish you all well with the proposed legislation. You mentioned poor road-safety standards, and some of what you said was quite shocking. The Committee has heard earlier evidence about that matter, so it is good to see that the problem is being tackled. As with certain other issues, if tougher regulations are introduced, enforcement will be important.

31. I represent a western constituency. There seems to be so many freight vehicles around. They are being driven on roads that are, in some cases, completely inappropriate for the size of the vehicles and for the speed at which they are being driven.

32. I have noticed that many vehicles have been registered in the Republic of Ireland and have been so for financial reasons. Where will they sit with regard to the enforcement of the proposed regulations? Many of those vehicles are owned by businesses in Northern Ireland, but the owners are able to — and therefore do — register them in the Republic of Ireland. I know that there are understandable financial implications in doing that, but I want to know how that sits with your proposed enforcement plans.

33. I also want to ask about driver licensing. Quite a number of workers are non-nationals and driving on our roads. I simply do not know enough about the qualifications that are required for driving in the countries from which they come. I would like to know whether those drivers are qualified to drive heavy goods vehicles here.

34. The use of mobile phones while driving such vehicles is a serious issue. Although driving while using a mobile phone may not be addressed in the proposed legislation, would you clarify whether it is being considered for inclusion?

35. The Chairperson: Are you asking about the illegal use of mobile phones?

36. Mr Gallagher: Yes. I simply want to clarify whether that matter is included anywhere in the plans to improve the regulations. I am sure that other members have often noticed that, in addition to driving at high speeds, it is not uncommon for drivers of those vehicles to be steering with one hand while chatting on their mobile phone, which they hold in their other hand.

37. I know that the drivers need mobile phones for certain purposes, but I know that members of the public, not just I, have observed lorry drivers having long conversations on hand-held mobile phones.

38. The Chairperson: Mr Armstrong, several members have indicated that the best way to proceed is for us to ask questions on the issues that concern us and then for you to address them.

39. Mr I McCrea: I notice that fees will come into line with those that apply in GB. What is the difference between those? Obviously, they are increasing to cover the costs of implementing the regulations, but is there much of an increase?

40. Mr McKay: You said that several objections were raised in past consultations; could you summarise those? Are any enforcement powers included in the proposed legislation to check the discs of lorry drivers regularly to ensure that they are not tampered with fraudulently?

41. Mr Ross: Two issues that you highlighted were the poor standard of vehicle maintenance and the extent of illegal operations. Given that you gave us figures for the approximate number of vehicles on the roads that were not up to the appropriate maintenance level, could you tell us the extent of the illegal operations? I presume that an approximate figure indicating the extent of the problem was in the House of Commons report.

42. Mr B Armstrong: Any measure that brings more safety to our roads must be welcomed. We have to make sure that our roads are safe, and that the loads that are being carried are safely secured and driven.

43. Most lorries, especially long distance lorries, have Citizens’ Band (CB) radios. Those devices are normally hand-held, so some legislation should be introduced that states that they are necessary in order that drivers can communicate with each other. Sometimes life can be boring in a lorry, especially for long-distance drivers. We must take that into consideration and introduce legislation that addresses drivers’ use of CBs and mobile phones.

44. I presume that some hauliers operate here but are registered in other countries and use their vehicles more often in Northern Ireland than in other countries. How will you address that?

45. Mr T Clarke: Having read some of the objections on the paper that has been submitted today, and having heard mention today of lorries that travel across the border, it is clear that that is an issue. Along the lines of what Billy has just suggested, will it not be seen as an unfair advantage to such operators if the industry in Northern Ireland is to be regulated, but some will be free to continue to operate as they have been in the Republic of Ireland? Will that not put pressure on businesses here? Those operators will have to adhere to stringent guidelines here, whereas those in the Republic can come up here, pick up the work, and continue to operate in the Republic’s system.

46. The Chairperson: Members have highlighted several issues to which you can respond. Unless any member has anything further to add, you can address them. I am sure that we will hear much more detail on the matter as the Bill progresses. However, in the meantime, will you please respond to the issues raised that have been raised today?

47. Mr D Armstrong: People who have an operator’s licence in Northern Ireland will be required to have an operating centre here. The only vehicles that can be used will be vehicles that are UK-registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 — also known as VERA. With an operator’s licence, one will not be able to have vehicles that are registered in the Republic of Ireland. That effectively treats vehicles that have been registered across the border as foreign vehicles in much the same way that other vehicles coming here from the rest of Europe are dealt with. That means that the only vehicles that will be linked to the operating centre are those that are registered in either Northern Ireland or Great Britain.

48. The use of mobile phones is outwith operator licensing. That said, penalty points that operators in the hire-for-reward sector received for the illegal use of mobile phones will count against them when their reputations are being considered. Although the illegal use of mobile phones and CBs is an issue, it is not within the remit of what we are talking about. We are concerned with the licensing of operators, with a view to ensuring that they maintain and use their vehicles more safely. If they do not comply — and get caught — it will go against them as operators, and that will be reflected in their licence. We will talk about that in more detail when we discuss with the Committee the standards that we want to introduce and that operators must reach.

49. Mr McCrea asked about fees. Gillian has conducted some research on the fees, and has ascertained that they will decrease.

50. Mrs Gillian McIntyre (Department of the Environment): I can inform you of the fees, based on what they are in Great Britain. They cover five years. An operator who has one vehicle pays approximately £760; the cost is approximately £1,120 for an operator with three vehicles; and £2,380 for an operator with 10 vehicles. At present in Northern Ireland, only the hire-for-reward sector is licensed, and anybody who has more than four vehicles would be better off with the GB fees.

51. The Chairperson: How much better off would they be?

52. Mrs McIntyre: An operator with 10 vehicles would pay approximately £2,380 in Great Britain and £3,150 in Northern Ireland.

53. The Chairperson: Are any other supplementary fees or attendant issues being added?

54. Mrs McIntyre: No.

55. Mr D Armstrong: Many of the objections that we received related to cost, and many came from the own-account sector. One must put the fees into context. One tyre for a commercial vehicle costs in excess of £200, and, in some cases, it can cost a lot more. Therefore, the costs that are involved are less than it would cost to tyre a lorry each year. In the overall cost of running a business, that is a small amount of money. However, I accept that people are unhappy with costs.

56. The Chairperson: Whether that is a small amount of money depends on the individual’s profit.

57. Mr D Armstrong: If a lorry owner is putting new tyres on a vehicle every year, the regulation cost is a small extra. It will be 20% of the annual cost of tyres. We are not talking about huge fees that will drive people out of business. Although most of the objections are based on cost, we are not talking about exorbitant amounts.

58. Mr T Clarke: We are focusing on the least expensive aspect of the proposed regulations. My reading of what you are saying is that there will be particular yards in which lorries and vehicles will be kept. The single-man operator who drives his lorry home every night and parks it at the side of his house has never needed a property yard. Paying £700 for a licence for five years is not a huge amount, but I am concerned that a single-man operator seeking an operator’s licence will have to pay for a dedicated yard, and that will cost considerably more than £700.

59. Mr D Armstrong: Most operators who have more than one vehicle will have a yard, so they will not have an extra cost. Some drivers may have one vehicle, drive it home and park it on their premises, provided that no objections are made when they apply for their licence and make their representations. We do not see any problem with that continuing.

60. The Chairperson: From whom might there be objections?

61. Mr D Armstrong: The neighbours who may be affected might object. Drivers who park their vehicle at their house at night may apply for a licence, and, as the process requires, advertise their intention. The application will go ahead, if nobody objects. However, there will be difficulties in instances where people have to specify an operating centre on their licence application, and “on the street” is not considered to be an option as an operating centre. People who currently park their lorries outside people’s houses at night will have to find somewhere else to park. Perhaps they could find a yard, or somebody could allow them to park the vehicle — off-road at night — on their property, for what is, hopefully, a relatively small fee. However, that would be specified.

62. Some operating centres will be more expensive than others, but those who park their lorries on the street will be directly affected because it will no longer be an acceptable practice.

63. Mr Gardiner: Those who live beside people who own lorries will welcome that. On many occasions, I have been contacted by people who cannot, for instance, see out of their windows because of the lorries that are parked outside their house. The new regulations will help to tackle that, and I welcome them.

64. Mr D Armstrong: I want to return to discussing the objections that we received. Most are related to cost, which is an issue. The Department will carry out impact assessments, not only on what the fee will be, but on the impact that the costs will have on the industry. The Committee will have access to that impact assessment.

65. Issues such as enforcement and the fraudulent use of discs are outwith the provisions of the Bill, but offences of that nature will reflect negatively on an individual’s reputation. However, when the whole industry is regulated, in broad terms, the fee receipt will be four times its current rate, with the result that much more money will be available to invest in enforcement. Enforcement will be stronger, which means that those who display fraudulent discs, increase drivers’ hours or overload their vehicles will have fewer opportunities to avoid being detected. Hence, road safety and compliance with the restrictions on drivers’ hours will be improved. By regulating the whole industry, the Department is providing a basis for fairer and more comprehensive enforcement.

66. In regard to vehicle maintenance —

67. The Chairperson: Mr Gallagher wants some clarity on enforcement.

68. Mr Gallagher: I am waiting to hear something about drivers’ licences.

69. Mr D Armstrong: I apologise, please remind me of the question.

70. Mr Gallagher: I asked about the proper licensing of drivers. My question is prompted by a serious accident that happened in County Cavan. The driver of the vehicle involved was not licensed and was also a foreign national. Does the Department plan to address matters such as that?

71. The Chairperson: Was the driver not licensed as an operator or as a driver?

72. Mr Gallagher: He was not licensed as a driver.

73. Mr D Armstrong: That is a slightly different issue. The use of inappropriate driving licences should be picked up through enforcement; it is not specifically connected to operators. It is the duty of operators to ensure that those who drive their vehicles are appropriately licensed and insured and that their vehicles are in proper condition. Related offences will reflect on the suitability of the operator to hold an operators’ licence.

74. I have already touched on the issue of foreign-registered vehicles. When the Minister addressed the Committee a couple of weeks ago on road safety, she mentioned that the Department was considering introducing graduated fixed penalties and a deposit scheme. We will do more work on those over the next couple of months. The deposit scheme is specifically being introduced to address the problem of foreign drivers who commit road-traffic offences. With greater enforcement resources, we hope to detect those offenders. Instead of being issued with a fixed penalty, foreign drivers will be required to pay a deposit at the roadside for any offences that they commit. They will have to face the penalty or forfeit their deposit. That will ensure that they do not escape without punishment. They will be restricted from moving until they pay the deposit. Therefore, a mechanism is being introduced to deal specifically with foreign drivers who commit offences in Northern Ireland.

75. Have I covered all the points that Members wanted me to?

76. Mr Ross: Do you have an approximate figure on the level of illegal operations?

77. Mr D Armstrong: No, but we will try to find out. It might be quite a difficult figure to tie down — we can examine the illegal operations that have been detected, but I do not know whether we could provide the detail on the number involved.

78. Mr T Clarke: I asked whether operators in the Republic of Ireland are not subject to the same stringent controls, which put pressure on operators, as their counterparts in Northern Ireland. If not, operators in Northern Ireland will find it more difficult to survive, because those from the South of Ireland could come here and take our work.

79. The Chairperson: Could some sort of harmony be reached to make sure that that does not happen?

80. Mr D Armstrong: Obviously, the authorities here and those in the South share information on offenders. We will meet with our counterparts in Dublin to talk to them about our proposals, and we will consider what they are doing, what they have been doing, and the consequences of their policies. We can give that information to the Committee.

81. Mr B Armstrong: The Road Haulage Association believes that the activity of vehicles that cross the border means that the provisions of the proposed Bill will not work in Northern Ireland.

82. The Chairperson: That was mentioned in relation to the 2003 consultation. Are you assuring us that you have had further talks with the RHA and that it is now on board?

83. Mr D Armstrong: The RHA is very supportive of our proposals. Gillian and I were at a briefing with representatives of that body on Tuesday night, and they meet with us on the road freight forum. They are keen for us to press ahead with the proposals as quickly as possible. Their view is now different to what it was in 2003, and they are happy to verify that.

84. Mr B Armstrong: Will the legislation in the Republic be tightened? There seems to be a weaker system there.

85. The Chairperson: We have perhaps jumped over an issue.

86. You clarified earlier that you will be working with your counterparts in Dublin in an attempt to establish whether any complications that arise from competition between firms can be overcome and that no firm will be disadvantaged.

87. The other question concerned the Road Haulage Association. I know that you are working very closely with them at the moment.

88. Mr D Armstrong: We are running eight of the freight industry briefings that I mentioned from 19 February to 12 March, and the Road Haulage Association has already indicated that it will come along to every one of those and actively support us. If that is a measure of its change of heart, that is very good news.

89. Mr Gallagher: Can we have clearer information on the road safety aspects of the policy memorandum? The very first sentence of that document reads:

“Goods vehicles make a significant contribution to the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) in Northern Ireland.”

90. What exactly are those statistics? If you do not have them today, will you forward them to the Committee?

91. Mr D Armstrong: Would it be all right if we brought them to the Committee when we come in two weeks’ time?

92. The Chairperson: We would appreciate that.

93. Mr D Armstrong: I ask the Committee to consider the timetable for the proposed legislation. Perhaps John will talk about how we are moving forward.

94. Mr John Brogan (Department of the Environment): The Bill is currently being drafted, and that is going very well. We should have a reasonably complete draft sometime in February, and that will allow us to begin the formal tasks of submitting the draft to Ministers and getting the Executive’s approval for it by April 2008. With a fair wind, that will allow the Bill to have its First Stage in May, and its Second Stage, when it will be debated in its broadest sense in the House, will be in June. If we achieve those targets, the Committee Stage will start sometime before the summer recess. The hope is that that will allow the Committee to carry out a consultation exercise over the summer that is similar to that which was done for the Taxis Bill, thereby allowing the Committee to hit the ground running in September.

95. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for that presentation; it has given us an indication of where we are going with the proposed Bill.

96. Gillian, you mentioned the related fees and the comparator between the GB fees and those in Northern Ireland. Can you send those to the Committee? We want to establish how advantageous the GB fees would be.

97. Mrs McIntyre: Yes.

98. Mr Gardiner: How do our fees compare with those in the Irish Republic?

99. Mr D Armstrong: I do not know; I will find that out for you.

100. Mr Gardiner: It would be good to have a benchmark so that we can gauge what the situation is down there.

101. Mr D Armstrong: We will check that out. In the 2003 consultation, we gave an undertaking that initially we would match the GB fees. However, it is probably worth mentioning that a review of the whole structure of the fees in GB is ongoing; therefore, they may be calculated using a different framework. We will give the Committee a comparison with the present fee, and we will try to find out what they may be once the review has been completed.

102. The Chairperson: Thank you for that. Did you want to make another point?

103. Mr D Armstrong: No.

104. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your time. I am sure we will see one another fairly frequently as the proposed Bill proceeds.

7 February 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross

Witnesses:

Mr Donald Armstrong Mr John Brogan Mrs Gillian McIntyre

Department of the Environment

105. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Officials from the Department of the Environment gave us an initial briefing on the Bill on 24 January. After we have heard evidence from the same officials today, we may wish to consider obtaining further evidence from key stakeholders. I welcome back to the Committee Donald Armstrong, Gillian McIntyre and John Brogan.

106. Mr Donald Armstrong (Department of the Environment): At our previous evidence session, we covered the generality of our proposals for the Bill. We talked about the context of the proposed Bill, the commitments that have been made and the consultations and communications with various parties that have taken place. Today, we will discuss the current situation and examine the proposed Bill more closely and the requirements that it is seeking to place on operators.

107. The Bill will require all operators of goods vehicles that are over three and a half tons to have an operator’s licence. There are approximately 2,500 licensed operators in Northern Ireland who carry goods for hire and reward — that is, for other people. That sector is commonly known as the haulage industry. Our research has found that a further 13,300 operators who carry their own goods use vehicles that are over three and a half tons. Those operators are not included in the present regulatory regime, but we propose that they will be. The total Northern Ireland goods fleet is estimated at approximately 35,000 vehicles. That gives you an idea of the size of the market that we are trying to deal with.

108. The basic requirement for an operator’s licence is that all operators must have one. We are considering three types of licence, and each operator must have one of those types. First, we are considering a restricted licence, which is a licence for those who are restricted to carrying their own goods as part of their own business. Those operators will be newly regulated under the regime. Secondly, we are considering a standard licence, currently known as a national licence, for the hire-and-reward sector. That is for people who carry other people’s goods, but who can also carry their own. Thirdly, an international licence will be granted to operators who want to carry their own or other people’s goods across member-state boundaries, for example, into Ireland. Those operators will require — and will get, free of charge with the licence — a Community authorisation. That must be kept on the premises and a certified copy must be kept in every vehicle that crosses the boundaries between member states.

109. All operators will be required to satisfy standards of fitness, repute, financial standing, and professional competence in order to obtain certain groups of licences. The proposed Bill will not introduce any real changes for operators who are already licensed in the hire-for-reward sector, but it will result in some changes for those who will be coming into the regime, namely the own-account operators.

110. Standards of fitness and repute are based on any convictions that the operator may have for transport and traffic offences and on those of their partners, directors, transport managers, servants or agents — in other words, any employees. Any employee in an organisation could have an impact on the repute or fitness of an operator, thus affecting their ability to obtain a licence.

111. For those in the hire-for reward sector, that standard will widen to include convictions beyond those that have been handed out for transport and traffic offences. If a person has misbehaved in other aspects of criminal law, that will reflect on the repute of a hire-for-reward operator. The reason for widening the standard is that we are trying to ensure that operators who employ hauliers to carry their goods have some comfort in knowing that those people are of a certain standard of repute. Therefore, the rules will be more stringent for the hire-for-reward sector than for the own-account sector. There would not be so much difficulty if a driver were to carry his own goods. However, we are trying to provide some form of comfort to the hire-for-reward sector that its drivers are of sufficient repute.

112. Convictions include those that have been handed out when drivers are abroad, not just those obtained in Northern Ireland. If people have convictions in Ireland, GB or the rest of Europe, those will count toward the repute and fitness of an operator.

113. The Department must be satisfied that an operator has adequate resources to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. Therefore, there is a requirement on operators to declare their financial standing. With regard to hire-for-reward operators, we will be looking for an indication that they have sufficient funds to ensure that they can run their businesses properly and that if they are going to take on business for other people, there is a guarantee that they will be able to do so.

114. Presently, EU regulations require hire-for-reward operators to have professional competence. That means that he or she must be a professionally competent person who will continuously and effectively manage their transport fleet.

115. All operators will be required to have a designated operating centre in Northern Ireland, although they may have more than one, depending on the size of their fleet. They must have a centre that is of a suitable size to accommodate their fleet of lorries and trailers; it must be in a suitable location; it must be available for drivers to enter and leave; it must be used for a suitable purpose; and it must adhere to road-safety access and egress.

116. All applicants will have to advertise in the local press their desire for a licence. That will give people who live in the vicinity of operating centres an opportunity to make representations to the Department about that centre on environmental grounds. In addition, other people will have a statutory right to object, and they will be able to object to a licence on more than environmental grounds: they will be able to object on grounds of repute, financial standing, competence, and road safety, etc. The system will therefore be much more open, and people will know what operators are applying for.

117. In addition to the applicant publishing a notice in the press, the Department will also regularly publish decisions and applications so that people will know what is happening with regard to the regulation of the industry.

118. Operators will be required to give certain undertakings as part of their licence granting. Those are: to observe all the laws regarding the driving and operation of vehicles under the licence; to show that they have systems in place to observe the rules in relation to driver’s hours and tachographs; to observe the rules of weights, overloading, and the speed limits that have been set for specific vehicles, as well as the national speed limits to which we are all subject; and to maintain vehicles and trailers in a fit and serviceable condition. The operators must also give undertakings that they will ask their drivers to inspect their vehicles daily, to record those inspections and to report faults. They will be required to keep those records for 15 months.

119. The operators will also be required to give undertakings that they will use the operating centre in the way in which it was authorised to be used and that it will not be misused. They will have to notify the Department of any convictions that they or their employees may have throughout the period of the licence — that will certainly be the case when they apply for the licence.

120. Operators will have to notify the Department of any change in the nature of their business in order that their licence can be reviewed.

121. Those are the requirements that the proposed legislation will specifically place on all operators. The legislation seeks to address the four key policy areas that we outlined at our previous meeting — road safety, fairer regulation, environmental conditions, and combating organised crime.

122. The Department will take on some key powers that are connected to operator licensing. First, it will have stronger enforcement powers through its ability to impound vehicles that are not properly licensed. Secondly, the Department will have the power to enter premises in order to inspect records, even those of third-party premises that are responsible for the maintenance of an operator’s vehicles. It will be much easier for enforcement staff to gain access to records and to the information that is necessary for sound enforcement.

123. Thirdly, the Department will have the power to hold public inquiries to consider the representations and objections that are made against an operator who wants to hold a licence. In disciplinary cases, operators who have not complied with the terms of their licence can also be brought before an inquiry. The Department will have the power to attach conditions to a licence with regard to the operating centre, including its terms and hours of operation, the number of vehicles that can be used and its parking arrangements.

124. The key difference between those new powers and those that are currently available to the Department is that the proposed provisions are more discretionary. At the moment, we can receive an application, examine an operator’s behaviour and grant or refuse a licence accordingly. The new regime will allow much more discretion, as they will enable the Department to understand the operator’s situation, talk to them and make it easier for them to comply. The Department will not merely say yes or no; it will work with operators so that we can help them to comply, rather than continuing with the current shall or shall not scenario.

125. The Chairperson: Thank you.

126. Mr Boylan: I missed your first presentation on the proposed Bill. I would like some clarity on some of the issues. You said that approximately 13,300 operators are not affiliated to key stakeholders. How many of them have you been in contact with? How will you consult with them? Will you advertise a consultation process? How will you address that issue?

127. Mr D Armstrong: We will hold a series of industry briefings between 19 February and 18 March, and we will add others as necessary. This week, we will mail every registered keeper of a goods vehicle in Northern Ireland, informing them about the changes and about the industry briefings. We will tell them about the information that is on our website so that they can look at that if they are unable to attend the briefings. By the middle to the end of March, everyone who owns a goods vehicle will have been contacted, and everyone will be aware of the nature of the proposals.

128. Mr Boylan: OK. Are the 2,500 licensed goods vehicles that you mentioned owned by the major road hauliers?

129. Mr D Armstrong: It could be that a road haulier owns only one vehicle. As long as they are carrying goods for somebody else, they have to be licensed, but the consultation will include the major road hauliers.

130. Mr Boylan: There are approximately 13,000 more operators who will be subject to the proposed new arrangements. What financial impact will the requirement for a licence have on them? Have you nailed that down yet?

131. Mr D Armstrong: We have provided the Committee with information on the three different types of fees that will be charged. They will be based on operators who have one, three, or 10 vehicles. We talked a little bit at the previous meeting about the impact that that will have. Operators will no longer be able to park their vehicles on the roadside; those who park their vehicles on the street will have to find somewhere off-road. In many cases, they may find somewhere to park for free. In other cases, they may have to pay. The range of fees may be quite dramatic. In our series of seminars and when we talk to people, we will hope to tie down some idea of what that will mean; we do not currently have a ballpark figure of the potential impact that that will have.

132. Vehicles should be maintained anyway to keep them safe. We therefore do not look on maintenance costs as an extra cost to the industry.

133. Mr Boylan: Do the operators that I am talking about currently pay anything?

134. Mr D Armstrong: They are not paying anything to the Department; they are completely unregulated.

135. Mr T Clarke: You presentation states that the overall purpose of the Bill will be that it:

“places a requirement on all operators of goods vehicles of weight over 3·5 Tonnes to have an operators licence for those vehicles.”

136. Is that smaller than a rigid lorry?

137. Mr D Armstrong: It could include some rigid lorries.

138. Mr T Clarke: Rigid lorries weigh seven tons.

139. Mr D Armstrong: They weigh between seven tons and seven and a half tons.

140. Mr T Clarke: Where does the three and a half ton weight start? I am concerned that a weight requirement of three and a half tons will allow regulation of large vans.

141. Mr D Armstrong: The legislation would cover large vans. The Transit van and the Mercedes van, for example, weigh less three and a half tons. Large vans would be subject to the legislation.

142. Mr T Clarke: Is the legislation for Transit vans the same in England and the Republic of Ireland?

143. Mr D Armstrong: In the Republic of Ireland, only the hire-for-award sector is regulated, but that is done on the same weight basis. The same weight basis applies to the Republic of Ireland as it does to Northern Ireland and GB. The Republic of Ireland is similar to Northern Ireland in that it regulates only the hire-for-award sector, not the own-account sector.

144. Mr I McCrea: The fee comparison table that you have provided to the Committee refers to a grant. Is that paid by the Department?

145. Mr D Armstrong: A fee is paid when an application is made. When the licence is granted, the remainder of the fee is paid. The grant refers to the second part of the fee that operators pay on the granting of the licence. It is not a fee that the Department pays to the operator.

146. Mr I McCrea: That clarifies what I was asking. The table shows that the grant is added to the total, and I was not able to see how that could have been a grant that was paid to the operators.

147. Mr Ford: I want to follow up on Mr Clarke’s point. I run a small business in Lisnaskea, and I have a couple of lorries on the road, on my own account. I am about to open —

148. The Chairperson: Is this a hypothetical situation?

149. Mr Ford: It is entirely hypothetical. I am expanding my business by opening a shop in Clones, and I have decided to base my lorries there. Given that those lorries travel all over County Fermanagh, who will regulate me in the future?

150. Mr D Armstrong: If you are based in Northern Ireland, you will be required to have an operator’s licence.

151. Mr Ford: That was not the question. The question was: who will regulate me when my lorries are based in Clones?

152. Mr D Armstrong: If you base those lorries in Clones, they will not be part of a Northern Ireland regulatory regime.

153. Mr Ford: As I understand it, the Republic has no plans to regulate.

154. Mr D Armstrong: That is correct.

155. Mr Ford: Say that I run a business in Antrim, and I have decided to open a depot in Clones. What happens then?

156. Mr D Armstrong: The same rules will apply.

157. Mr Ford: What is the point of the regulation in that case?

158. Mr D Armstrong: The point is to ensure that all goods vehicles in Northern Ireland are subject to an operator’s licence so that there is better compliance with road safety, fairness of industry and environmental centres in Northern Ireland. The only vehicles that will be on a Northern Ireland operator’s licence are those that are registered in the United Kingdom. Vehicles that are registered in Clones will not be on a Northern Ireland operator’s licence.

159. Mr Ford: Given that we have seen that a large number of road-haulage vehicles are registered in the Republic, despite being run by firms that traditionally have been based in Northern Ireland, why should we assume that the same will not happen with people who operate on their own account and who can get the same financial benefits from a potentially bogus address in the Republic? Firms can operate across the border because of free trade in goods and services across the EU.

160. The Chairperson: That is an interesting point. The legislation could lead to displacement of businesses, particularly in the border areas. I know that that has happened in other sectors.

161. If people perceive that there has been an increase in red tape, there will be a displacement of businesses and potential economic implications. Unless the policy is adopted in an all-island context, it will have implications.

162. Mr D Armstrong: We met with our counterparts in Dublin last week, and we talked through our proposals with them. We asked them what their proposals are, and they have no plans to license the own-account sector of the industry.

163. Mr T Clarke: To use your own word, can you demonstrate where the fairness is in that? You said that you are trying to introduce a fair system. At the previous meeting, I brought up the point that vehicles in the Republic of Ireland operate under a different system.

164. Mr D Armstrong: The fairness applies to the industry in Northern Ireland. At the moment in Northern Ireland, one quarter of the industry is regulated and pays a regulatory fee. Three quarters of the industry is unregulated. The fairness comes in in that we must try to enforce over the whole industry the required standards of roadworthiness.

165. The Chairperson: The big problem is that the economy is not sited purely in a Northern Ireland context. There are implications for business. Everybody in this room knows that businessmen or businesswomen make business decisions; many of us have encountered such decisions. If there is a perception of a difficulty, or of increased red tape — which does not exist two or three miles down the road — that will influence their decisions on where to locate their businesses.

166. Mr D Armstrong: At the previous meeting, I pointed out that the licensing fees will not have what you might call a major impact. In that sense, if a business is in operation, the cost of fees to the Department should not have a significant impact on that business. That remains to be teased out in the impact assessments.

167. There may be an impact on what operators who currently park their vehicles at their houses or on the roadside have to pay, depending on whether they have to pay for an operating centre. Again, those fees might not have a great impact. In Northern Ireland there will be an impact on those who pay a licence fee and those who do not.

168. Mr Ford: I applaud what you are trying to do. However, to take that last example, if a lorry that is parked in an Antrim housing estate has a Monaghan registration, there is nothing that the Department can do about it, as I understand it.

169. Mr Gallagher: Most of them have such registrations.

170. The Chairperson: Do you want to pick up on that point, Tommy?

171. Mr Gallagher: That was the very point that I wanted to make.

172. Mr D Armstrong: If an operator has a licence in Northern Ireland, his vehicle must be registered here. The Northern Ireland operators licence will not cover Southern vehicles. As I pointed out at the previous meeting, the vehicles must be registered in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA). Vehicles from the Republic of Ireland are treated as foreign vehicles. If an operator wants to operate from a centre in the South, that is completely outwith the proposed legislation.

173. Mr Ford: I would like to see what is being suggested. When we see the statistics — 40% of vehicles are not roadworthy and 18% have tachograph offences — we can all sympathise with the Department’s view that something must be done. However, unless measures are being taken in conjunction with the authorities in the Republic, their road-safety value will be minimal.

174. Mr T Clarke: That applies to enforcement as well.

175. Mr Boylan: Is Mr Ford calling for an all-island policy?

176. Mr Ford: No. I am calling for co-ordination between the two jurisdictions.

177. Mr Boylan: Coming from a border constituency, I would like to think that Mr Ford was suggesting —

178. Mr Ford: I thought that even Trevor was calling for co-ordinated action between two separate jurisdictions.

179. Mr Boylan: An all-island policy would be a very good idea.

180. Mr T Clarke: I do not see any purpose to the whole legislation; its introduction will inhibit the entire freight business in Northern Ireland. If there were proper enforcement in Northern Ireland, the Department could detect more illegal operations and could penalise those who act illegally, as opposed to penalising all business, including legitimate ones.

181. Mr D Armstrong: Do you want me to respond to that?

182. The Chairperson: Yes, please do.

183. Mr D Armstrong: The regulation of the industry is self-funding, so the funding that comes into the industry, through regulation, is used for enforcement. We take funding from only one quarter of the industry; therefore, it is hardly fair to try to regulate the roadworthiness standard of the whole of Northern Ireland freight industry by taking a fee from only one section of it. That is where fairness comes in. If we regulate the whole industry, it is obvious that there will be much more money for better enforcement. I am not here to defend the enforcement situation at the moment — that is not the issue — I am trying to demonstrate that, by regulating the whole industry, we will have much greater ability and more enforcement powers available to us to improve the industry in Northern Ireland.

184. Enforcement will apply to foreign vehicles, not just to Northern Ireland vehicles. Any vehicle that is on the road in Northern Ireland will be subject to our enforcement regime.

185. Mr T Clarke: Are you saying that there is no money in the kitty to allow for proper enforcement in Northern Ireland? Are you saying that a self-funding licence is required to fund the operation to ascertain to what extent vehicles are breaking the law in Northern Ireland?

186. Mr D Armstrong: What I am saying is that by implementing the proposed measures, we will have much more funding for enforcement.

187. Mr Ford: Has the anticipated income that will result from the proposed new regulations been estimated? Furthermore, has the potential loss of income that will result if some people decide to register across the border been estimated?

188. Mr D Armstrong: We have not estimated any potential loss of income if people register across the border.

189. Regarding the income that may result from the regulation of the industry, in the past week we have bottomed out the number of vehicles and operators. We will be able to calculate the income on the basis of the fees that we have presented. However, the breakdown of how those fees are used for administration, enforcement and so on has not yet been calculated. Such issues will be subject to assessment.

190. Mr I McCrea: Will you clarify what you meant by farm vehicles?

191. Mr B Armstrong;

192. I thought that he said “foreign vehicles”.

193. Mr T Clarke: To expand on that point, foreign contractors who work in the agriculture and environment sector have already been penalised. Will they be subject to the new regulations, or will they be treated differently because they work as contractors rather than for their own business purposes?

194. Mr D Armstrong: The regulations do not include vehicles that are used in the agriculture sector; they are for people carrying out freight work. However, there will be a list of exemptions.

195. Mr T Clarke: Can we expand on that? Those farm vehicles are now supposed to be running on clear diesel because they are carrying out contract work as opposed to agricultural work, even though it is contract work in the agriculture sector.

196. Mr D Armstrong: If they are carrying out contract work they will be subject to the regulations. Tractors will be exempt.

197. Mr B Armstrong: How do define a tractor?

198. The Chairperson: Can you clarify which agricultural and/or farm vehicles will be exempted in the proposal?

199. Mr D Armstrong: Our base document will be the exemptions that currently operate in GB. Tractors, including agricultural tractors, are currently exempt there. The definition is unclear. However, we may have our own variations.

200. Mr T Clarke: What do contractors want? Agricultural contractors as opposed to —

201. Mr D Armstrong: Are you referring to people who use freight vehicles?

202. Mr T Clarke: I am referring to people who carry out contract work for various farmers using fast-track tractors that have dump trailers. For example, someone who cuts silage for 20 or 30 farmers as opposed to for himself.

203. The Chairperson: Can we assume that tractors are completely exempt, irrespective of the context in which they are working?

204. Mr D Armstrong: My mind is going round as to whether we are talking about size of tractors. Tractors are exempt.

205. The Chairperson: Therefore, are tractors exempt for the purpose of agricultural contracting and other agricultural use?

206. Mr D Armstrong: Yes.

207. Mr B Armstrong: Tractors have two roles during the year. They can be used as agricultural tractors to work with silage or slurry at one time of the year, and they can then be used on a building site at another time of the year.

208. Mr D Armstrong: That is a difficult issue. The current problem is that an agricultural tractor is a construction tractor. I will come back to you on that point, because it is not clear.

209. The Chairperson: Perhaps you should; it deserves a bit more clarification.

210. Do any members wish to add anything?

211. Mr B Armstrong: When you are clarifying what happens with tractors, please remember to include their trailers.

212. The Chairperson: The Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, which are at the top of the list of key stakeholders that you provided, will be interested in the topic. The Department has said that there is a fair degree of agreement among some, if not all, the stakeholders. Would it be appropriate to invite those two stakeholders to discuss the proposed Bill? However, some of the issues that we have discussed today need to be teased out further.

213. I thank the witnesses for attending and for their presentation.

214. Mr T Clarke: I ask that the Ulster Farmers’ Union be added to that list of stakeholders, in case it has a view on the matter. The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA) should also be added; we could add it to the bottom of the list and rule it out if necessary.

215. Mr Ford: The departmental officials may return and say that farmers are not at all affected. However, they seemed a little unclear about that.

216. Mr B Armstrong: I should add that farmers’ machines are classified according to what they are doing.

217. Mr Boylan: There are 13,300 unaffiliated operators. May we have a breakdown of that figure? I am sure that some firms have 10, 20 or 30 vehicles that may not be affiliated. That point should be researched.

218. The Chairperson: Do you mean that they are not affiliated to the stakeholder organisations?

219. Mr Boylan: Some 2,500 appear to be involved in major road haulage. There may be firms with 10, 12, 15 or 20 vehicles that may not be affiliated to those organisations. We need a breakdown of the statistics.

220. The Chairperson: I am sure that the Department can establish that.

221. Mr T Clarke: What I hear today is alarming. Large Transit vans, a man on his own who is on hire, for example, working for a parcel delivery service, will now be expected to have a licence. To refer to what was said at the previous meeting, he will also need a yard for keeping his vehicles. Many of those people run small, one-man businesses from their houses. Can we tie their hands by expecting them to buy yards?

222. The Committee Clerk: Has the Committee agreed that those first two sets of witnesses be invited to begin with?

223. Members indicated assent.

224. Mr B Armstrong: The only reason that this matter is policed is because a fee is charged. Had they not charged a fee in the first place, they would not now have to police it. There is no money to do it.

225. The Chairperson: That is what I said. Many issues have arisen for consideration.

226. We have agreed a course of action for the next meeting.

3 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithí McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Gerry Fleming Ms Joan Williams Mr Tom Wilson

Freight Transport Association

227. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Boylan): The Committee will now hear evidence from the Freight Transport Association (FTA) on the draft goods vehicle licensing of operators Bill as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny.

228. Mr Wilson, you and your colleagues are welcome to this morning’s Committee meeting.

229. Mr Tom Wilson (Freight Transport Association): Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide evidence to the Committee. You have received notes on the background to the Freight Transport Association, which is a large trade organisation. I have been in the industry most of my life. For the past five years, I have represented the Freight Transport Association in Northern Ireland. Gerry Fleming is the fleet manager for Belfast City Council, which operates one of the largest fleets of commercial vehicles in Northern Ireland. Joan Williams is the head of road freight policy for the FTA in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and she helps our members to deal with legislation as it is introduced.

230. I will run through the briefing paper that I submitted this morning, which explains the purpose of our presence here today, and I am aware of the time limitations.

231. The Department of the Environment (DOE) had consultations in 1991, 1998 and 2003 on its proposals to introduce full operator licensing for Northern Ireland commercial vehicle operators. The consultations were issued to over 2,000 operators in 2003, and DOE stated its intention to introduce primary legislation by 2005, but, dealing with direct rule Ministers, that was never achieved.

232. The DOE, supported by the Freight Transport Association, subsequently conducted eight roadshow presentations throughout Northern Ireland during February and March 2008, providing comprehensive information to all commercial vehicle operators, which detailed the reasons for introducing the new legislation in the Assembly. The DOE wrote to the registered keepers of all 35,000 commercial vehicles weighing over 3·5 tonnes, inviting them to attend those information meetings. They were very well attended, with a huge turnout, and there was very positive feedback to those meetings.

233. There is now a strong expectation in all sections of the freight transport industry and its users for the Assembly to urgently address the passage of the Bill, because operators in Northern Ireland have a poor record in terms of road safety. The industry would be supportive of action taken by the Assembly. There is an immediate need to raise the image of the road freight transport sector through education and better regulation, and there should be no further delay in introducing the legislative process.

234. I underline again the importance of the local supply chain, which is essential to everything, from having a newspaper delivered, to going to a restaurant or working on a farm. None of that could happen without road freight transport. We rely entirely on it.

235. The review of the transport industry in Northern Ireland addresses the following needs: to improve road safety and operational standards; to raise the image of the industry, which is very low and does not attract young people to work in it; to improve its poor reputation; to make the business sector a desirable place to work in, because we are looking for inward investment and increased employment opportunities, and if our image is tarnished in road transport, that will not help; to ensure fair competition; and to help reduce criminality. Those are the key reasons why we feel that the Bill must be introduced now.

236. Let us look at how the standards of operators in Northern Ireland are rated against the rest of Europe. Statistically, the worst three countries in Europe are Romania, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, with German- and British-registered heavy-goods vehicles being the safest vehicles on the road. Department of Transport statistics illustrate that the roadworthiness condition of visiting vehicles, and their drivers’ non-compliance with the rules on drivers’ hours, presents a significant road-safety risk. Hence, vehicles from this island are regularly targeted when they visit GB.

237. The industry urgently needs to improve its reputation with the outside world, therefore better regulation must now be a top priority for the Assembly — especially after the recent findings that, out of 40 roadside school-bus inspections carried out by DOE enforcement, 17 buses were issued with immediate prohibitions, and a further 10 were issued with delayed prohibitions.

238. The next issue is to improve road safety and operational standards. Out of all the inspections carried out by the DOE road safety policy branch in 2007 — both at the roadside and by visiting premises — it was found that 40% of the vehicles inspected were in an unroadworthy condition, and 30% were given immediate prohibitions. There were 26,267 vehicles tested at the 15 test stations in 2007, and the submission we have provided for the Committee gives the figures of the fail rates. Those tell us that no one is really trying very hard to work to get their vehicles passed first time. We believe that, in the absence of full operator licensing in Northern Ireland, operators are not paying enough attention to the condition of their vehicles, and are not preparing their vehicles.

239. If all operators in Northern Ireland were required, as part of their licence acquisition, to undertake to carry out safety inspections at specified intervals, and ensure drivers carry out pre-use checks, the detection levels of non-compliance would be significantly less, and our roads would be much safer. That system has been in place in GB for 40 years, and it has the best record for vehicle roadworthiness in Europe.

240. Moving to the issue of parity with the Republic, InterTrade Ireland’s ‘Freight Transport Report for the Island of Ireland’, published in March 2008 concludes with a recommendation:

“To co-operate North-South and East-West to regulate and support the freight industry”.

241. The report states:

“There should be a joint approach to the licensing of commercial vehicles and enforcement of Vehicle Standards.”

242. It notes that the present situation creates many difficulties for companies operating across the whole of Ireland, as well as those that travel to and from Scotland, England and Wales and suggests that it is, therefore, a topic that might usefully be considered by the transport sector of the British-Irish Council.

243. The Road Safety Authority (RSA), which is a section of the Irish Department of Transport, commissioned a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled ‘Commercial Vehicle Testing Review’. That report, which was published in 2007, contains 25 recommendations, the majority of which require immediate attention. Improvement 24 notes that:

“A commonly held view amongst stakeholders interviewed is that all operators of commercial vehicles should be licensed, irrespective of whether they are used for ‘own account’ or ‘hire and reward’ activities.”

244. The Irish Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, announced on 8 February 2008 that he approved the RSA proposals with a requirement that the measures be implemented within the shortest possible timescale.

245. The cost of road-safety regulation is currently borne entirely by the hire and reward transport sector. Some 35,000 commercial vehicles over 3·5 tonnes are registered in Northern Ireland. Only one fifth, or 7,000, of those are operated by the hire and reward sector and are subject to current operator licensing. The remaining 28,000 are operated by the own account sector and are not subject to the same regulations. Therefore, it is unfair that the hire and reward sector should have to bear the cost of all road-safety enforcement.

246. It is important to ensure fair competition. Three areas of unfair competition currently exist. First, there is the issue of overloading. The enforcement bodies’ findings revealed that commercial vehicles are often overloaded by as much as 25% over the legal carrying weight. Not only does that make the use of the vehicle unsafe — vehicles are designed to carry only the weight for which they are constructed — it also has an adverse effect on the condition of our roads and can lead to excessive wearing down of the road surfaces.

247. An example about the overloading issue that I often use involves the consideration of a working week — five working days. A person who overloads every day will be finished his work by Thursday. However, a person who is working legally will not finish his work until Friday. That is how bad it is.

248. The second issue of unfair competition involves drivers’ hours. There was evidence in the findings of widespread abuse of the EU drivers’ hours’ regulations with drivers not taking the appropriate rest breaks.

249. Thirdly, there is an issue about unroadworthy vehicles, which appears to be the most common infringement as many operators continue to work their vehicle until it breaks down — there is no preventative maintenance.

250. All such activities result in unfair competition for both the own account and the hire and reward industry. Full operator licensing will go a long way to reduce the levels of non-compliance and infringements, and ensure fair competition. The high annual test fail rate costs operators more money, it delays the appointment of waiting times, and it creates resource problems for the DOE test centres.

251. There is a need to reduce criminality. There is a high proportion of illegal trading of fuel, which I have talked about. It is immoral for criminals to be permitted to continue with those activities. The introduction of full operator licensing will go a long way in enabling the enforcement authorities to detect and apprehend those involved.

252. In conclusion, in order to become one of the best vehicle operators in Europe, Northern Ireland must aspire to raise vehicle operator standards through a continuous improvement process. The Freight Transport Association urges the Committee for the Environment to write to the Minister, Arlene Foster, to progress the legislative process without further delay.

253. It is our understanding that a slot has been allocated. The issue has been well consulted, the industry is waiting for the legislation to be introduced, and we would be happy if the Committee were able to ensure that that happens without further delay.

254. Mr Weir: Thank you for your presentation. You have made a cogent argument in favour of the legislation. It is obvious that there are higher standards of regulation across the water. It is also clear that the Republic of Ireland is moving in the direction of having a much greater degree of proper regulation. It is important that Northern Ireland is not left in some sort of black hole.

255. It is also important that the majority of transport providers, who operate in a responsible fashion, are given a level playing field and that they are not undercut by unfair competition. The Committee has touched on that issue on a number of occasions, and it has serious road safety implications. It is very dangerous for drivers to exceed the legal limit on their working hours or for vehicles which are not roadworthy to be used. If there is an accident involving freight transport, it is much more likely to be fatal because of the size of the vehicles concerned.

256. You mentioned that the Department has been involved in consultation through roadshows. As far as you know, what was the industry’s reaction to these proposals? What was the level of response at the roadshows?

257. Mr T Wilson: The response was very positive. Firms asked questions about how the new regulations would affect them. Without exception, the feedback was positive. There is great concern that almost 50% of the vehicles, on roads that we travel every day, are not roadworthy. The Department provided statistics and illustrated that it has little power at present to deal with those illegal operators. The fines for illegal drivers’ hours are relatively small. If we compare the Northern Ireland legislation to that which has been running for 40 years in GB, we find that operators there are very fearful of falling foul of the authorities because the ultimate sanction is the removal of their licence and closure of their business after two or three instances.

258. The message that came back is that the industry is getting very poor rates for its services, that there is oversupply in the industry and that the way to tidy that up is through better regulation. Everyone must conform to the same standards and a level playing field should be created.

259. Mr Weir: Presumably, if regulation is spread right across the field, it will generate more money that can be used for enforcement. The Department will at once create the level playing field for enterprises and the safety of everyone can be enhanced.

260. Mr Fleming: The member is correct. What we are looking for is consistency across the panel. We have identified what is happening in Southern Ireland. The member has mentioned a key point. Earlier, we discussed finance and how these changes will be supported. The flow of revenue from the organisation to enforce the legislation would be self-perpetuating. That is important: it is a key area in finance.

261. It is most important to have transparency right across the board, throughout Great Britain, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, to show that we are adhering to the regulations, both in the transfer of information and the transportation of freight.

262. Mr T Clarke: How many members has the Freight Transport Association? What organisations are affiliated and roughly how many members does each have? From your presentation, it seems that the association is in favour of the introduction of the legislation. However, I understand that the association strongly opposes the proposal to maintain an annual road freight vehicle licence.

263. Ms Williams: Let me explain: we oppose not so much the concept of licensing, but the ways that fees are charged and the administration process. The system will demand that a licence must be applied for every year. There is also the road-freight operator’s licence, but the actual vehicle disc has to be applied for every year. We do not oppose the licensing system, but the processes and the administration requirements of the system. I do not know what wording the member has before him, but I understand the concept because I was part of the discussion on that issue.

264. Basically, we oppose the administration and the process that is currently in place that operators must go through every year in order to apply for the disc.

265. In comparison, the system in GB allows continuous licensing for five years, at the end of which there is a review process. The operators are asked to confirm that they are still compliant with the financial standing qualifications, and so on, and their licences continue to be valid. The operators do not actually have to apply for a new licence every five years, nor do they have to apply every year for a specific vehicle disc. We oppose the process, rather than the principles, of licensing.

266. Mr T Wilson: There are 14,000 commercial vehicle operators in the UK and Ireland. The total number of commercial vehicles on the roads is 440,000. Our members operate over 250,000 of those, a large percentage of which operate in Northern Ireland. We have approximately 350 members in Northern Ireland. The FTA has lobbied for licensing for the last 15 years, and we are absolutely behind the proposed legislation, because our members believe that it will create a level playing field. Our members feel that the enforcement authorities lack the ability to take strong measures against those who regularly flout the law in the three areas that I described — overloading, drivers’ hours and unroadworthy vehicles. It is so bad that it allows those operators to undercut rates. Therefore our members are behind the proposals, without any doubt.

267. Mr T Clarke: Is your organisation the largest one for drivers?

268. Mr T Wilson: The FTA is multi-modal; it covers road, rail, sea and air transport, and it has many members that are not vehicle operators, but manufacturing companies. They do not physically operate vehicles, but they are members of the FTA because transport is critical. The other organisation is the Road Haulage Association, which is not as large as the FTA, but it specifically looks after the hire-and-reward sector; its members are road-haulage contractors.

269. Mr T Clarke: Do you have a rough figure of how many members it represents in Northern Ireland, as opposed to your 350 members?

270. Mr T Wilson: The Road Haulage Association is not based here. It covers Northern Ireland from Scotland. However, I understand that it has about the same number of members as the FTA. Many of our members are also members of that association. The Road Haulage Association was present at the eight roadshows at which we presented. The FTA and the Road Haulage Association present a very united front in their attempts to convince the Committee that it is important that the legislation goes through without further delay.

271. Mr Ford: Thank you, Tom and your colleagues, for that presentation, which was extremely useful in setting out some of the circumstances, particularly the road-safety issues. Perhaps the Committee should look at that issue on a wider scale, including the work that was done previously on school buses, for example.

272. You will be aware that officials from the Department of the Environment came to the Committee a few weeks ago. On that occasion, I took the line that I wished to see the highest possible standards in Northern Ireland. I was concerned that there seemed to be nothing happening with regard to regulation in the Republic, and that operators in the Republic could, in effect, be used in Northern Ireland in order to get around the proposals.

273. You said specifically that, on 8 February 2008, the Minister in the Republic announced that he approved of the recommendations. Therefore, do you envisage any obstacle to the two jurisdictions implementing broadly similar legislation quickly?

274. Mr T Wilson: We certainly do not want to be left behind the Republic. We are heartened by the fact that the Republic has made that announcement. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report was lengthy, and, during its production, PricewaterhouseCoopers visited GB and investigated how the system works there. It compared that system to the one in Northern Ireland, and it went to the Road Safety Authority, because the Republic’s road-safety record is worse than Northern Ireland’s. The Republic’s Minister for Transport said publicly, through a press release, that he wants the measures to go ahead without further delay.

275. With regard to our ability to work through the North/South Ministerial Council, I suggest that that is one important area where, through the Committee and the Ministers, we can work towards trying to ensure that the measures that are introduced are as similar as possible.

276. Many of our members cross the border daily, and the last thing we want is for there to be widely differing sets of regulations South and North — that would simply create further confusion. We can see no reason why the Republic’s measures should be any different from those that are applied here.

277. Mr Ford: You highlighted issues such as overloading, drivers’ hours and unroadworthy vehicles. Is there any significant difference between the safety standards for the minority of vehicles that are hire and reward and those for own-account operators, given that the hire-and-reward sector is supposed to be subjected to a more stringent regime?

278. Mr T Wilson: The regulations in the hire-and-reward sector are such that a driver must give an undertaking to keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition when applying for a licence. That differs from the regulations in GB in that, in GB, a driver must specifically state the frequency of safety inspections when applying for a licence. That provision is not included in the current legislation for the hire-and-reward sector here, and we strongly recommend that it be included.

279. You asked about finding out how many in the own-account sector fall within that poor category. DOE has not given us those figures, and we have been told that it occurs across the board. I suspect that if drivers in the hire-and-reward sector who travel cross-channel regularly want to ensure that their journeys are not impeded by the authorities, they will make an effort to ensure that their vehicles are roadworthy. However, the own-account operators who work within the North will not be subject to that same scrutiny. If those vehicles are found to be not roadworthy, the authorities can do very little about it. They cannot revoke or suspend drivers’ licences, because they do not have a licence.

280. Mr Ford: The figures for roadside tests show that 40% of vehicles are unroadworthy, and that, even in annual testing, over 30% are unroadworthy. Have you any figures that show how Northern Ireland compares with GB in that respect?

281. Ms Williams: I have not prepared the statistics on roadworthiness, but I can certainly send them to the Committee without delay because they are published regularly by the Vehicle and Operator services Agency (VOSA). There are statistics on foreign vehicles, or non-GB vehicles, from April to December 2007. Of the total number of non-UK vehicles that were prohibited, HGV vehicles accounted for 46·3% and trailers accounted for 52·3%. The figures for Northern Ireland for January to December last year show that of the total number prohibited, HGV vehicles accounted for 39·98%, while trailers accounted for 58·8%. I can provide the Committee with the GB statistics later, but I can say that they are substantially lower than those for visiting vehicles.

282. Mr Ford: It would be very helpful if you could forward them to the Committee.

283. Ms Williams: I can certainly do that.

284. Mr T Wilson: My understanding is that the figure is around 10%; it is very much less than the mainland. One of the key reasons for that is that, in GB, performance at the annual operator test is recorded on a database, and that information is made available to roadside enforcement officers when they check vehicles. Thus, drivers in GB have even more of an incentive to ensure that they pass the test first time. However, it seems that drivers here are not trying very hard to pass the test, and their performances are not logged against their driver details. That GB system is called operator compliance risk-scoring and has been in operation for a couple of years. We understand that DOE would like to introduce such a system here.

285. Mr Gallagher: I thank the witnesses for their interesting presentation. You mentioned the figure of 28,000 drivers.

286. Mr T Wilson: Yes, that is the number of drivers in the own-account sector.

287. Mr Gallagher: It seems that at present, until enforcement officers are available who will pull vehicles over and examine whether they are defective, vehicles in your sector will be tested and certification issued. Is that correct?

288. Mr T Wilson: All of the 35,000 vehicles — 7,000 hire-and-reward vehicles and 28,000 own-account vehicles — are subjected to the same annual PSV MOT test. Once the MOT certificate is issued, it is only good for that day. From the next day, the standard of that vehicle declines at a certain rate depending on its usage. The system that applies in GB is that the onus is on operators; whether they belong to the hire-and-reward sector or own-account sector, to have six- or eight-weekly safety inspections in order to examine all items that are subject to wear. They must stick to that plan rigidly. There is no such plan here. The legislation will require operators to undertake those six- or eight-weekly safety inspections.

289. Mr Gallagher: Thank you for that clarification. Do you believe that the legislation should embrace all heavy-goods vehicles that are on the roads in the way that all vehicles in the hire-and-reward sector are covered at present? Would that make a significant contribution to road safety? If you believe so, I would be interested to know whether there will be financial implications, as there are with everything else. I would not want operators whose businesses are small to have to pay huge fees. However, if that would make a significant contribution to road safety, I certainly believe that the legislation should be all-embracing, provided that there were not serious financial penalties for smaller operators.

290. Mr T Wilson: That question is typical of those that were asked at the eight roadshows; such as what the cost would be for small operators who, perhaps, have only one vehicle that goes out once or twice a week and has little mileage. The cost per year of holding a licence is between £130 and £150. It is a five-year licence, so that is not a huge amount of money. The business of taking a vehicle out on the road, whether it is going out on the road one day a year, or is double-shifted and on the road 24 hours a day, is that, at all times, regardless of the activity, and in the interests of road safety, all of those vehicles should be roadworthy. The operator has responsibility to ensure that before a vehicle leaves the yard, the driver has checked whether it is safe to take on the road. Anything other than that is totally inexcusable.

291. Mr Gallagher: Therefore, you believe that the legislation should apply to everybody.

292. Ms Williams: Operators with fewer vehicles will pay less because fees are structured on the terms of the application and the grant fee per vehicle. Therefore, if someone has only one vehicle, that person will pay less than someone who has 10 or 50 vehicles. Therefore, fees are structured in a way that will prevent small businesses being severely affected.

293. Mr McKay: I thank Tom and his colleagues for their presentation. Tom, you explained to the Committee why it is important that the legislation is introduced as soon as possible. On that point, I believe that it is important that there is fair competition and a level playing field. I am aware of cases in which workers have had their rights abused and been forced to work lengthy hours. That will continue the longer that we drag the process out. How widespread are breaches of European legislation and directives on working hours?

294. Mr T Wilson: Such breaches are extremely widespread. From the feedback that I am getting from our members, I understand that they are unable to get good rates, they have to pay for the increased cost of diesel, they have to pass the increase in rates to their members and are then told that someone else can do it cheaper. How are other operators doing it cheaper? They are using subcontractors to do work that they would not undertake because getting caught would be harmful to them.

295. The majority of the industry is keen that roadside enforcement is ruthless on drivers who work outside the EU regulations. Breaches of those regulations are widespread, and, despite the keenness of the enforcement officers, their powers are limited. Stricter enforcement would make the situation fair for everyone. The enforcement officers will only have to set up shop at the ferry ports to ensure that a message is sent that there are regular inspections. Once that message gets through, it will soon be adhered to.

296. If operators who employ subcontractors and encourage such practice are caught, the matter should go back to their door not just the driver’s. That will jeopardise their licence. The enforcement officers will only knock on the door of operators who break the law two or three times. They then face being shut down if they do not conform. Many of our members would be keen on that because it would enable them to run a proper business safely.

297. Mr McKay: Are there any possible loopholes? When you say the operator do you mean the company name or an individual? For example, if operators lose their licence can they get another licence under a different company name?

298. Mr T Wilson: No, because the checks on the issuing of operator licences is a thorough process: applicants must give an undertaking of their good repute, and, if they have past records of poor repute that are declared, they will not be given a licence. If they are given a licence and are subsequently found to have lied, the licence will be immediately revoked.

299. Ms Williams: At the same time as revoking a licence, we can disqualify the company or its directors from holding another licence. Therefore, the penalties are quite severe. In GB, some of the less reputable operators do not fear the courts because they are happy to pay the fines. However, they have a greater fear of losing their operator’s licence, which makes it a significant penalty that will make operators conform and ensure that they run roadworthy vehicles.

300. Mr Fleming: The licence is registered to the individual rather than the company. Therefore, once it is lost, it is lost forever.

301. Mr McKay: You said that the standards in Britain and Germany are very high. Are breaches still a major problem in those countries? Can you give the Committee an indication of the extent of the problem in comparison to other countries?

302. Mr T Wilson: There is a league table that lists every European country, of which Romania, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are bottom. To get on the league table, 50 inspections must have been carried out in the particular snapshot. In drivers’ hours/prohibition rate, the UK has been 8%, Austria 31%, Czech Republic 16%, Eire 35·8%, France 6·3%, Germany 31%, Hungary 25%, Lithuania 16% and Romania 40%.

303. Mr T Clarke: You missed Northern Ireland.

304. Mr T Wilson: Northern Ireland is 25%, Hungary 25%, Slovenia 30%, Romania 40%; GB 7·52%, and Italy 25%.

305. Mr T Clarke: Could it be that enforcement is not as good in GB as it is in Northern Ireland? There are no statistics that collate accident figures, or the number of checks conducted, in England compared to Northern Ireland. Perhaps, the figures you quoted suggest that we are more proactive in Northern Ireland?

306. Mr T Wilson: An EU target of 10,000 or 20,000 inspections must be achieved every year. Those inspections comprise visits to operators’ premises and roadside inspections. A certain number of inspections must be carried out in proportion to the number of vehicles operated. Those per-thousand figures are categorised by, and based on, feedback from VOSA.

307. The Deputy Chairperson: Will you forward those figures to the Department and also send a copy to the Committee?

308. Mr T Wilson: I will do that.

309. Mr McKay: Obviously, you are familiar, in great detail, with the British model, and it is important that we learn from good practice in other countries. If we are to mirror the British model, are there any areas in which we can improve on it?

310. Mr T Wilson: In the GB model, there are some exemptions from operator licensing. However, the percentage of features in the legislation that we would want to change is small. The DOE stated at its roadshows that there are areas in the operator-licensing system that it would wish to adapt or fine-tune, because it recognises elements of the GB system with which it is not happy. The Assembly will have the opportunity to execute those changes through subordinate legislation. The DOE position is that the operator-licensing legislation in Northern Ireland will mirror that which is in place in GB; however, the opportunity exists to make improvements that are deemed to be correct.

311. Mr T Clarke: Much of what we have been discussing seems to be directed towards bigger companies. How will the requirement for operating centres affect small operators, such as individuals who work with a large transit vans?

312. Mr T Wilson: Licensing and the requirement for an operating centre will apply only to vehicles over 3·5 tonnes.

313. Mr T Clarke: Large, twin-axle transit vans are 3·5 tonnes.

314. Mr T Wilson: Considering the environment, when vehicles are not in use, we believe that it is good practice to keep them in a proper operating centre. Throughout Northern Ireland, various vehicles are kept in the middle of housing estates, and if they are coming and going in the middle of the night and early in the morning it is inconvenient to neighbours.

315. Questions about operating centres were typical of those raised at the roadshows, and the feedback was that people were concerned about the cost of finding a yard, or whether their employer would have a yard, in which to park a vehicle overnight. First and foremost, such an arrangement would help their insurance premiums. Secondly, it would certainly help relationships with their neighbours. Environmentally, it would stop diesel dripping on tarmac in housing estates. Finally, the cost to park a truck was estimated to be between £10 and £20 a week.

316. Mr T Clarke: The Department states that the Planning Service would be able to determine a premise’s suitability. Therefore, people will automatically become involved in Planning Service applications. People would first have to find a site in a suitable area, and then apply for planning permission for that site. I do not know over how many years you would have to take a £20-a-week mortgage, but it must be a long time.

317. Mr T Wilson: That interpretation is slightly different from the one that I heard from the DOE at the roadshows.

318. Mr T Clarke: That is from the Department’s comments on the expressions of concern.

319. Ms Williams: If the same system is being adopted as currently operates in GB, then an operator who already has planning consent cannot be refused entitlement to use the premises as an operating centre. However, it is not a specific requirement to have planning consent.

320. Mr T Clarke: Under the proposed Bill, if there is any variation in the operator’s circumstances — for example, if the operator has additional vehicles — then that planning consent will not stand. That will place a burden on the small operator, the man working with one or two vans, to find an operating centre, apply for planning permission and get a suitable site. In a sense, the proposed legislation will put the small operator off the road.

321. Ms Williams: My understanding, which we will check with the DOE, is that planning consent should not be required in order to get an operator’s premises authorised as an operating centre. However, if the operator has planning consent, then the DOE should not be able to refuse to authorise the premises as an operating centre, but that can be clarified.

322. The Deputy Chairperson: We will have to clarify that with the Department.

323. Mr T Wilson: The DOE said that if an existing operator, someone with one or two vehicles, is able to drive the vehicle into the premises from the road, turn it at the back of the house and drive out again, then those premises would be acceptable to the DOE as an operating centre. That is what the DOE was saying to those operators.

324. Mr T Clarke: To clarify, was that the DOE Planning Service?

325. Mr T Wilson: It was the DOE road safety and vehicle standards division, which gave the impression that it had the power to grant approval for an operator centre and that the DOE Planning Service was not really involved.

326. Mr T Clarke: The situation that you described would be seen as operating a business from a residential address, which would require planning permission. If that is what the Department told you, I think that you are being misled.

327. Mr T Wilson: The Department said that if planning permission had been granted and the business was up and running, then the operator is already entitled to use the premises as an operating centre. Therefore this would not be an issue.

328. The Deputy Chairperson: We will not get into that now; we need to seek clarification from the Department.

329. Mr Gardiner: It is not a critical issue.

330. Mr Wilson, I was very impressed with your presentation, and I welcome the points made in it, particularly your association’s attitude to roadworthiness and to safety. So often we hear about accidents on roads resulting in deaths and those accidents are blamed on the road; however, I have never seen a road getting up to kill anyone — those accidents are generally caused by the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle. I wish your association every success.

331. The Deputy Chairperson: I thank the representatives of the Freight Transport Association for their presentation.

24 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr William Oliver Mr Phil Flanders

Road Haulage Association

332. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr McGlone): I welcome Mr Phil Flanders and Mr William Oliver from the Road Haulage Association. Mr Flanders is the Road Haulage Association’s director for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Mr Oliver is the national chairman of the Road Haulage Association. You are both very welcome, and the Committee thanks you for giving up your time to be with us. We are in listening mood, but we hear good reports about the progress of the Bill. Perhaps you would like to make a statement, and then Committee members will ask questions.

333. Mr Phil Flanders (Road Haulage Association): Thank you for inviting us. I do not intend to make a long statement.

334. The Road Haulage Association has supported the Bill from the outset. There is a great deal of concern in the haulage industry in Northern Ireland about some of the issues that the Bill addresses, and hauliers are keen to see the Bill become legislation as soon as possible

335. The Road Haulage Association has been involved in the education of hauliers for several years. We have had meetings with hauliers over the last few nights in an attempt to enlighten them about the effects of the Bill and what standards they will need to achieve as a result of its implementation. I have brought with me the GB ‘Guide to maintaining roadworthiness’, as the Committee may find it helpful.

336. The meetings have progressed well. Hauliers’ views have been mainly positive and many hauliers are already undertaking the necessary actions. What we need to do now is to ensure that a proper system is established so that hauliers can prove that they are doing what they say that they are doing. If hauliers or drivers receive a visit and/or inspection and their paperwork is in order it will make life much easier for the enforcement officer to investigate.

337. The substance of what we are going to say today has already been submitted in writing, and I do not want to read it out again. The best way to proceed is to take questions from members that Mr Oliver and I will be more than happy to answer.

338. Mr William Oliver (Road Haulage Association): The essence of the Bill is that own-account licensing has now been brought to the same level as professional haulage licensing. Therefore the driver who has, up to now, been exempt — or did not have to be licensed as a result of hauling his own goods — will now require to be licensed.

339. That has traditionally been a grey area, particularly in the quarry sector. Drivers working for a quarry and hauling its goods have been required to be licensed, yet a quarry owner running his own vehicles has not. The Bill should level the playing field.

340. At present, only 15% to 20% of lorries in Northern Ireland require a licence. That is because most lorries belong to the own-account sector. By licensing everyone — and requiring everyone to pay a fee to become licensed — a much greater pool of money will be created for the purposes of enforcement. That is good news for the professional haulage sector as it is particularly keen on enforcement.

341. Mr Weir: Thank you for your presentation. I agree that the legislation will create many advantages. Will the Bill improve road safety?

342. Mr Oliver: From a wider road-safety perspective, more enforcement will lead to better vehicles on the roads. There are two key elements to running a road-haulage business from a road safety point of view. The first is the roadworthiness of the vehicles; the second is ensuring that drivers comply with rest periods and tachograph and drivers’ hours legislation.

343. Statistics show that Northern Ireland is the third worst area in Europe for compliance with the rules. As a professional organisation that represents professional operators, we want the compliance level raised. We may never have the highest rates of compliance, but we want to be among the highest. Great Britain and Germany have the highest levels of compliance in Europe, whereas we are dragging along at the bottom. The only two countries in Europe with worse compliance rates than us are the Republic of Ireland and Romania.

344. Therefore more compliance with the rules and drivers ensuring that their vehicles are roadworthy will have major benefits for road safety.

345. Mr Weir: The Department’s approach will move drivers in Northern Ireland to a similar position to those in Great Britain. However, given Northern Ireland’s circumstances, small variation will be required.

346. Can we learn lessons from how the rules have been implemented in Great Britain? Should advice be given to the Department about what measures should be taken and what should be avoided? We want to ensure that the legislation is implemented as smoothly and as effectively as possible from the beginning.

347. Mr Flanders: The two most important areas are road safety and the need for all operators to compete on the same level. If operators do not look after their vehicles, it will cost them more when the vehicles break down; however, if they have preventative maintenance systems, they will benefit from lower maintenance costs. Another benefit will be that they will not be targeted as much when they go abroad, particularly to Great Britain. When the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) is conducting roadside checks, it will pick on the vehicles that it believes to be breaking the rules. I hate to say it and I do not like that it happens, but vehicles from Northern Ireland are picked on.

348. If the system changes and if links can be established with the authorities in Great Britain so that they are aware of the situation of individual hauliers, those who comply with the rules should no longer be targeted. If all the measures are implemented properly, there will be benefits.

349. Mr Weir: Operators from Northern Ireland are targeted because they are known to have the third worst compliance rate in Europe.

350. Mr Oliver: The legislation will result in two major differences between the system in Northern Ireland and that in Great Britain. The first is that we will not have a traffic commissioner as such, although a departmental official may exercise the powers of a traffic commissioner. If the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) wanted to take action against an errant operator, the case would be dealt with in-house by the Department. In Great Britain the evidence would be presented to a traffic commissioner who would make a decision on the case. We have taken soundings on that, and the industry at large does not believe that that will be a problem; it seems to be happy with the proposal.

351. The other major concern is the environmental impact.

352. In the road haulage sector in GB, environmental issues have been high on the agenda for some time. There are many aspects to environmental awareness. The one that concerns hauliers — and people operating vehicles from an operating centre in GB — is that established hauliers must advertise in local newspapers any changes, for example, to the size of the fleet. Usually, someone will object to renewal of a licence. That has caused major problems, and it is something that the Department is looking at carefully with regard to the legislation.

353. Historically, we are largely a rural economy and many small hauliers are farmers’ sons who park their lorries in the farmyard. A neighbouring farmer may sell a field, someone may build a bungalow at the end of the lane, and then an objection is lodged that lorries are being driven up and down the lane.

354. Am I striking a chord?

355. Mr Boylan: I am listening intently.

356. Mr Oliver: That has to be looked at. It is the one element of the GB interpretation that could cause problems if it was extended to Northern Ireland.

357. Mr Weir: The Department is aware of that problem and I am sure that it will take account of it.

358. Mr Flanders: It is a problem in GB where an industrial area changes use. If former docks are turned over to industrial use, there tend to be objections, even though the docks were originally intended for industrial use.

359. In England, one of our members started his business in the countryside, but five years ago 200 houses were built round him. Most of the neighbours objected to the presence of the business, and he decided to close shop because there were so many restrictions. He could not move his vehicles before 7.00 am; he was not allowed to operate them after 6.00 pm; he could not have more than 10 vehicles at once, so he decided to close the business.

360. I would not want that to happen in Northern Ireland. There must be more flexibility and understanding. If someone wants to build a house in an area where there are businesses, they should accept that those businesses may pose problems for them in the future.

361. Mr Boylan: Peter has already mentioned the point that I wanted to raise.

362. However, there is another issue: that of requiring all vehicles over 3·5 tonnes to have an operator’s licence. In some cases, people operate large vans from homes and private developments. What can we learn from England about the effect of that? Some of those vans do not fit on the driveways of homes — they are parked over the sides of footpaths. Many constituents complain to me about that sort of thing. How is that problem dealt with elsewhere? Have such operators had to move to an industrial site? There are many such operators in the North.

363. Mr Flanders: In GB, an operating centre must be specified. It will be inspected to meet certain criteria, the main one being that a vehicle must be parked off-road.

364. In some circumstances, an operator can apply for a vehicle to be parked at a driver’s house; however, a vehicle cannot be parked on a road or on a grass verge. The criteria must be met. Such permission has not been granted more than three or four times in the past 10 years.

365. In one case in Scotland, a driver’s wife had cancer and he wanted to be home every night. The haulier did not apply for an operator’s licence and he was called to a public inquiry. When the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland found out the circumstances, she explained to the haulier that if he wanted to apply for the licence, he could do so, as long as the criteria were met. The haulier succeeded in that. However, major road-safety and health-and-safety issues arise where vehicles are parked willy-nilly.

366. Mr Oliver: In the past, members may have seen even coal lorries parked alongside houses. Our view is that provided the vehicle is off-road and on private property, one should be able to live with it. However, we are totally opposed to people parking such vehicles along the side of the road or half-way up a footpath, which is worse.

367. Mr Ford: The association mainly represents people who operate for hire and reward rather than own-account operators. Given that your members would be subject to the new licensing measures, do you think that road-safety aspects of the Bill will make a difference? I do not expect you to produce statistics, but is there even anecdotal evidence that there will be safety benefits for your members?

368. Mr Oliver: You should study the report that the DVA published in the past week, which contains details of a sample survey that it conducted last summer on road worthiness in Northern Ireland. I had the privilege to be with DVA representatives when they took samples for that survey.

369. In the own-account sector, there is a great deal of non-compliance. Professional hauliers tend to do more mileage and get stopped more, which means that they tend have their vehicles inspected and looked after. However, in the own-account sector, a lorry is low on the list of priorities of a driver — it is something that he uses like a trolley to deliver stuff. The lorry is the lifeblood of a haulier.

370. The day that I went out with the DVA representatives, we stopped a small 7·5 tonner with a fridge body, which the driver was using to deliver bacon and sausages. The vehicle was in an abysmal condition — even the headlights did not work. As part of the inspection, I asked the driver whether he was worried that the headlights did not work; he replied that he never goes out in the vehicle at night. [Laughter.] That is how some people think, so there is a major problem.

371. People in the DVA will tell you that instances of vehicles with broken springs and defective breaks are an everyday occurrence, particularly in the quarry sector. The work in quarries is heavy, and the trucks are not maintained as they should be.

372. Mr Ford: How big is the issue of hauliers from Northern Ireland being stopped on roads in GB because it is assumed that they do not comply with the necessary standards? Is it an inconvenience that happens now and again or is it a major drawback?

373. Mr Oliver: That question was raised at our meeting on Tuesday night at the Templeton Hotel. At that meeting there was a respected haulier from Ballymena who has a high-profile fleet and who is one of our best members — his fleet is 99% compliant all the time. He complained bitterly about the number of times that he was stopped in GB. A gentleman from the RHA who is based in GB explained to him that VOSA operatives are target-driven, which is the problem. Due to the high number of non-compliant vehicles that come from Northern Ireland, VOSA operatives think that if they stop a vehicle registered in Northern Ireland, as opposed to a vehicle registered in Yorkshire, they have better chance of getting a hit. Unfortunately, hauliers have to live with that. The evidence is not entirely anecdotal, as most drivers tell us that they are stopped regularly. Many hauliers from Northern Ireland are compliant, but many are not.

374. Mr Ford: I would like to return to one of my hobby horses. Your presentation referred to the potential for the Republic of Ireland to introduce similar legislation — the Freight Transport Association told us that a couple of weeks ago. However, we received correspondence from the Department today that suggests that there is not much co-ordination. Some of us see a potential loophole without some co-ordination. Where did you get the information that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland were preparing to introduce similar legislation?

375. Mr Oliver: From our meetings with the Irish Road Haulage Association, we were led to believe that it was likely that they would follow the same path as us. We were informed only today that they are backing off and saying that it is too expensive and too big a legislative burden. About 70% of my haulage work is in the South of Ireland, and there is no compliance there at all.

376. You would be lucky to find that a vehicle was stopped once a year, which sets a pretty bad example. Although we are targeted, Southern drivers in GB are targeted even more. On the route across to Holyhead, VOSA regularly pulls in scores of non-compliant Irish vehicles at night and at weekends. Some of the headlines in the trade press are horrific. Irish drivers who have been driving non-stop for 30 hours on the continent have been stopped. There is a major problem, and I despair if the Southern Government have now decided to back off introducing legislation.

377. Mr Ford: I take it that the Irish Road Haulage Association agrees that legislation should be introduced.

378. Mr Oliver: Yes, very much so.

379. Mr Gardiner: I thank William and Phil for their presentation; they certainly have a wealth of knowledge on the subject. How can the Committee help with some of your difficulties?

380. Mr Oliver: We want the Committee to give the Minister every encouragement to get the legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. It is then up to the Department to decide how and when it will implement the legislation. There are many operators to be brought under a licensing regime, and that will not happen overnight.

381. Mr Gardiner: I agree. Does your association have any record of accidents that have been caused by your members? Is there a mechanism for reporting accidents that are a result of breakdown or careless driving?

382. Mr Oliver: We do not have such statistics.

383. Mr Gardiner: In the Irish Republic, are hauliers more considerate to domestic users of the roads, given that they generally pull over when they see a long trail of cars following them? That does not happen in Northern Ireland; perhaps that is a fault of the roads.

384. Mr Oliver: There is a different culture down there. In the South of Ireland, a car driver who is travelling at 40 mph will pull on to the hard shoulder to let other motorists past. That does not happen here — even a tractor would not do that. [Laughter.]

385. Mr Boylan: Thank you, Sam; I did not want to bring that up in case I was accused of bias.

386. Mr Gardiner: I would not think that you were biased.

387. Mr I McCrea: I thank the witnesses for coming. Mr Boylan said that vans that weigh more than 3·5 tons are to be subject to the regulations, and I am concerned by that. I feel that that will place an added burden on small enterprises, on which people rely for their livelihood. Vans are likely to weigh more than 3·5 tons because of their long wheel base, and similar legislation affects vans in GB. Will the legislation affect small enterprises?

388. Mr Flanders: Probably, but if vans are brought under the regime, their owners will know what to do to keep them compliant. In the long term, they will probably save money on vehicle maintenance. They will have to pay a fee, but if everyone pays — rather than only the 20% of drivers who do so at present — the fees should drop and more money will be available to ensure that all drivers are compliant. A driver of a three-and-a-half tonner is probably not earning the money that he should because of the pressure from raids. If all drivers were compliant, that driver would probably earn more, so the extra cost would not be such a burden. Under EU law, all vehicles that weigh more than 3·5 tons must have a tachograph and if those vehicles are for the purposes of hire and reward, they must have an O licence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some own-account vehicles that are supposed to carry only their own goods operate as hire-and-reward vehicles. That takes away our bread and butter. If all vehicles were compliant with the law, the situation would improve for everyone.

389. Mr Oliver: Few small businesses have vehicles that weigh between 3·5 tons and 7·5 tons. To avoid having to comply with the tachograph legislation when buying a van, most small businesses will deliberately target one that weighs 3·49 tons. The Committee may be concerned about tradesmen who own one or two vans, but the legislation applies only to a very few of them.

390. Mr I McCrea: Those to whom it does apply will probably seek to get out of it.

391. Mr Oliver: Many of those who previously owned 3·5 ton vehicles have probably moved up to 7·5 ton vehicles to reap the benefits of a bigger vehicle.

392. Mr I McCrea: You said that 70% of your work is in the Irish Republic. I am concerned that the Irish Government are not acting to close the loophole to which David Ford referred. You could relocate to the Republic if you so wished. It would probably be in your interest to do so, given that 70% of your business is there — although I suppose that you would have to comply with GB legislation when your drivers went across the water. However, I am concerned that some of the regulations could force people out of Northern Ireland and into the Irish Republic to take advantage of that loophole.

393. Mr Oliver: Mr Armstrong from the Department is here, and you should raise that issue with him. Flagging out was not an issue at any of the roadshows that we attended. It was an issue 10 years ago, when many people flagged out of Northern Ireland and went to the Republic because of changes in legislation. Some high-profile operators flagged out for a short time, but soon discovered that there was more to deal with than the regulatory scheme for drivers. When they ran into different problems in the Republic, they quickly reflagged their vehicles and registered them in the North again. Flagging out, therefore, is not a major problem.

394. However, a greater problem for the Road Haulage Association is the fact that non-compliant vehicles will enter from a country that shares a land border. The DVA staff who stop such vehicles will tell you that they do not comply and that regulations governing drivers’ hours in the South are totally ignored.

395. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr Flanders and Mr Oliver, for taking time to come here today. We want to be as supportive as we can and to expedite matters as quickly as possible for the benefit of your industry. You are welcome to stay to hear what the departmental officials have to say.

396. I advise members that, following the previous briefings on the Bill on 24 January 2008 and 7 February 2008, departmental officials will update the Committee on the outcome of the public briefing sessions. Members should have copies of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, its explanatory and financial memorandum and a summary of the main provisions. The Department has also provided a written report of the public briefing sessions that were held during February and March 2008, which members will find highly informative.

24 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr David Armstrong Mr John Brogan Mr Gillian McIntyre

Department of the Environment

397. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr McGlone): Mr Armstrong, it is good to see you again; you are most welcome.

398. Mr Donald Armstrong (Department of the Environment): We assume that members have read the report of the public briefings, and we will simply summarise its key points.

399. At the minute, the Minister is in the Executive Committee seeking approval to introduce the Bill to the Assembly, and we expect that to happen within the next few weeks. The Bill will eventually come before the Committee, formally.

400. Another document, a summary of the main provisions of the Bill, has been produced by my colleague John Brogan. The Committee should find that very useful, along with the explanatory and financial memorandum.

401. We were staggered by the response to the briefings. In our temerity, we thought that 50 people would attend each of the eight briefing sessions, and we booked hotels accordingly. That assumption was based on previous experiences — such as during briefings for the Taxis Bill —during which, sometimes, no one turned up. Of the 15,000 invited, approximately 1,800 to 2,000 attended, and, in fact, at the Comfort Hotel venue in County Antrim people were turned away, and the volume of traffic caused congestion in Antrim town centre. Therefore, those figures do not reflect the number of people who wanted to attend.

402. The Department made some presentations, as did the Road Haulage Association — which was very supportive — the Freight Transport Association and a company of independent solicitors called Aaron & Partners, who are involved in transport law and with traffic commissioners in Great Britain. The presentations were, for the most part, well received; people sought information on how the regulations will work, when they will be introduced, how much it will cost, and what individuals need to do in preparation for implementation. That was pleasing; it vindicated the briefing process.

403. The Department was impressed by the reception and response. We approached the process with fear and trepidation, wondering whether we would get hammered or, proverbially, knifed. However, that did not happen. Some people were not keen on the proposed legislation, but the majority of people wanted information. We are listening to the industry and received a huge amount of valuable information that will help us steer our course over the coming months.

404. Before we return to the Committee for the consideration of the Bill, we will have completed much work on its detail. In essence, that is not required until the regulation stage. We received tremendous help from people in the industry, which highlighted issues that we must address.

405. We expected certain issues to be of major concern. For example, we thought that cost and the issue of operating centres would cause huge concern. However, although those issues were raised, they were not over-problematic and raised less concern that we had predicted.

406. We expected the issue of competition from Irish operators to cause concern in regions around the periphery such as Armagh, Omagh, Enniskillen and Derry. In fact, that matter was only mentioned in four of the eight venues, and even then it was very low-key, which surprised us. Mr Oliver’s comments this morning on flagging out reflect that.

407. The majority of queries came from individuals, who wanted to know how the new Bill will affect them. That is a legitimate question, and, in the majority of cases, we answered those queries. We issued questionnaires to those who attended at all of the venues, which asked about the nature of businesses, fleet size, numbers of operating centres, costs, and what they anticipated the impact of operator licensing would be. We achieved a response rate of about 13%. Although we would have liked that figure to be higher, statistically, it was quite good. Responses were, generally, useful and have been fed into the regulatory impact assessment, which will be available to the Committee in due course. For example, 60% of operators said that the new regulations would have virtually no impact on them. We expected a negative reaction to the Department’s plans. Therefore, we were surprised that 60% of operators felt that the proposed licensing scheme would have little or no impact on them.

408. At almost every venue, we discussed the frequency of maintenance checks, what those checks would involve, what qualifications those conducting the checks would require, what standards would have to be met, and so on.

409. A number of concerns were raised that, although not relating directly to the Bill, are of interest to the Department. For example, some people at a number of the briefings mentioned what they view as inconsistency in DVA test pass rates. They expressed concerns about how failure in a Driver and Vehicle Agency test impacted on an operator’s repute. Such concern is not unfounded — DVA testing statistics indicate that almost 50% of vehicles fail first time round. That is not good for DVA capacity, it is not good for operators, and it is costly.

410. Some attendees questioned whether improved roadworthiness would actually improve road safety. There was also confusion about whether certificates of professional competence (CPC) would be required by transport managers, or drivers, or across the entire industry. Single vehicle operators who take their vehicles home also expressed some concern about what they would be permitted to do, what they would have to change, whether they would have to hire operating centres, and so on. Those are all genuine concerns that must be addressed.

411. Exemption from licensing requirements occupied one of the biggest areas of discussion. At this stage we do not know who will be exempt, and who will not. The Bill will give the Department the enabling powers to grant exemptions, so we have not got into the detail of that. However, at the briefings we handed out a list of the exemptions as currently seen in GB to give a guide to what is happening — not necessarily what will happen. Although exemptions will only be included in regulation at a later point, it is an issue that should be addressed early on. We have to find solutions that are distinct to Northern Ireland, because our circumstances are different to those in GB. For example, in relation to driveways, the regulations have been in place in GB since 1937, so everybody in business there has been aware of those since they started. However, that will be new to many people in Northern Ireland. We must decide whether to apply the same standard in Northern Ireland, or make it slightly different. Do we grant grandfather rights, or do we have traditional arrangements to phase it in?

412. We explained the main drivers of the Bill in relation to enforcement and the fact that there will be more and tougher enforcement. That did not seem to be a problem and, indeed, most people said that they would welcome enforcement.

413. Although not necessarily relating directly to the Bill, other interesting issues were raised. Questions were asked about: tachographs; the number of tractors being used for construction and general haulage work; insurance costs; competition from foreign operators; and, unsurprisingly, the topical matter of rising fuel costs.

414. While the people that we spoke to were not opposed to licensing, we were repeatedly urged to adopt a pragmatic and sympathetic approach to its implementation. We are going to try to see what we can do on that.

415. In addition to those public meetings, we held briefings with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), the Rivers Agency, Roads Service, Belfast City Council, Northern Ireland bakeries, and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). We targeted specific groups that we feel will be impacted by the licensing scheme, and we talked to them and, in some cases, made presentations. We have also offered to give briefings to other groups such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland fruit and vegetable growers, and the Belfast Chamber of Commerce. We are waiting on a response from those organisations to our offer.

416. We have had quite a bit of exposure on the proposed licensing scheme and received useful information. We have been inundated with telephone calls, and we have responded in writing to over 160 queries that we received via email. There is a huge interest in what we are doing, and we are trying to satisfy that by supplying the information as we go along.

417. As the process moves forward, we will consider a number of key issues, including exemptions, standards in operating centres and transitional arrangements, which are critical. Finally, we will consider what alternatives to the role of the traffic commissioner in Great Britain are available to us.

418. The Chairperson: Thank you, Donald.

(The Deputy Chairperson [Mr Boylan] in the Chair)

419. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Boylan): Thank you for the presentation. Many single operators are concerned about the limit of 3·5 tonnes, above which they will need a licence, and also about the use of driveways. Do you know how many single-vehicle operators took part in the consultation process? With regard to planning, is it correct that the area space in which single operators work from will be restricted?

420. Mr D Armstrong: The Planning Service is a separate part of DOE. We do not delve into planning issues, which are viewed separately. We are looking at this from a road safety point of view.

421. The standard for operators in Great Britain is that they have to be able to drive in and out of their premises before they are allowed to park at home. That is because a significant number of children in particular have been killed by lorries reversing over footways. That standard will probably cause difficulty for a number of operators in Northern Ireland.

422. Some 9,000 of the 15,000 operators in Northern Ireland are single-vehicle operators. That is a significant proportion, and we need to address that issue. We will consider the consequences of applying that standard in Northern Ireland. It may be impractical to apply it as it could have too big an impact. However, a balance is required between that and the road-safety criteria.

423. The issue of operators who park their vehicles at home is one of our biggest difficulties with regard to operating centres. Obviously, operators with huge lorries will not be able to park them at the side of the driveway. No one wants a monster beside their house. They will not be allowed to park on the roads; therefore, they will have to look for somewhere else.

424. We have to consider issues for operators with smaller vehicles — those between 3·5 and 7 tonnes. We may consider restrictions for reversing in and driving out of areas or we may consider providing them with some form of grandfather rights. All such issues will have to be considered with road safety in mind, because as soon as a child is killed by a vehicle reversing over a footway, we are going to be vulnerable.

425. The Deputy Chairperson: I agree that there should be a level playing field. However, there are a substantial number of single-vehicle operators, and they have to be considered.

426. Mr I McCrea: A number of responses to the consultation were to do with enforcement. What is the current level of enforcement? I presume that that will have to increase. How many more officers will be required?

427. Mr D Armstrong: I will have to offer a disclaimer on that issue: enforcement management, and cost, is a matter for the chief executive of DVA, not for me. However, I am aware that, irrespective of the legislation, there will be a significant increase in the number of enforcement officers over the next couple of years. I am not certain of the figures, so it would be better for the chief executive to detail that, or I can check with him and come back to the Committee with the information.

428. One of the issues with the Bill is that because the whole industry will be regulated, the funding for greater enforcement will be vastly increased. Currently, only a quarter of the industry pays a fee; in the future, the whole industry will do so.

429. Mr Ford: You heard what Mr Oliver said about flagging out. The Committee received a letter from the departmental Assembly liaison office (DALO), which says that there are no immediate plans to reform operator licensing legislation in the Republic. Are you satisfied that, despite the lack of progress in the Republic, the necessary progress can still be made in Northern Ireland to protect road safety and resolve environmental issues such as parking on housing estates?

430. Mr D Armstrong: I will answer that question by referring to the ‘Commercial Vehicle Testing Review’ that was published by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the Road Safety Authority (RSA) in the Republic of Ireland. There seems to have been some confusion about what that document said and did not say. Improvement 24 of the review recommends that the RSA should have operator licensing over the whole industry, including the own-account sector. It said that if the RSA was not going to do that, it should insist that some of the standards should be met — for instance, on the undertakings that are to be made.

431. In February 2008, Gillian McIntyre and I met Department of Transport officials in Dublin, and they confirmed that they are not introducing operator licensing for the own-account sector. Two weeks ago, I contacted the Department and it confirmed, through the Road Safety Authority, that it will not introduce own-account operator licensing. However, it will tighten up on enforcement and require operators to give undertakings on maintenance. Therefore, in the future, a driver who operates in the Republic of Ireland should find it more difficult to avoid compliance than they currently do.

432. In the briefings, 11% of respondents said that they would consider flagging out; we were surprised that the figure was so low. Even those people said that they were considering flagging out, rather than saying that they will do it. Given that enforcement will tighten up in the Republic of Ireland and the fact that there are other disbenefits to flagging out, I do not see it as being a major issue.

433. Mr Ford: Do you remain optimistic that progress can be made?

434. Mr D Armstrong: Yes, I am very optimistic.

435. Mr Ford: If flagging out were to become a problem after the implementation of the Bill, would there be any easy ways in which the Bill, under its current formulation, could deal with that?

436. Mr D Armstrong: Anyone who runs a business with vehicles in Northern Ireland must have a licence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA), which is part of UK law. Under subordinate legislation, on which we are currently working, a graduated fixed penalty and deposit scheme will be brought forward. That will try to set the penalty for road transport and traffic offences in keeping with the level of the offence. For example, a fine for speeding would be greater depending on the level of speeding, and a heavier fine would be imposed according to the greater contravention of transport law.

437. The deposit part of that scheme is specifically to enable enforcement against foreign drivers. So if people do flag out, and if foreign operators from Ireland and other parts of Europe are driving in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, they will be obliged to pay a deposit at the roadside that is equivalent to the penalty so that they cannot simply take a ticket and get away without paying the penalty. That measure will act against those who are not licensed in the United Kingdom. Subject to GB timetables, we hope to introduce that proposal to Northern Ireland in April 2009.

(The Chairperson [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)

438. Mr I McCrea: Can you remind me of your proposal for the fee structures? Will those be brought into line with current GB fee structures? I note that the fees in GB are to be reconsidered; perhaps the fees will be reduced there, although that is unlikely. In Northern Ireland, an operator with 10 vehicles pays a fee of £3,150; in GB the fee for that is £2,381. I presume that the disparity between fees in Northern Ireland and GB will come down.

439. Mr D Armstrong: During the consultation, we gave an undertaking that the fees would initially be tied to the fees in GB. There does not seem to be an awful lot of logic in doing it differently, and we are holding to that view. Costs will be tied to the current level of fees in GB. The fees in GB are being reviewed, and it is hoped that they will go out to consultation in the next few months.

440. I met Department for Transport officials in London last week, and we discussed fees. They will keep us informed on the structure and level of fees. The main difference in the fee structure is that, instead of having a three-part fee as is the case at present in GB, the vehicle fee will be attached to the vehicle test fee. Therefore, when someone applies for an operator licence, he will not have to worry about fees for vehicles because that will already be catered for as the vehicle has already been tested. As for the level of fees, I have no indication from the Department for Transport whether they will go up or down. Not much goes down these days, but I cannot comment because I do not know what the proposed fee levels will be.

441. Mr I McCrea: We talk about single operators perhaps not getting the money that they should be getting, yet it is the single operator who will be most affected by this increase.

442. Mr D Armstrong: The fee for single operators with one vehicle is about £150 per year for the first five years, and then drops to £100 per year because they will not have to reapply for a licence. You apply for a licence only once and get it for ever, as it were. The licence is then reviewed each year and you pay a vehicle fee and grant fee. A tyre for a commercial vehicle of 3·5 tonnes or more costs from £250 to £400. Therefore, £100 to £150 per year is a very small amount in the overall costs of running a business. I am not saying that it is not a cost, but that amount did not seem to cause any difficulty with operators. In public briefing sessions they said that licensing was not a major cost in running a business, and they did not see it having a major impact. In fact, 60% of people said that it will not have an impact.

443. Mr Gardiner: I have one point about your public briefing sessions and the questions that you were asked. For example, there was a question about a CPC and where to get one. We would not know the answer to that. For laypeople such as ourselves, it would have been beneficial if you had provided the Department’s answers to the questions, because we could be asked such a question and we simply would not know the answer.

444. Mr D Armstrong: Would you like us to go through some of the sample questions and answers?

445. Mr Gardiner: You have given us some of the questions that were raised at the public briefing sessions, but you have not given us any answers.

446. Mr D Armstrong: There is a fair bit of work involved but we could certainly do something on that, if you wish.

447. The Chairperson: It would be helpful if you could do that.

448. We have a summary of the main provisions of the Bill, but can you give the Committee a broad overview of the Bill as it is taking shape?

449. Mr John Brogan (Department of the Environment): I wrote the summary of the main provisions. You have to bear in mind that I am not a legal person. In some cases, my interpretation might not be exactly right. I hope that I am right, but I want to make that qualification.

450. The Chairperson: That is OK.

451. Mr Brogan: You will be familiar with the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. That was drafted in a nice way in that there were chapters and sections that helped the Bill to flow. We do not have the same luxury in this case in that the Bill just starts and flows right through to the end.

452. The Bill is drafted in a way that reflects primary legislation in GB — the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 — but it deals with who needs to have a licence and what type of vehicles will be authorised under the licence. The Bill moves to the application process and covers the power to ask someone for an application, the information that may be required through the application form, the requirement for the Department and the applicant to publish a notice of the application, and who can object and make representations on the notice of application.

453. It then moves to the determination of the application: what the Department will take into account in its determination; how it will deal with operating centres on environmental grounds; what it will do once the determination has been made; how it will issue the licence; the details that will be included in the licence; and the duration of the licence.

454. The next stage covers any variations of that licence in years to follow and, again, the application process for a variation of the licence and the need to repeat the notification in local newspaper the objections and representation issue, and how the Department deals with the application for variations. It outlines the Department’s power to attach conditions to the licence and its power to issue interim licences and interim variations, which will allow an operator who makes an application to begin work during the period when the application is being processed and the determination is made. It allows the operator to continue operating if the application is for a variation to an existing licence.

455. The Bill then moves to the power to carry out some form of disciplinary action against an operator who has not been complying with the conditions or the undertakings of the licence. It is a power to revoke, suspend and curtail the licence, which is reflective of what the Committee will be familiar with in the Taxis Bill. There will be very similar provisions.

456. Donald mentioned that the application for a licence is a one-off procedure, but the Bill provides for operating centres to be reviewed on a five-yearly basis. There will be a process for the transfer of an operating centre. That will allow the title to the operating centre to be transferred from one licence to another, if, for example, businesses are merging or someone retires and passes his business to someone else. It outlines in more detail the environmental matters that will be taken into account in relation to operating centres.

457. The Bill will give the Department the power to hold a public inquiry. That is already in place in GB, and the power is held by the traffic commissioner. The power would be to hold an inquiry for the determination of an application. If the determination went against the operator, or was instigated at the behest of the objector or someone who has made a representation against the granting of a licence, he or she would have the power to ask for a public inquiry to be held.

458. There is a two-stage review of decision and appeal procedure built into the Bill. The first stage would involve the Department carrying out a review of the decision made at the request again of the applicant, and the second stage would grant the right to make a formal appeal in connection with any aspect of the operator licence.

459. Several offences of forgery and making false statements are built into the section on enforcement, which is similar to the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Most enforcement powers that are in place came from the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and apply to the current operator licensing system. Those powers were lifted from the 1967 Act and dropped into the Bill. The Department added additional enforcement powers, particularly the power to impound a vehicle that has been detected being used without a licence. Clause 44 is the major new element of the enforcement regime:

“Schedule 3 (which relates to the detention, removal and disposal of goods vehicles in respect of which it appears that section 1 is contravened) shall have effect.”

460. The remainder of the Bill consists of miscellaneous matters, such as fees. It is particularly important to note that the Bill applies to the Belfast harbour estate and other harbour areas. Current operator licensing laws do not operate in harbour areas, and that causes difficulties for enforcement staff. Generally, the Bill is not as much of a skeleton as was the Taxis Bill in relation to a series of regulatory powers. However, in parts there are quite a lot of regulatory powers. The Department dropped some of the detail that is contained in the Act that applies in Great Britain. In due course, we will bring subordinate legislation, in the form of Orders, to the Committee.

461. The Chairperson: Thank you. I am trying to get a handle on how the conditions attached to licences will pan out. The Department will be able to attach an increasing number of conditions to the licence. One possible condition is the requirement for the licence holder to inform the Department of any event which affects the licence, which is par for the course.

462. However, another condition is the prevention of vehicles from causing danger to the public while entering or leaving an operating centre. That strikes me as more of a criminal matter, and I am unclear about a third possible condition to prevent or minimise the adverse effects of the operating centre. That seems akin to attaching conditions to a standard driving licence that the applicant must not drink and drive, speed or drive a car that is not roadworthy. Will you elaborate on what that third condition means?

463. Ms McIntyre: That condition could apply, for example, when an individual advertises an operating centre about which the Department receives representations from landowners that the use of the operating centre, as applied for, could impinge on their enjoyment of their land. The Department has the power, for example, to agree with the applicant that he or she will operate within certain hours or limit the size or number of vehicles used in the operating centre.

464. The Chairperson: I am trying to get my head round that condition. Some members deal with planning applications almost every day. I listened to Mr Flanders describe a particular application to build houses that would surround an operating centre. Under those circumstances, such conditions are normally built into environmental health considerations as part of the planning application.

465. Presumably, if an operator wants to establish a business in a new or changed venue, he or she would have to submit either a fresh planning application or, if wishing to diversify from farming to road haulage in a rural area, a new planning application. I am trying to work out how the operator licensing fits in. So far, and until you tell me otherwise, it seems as though you are duplicating, or mirroring, the responsibility of another wing of the Department.

466. Mr D Armstrong: The vast majority of applications that we will receive over the next five years will be from existing operating centres. An application from a centre that has been operating for four years, for example, will be approved. Therefore the Planning Service will not have a role in such a scenario.

467. The Chairperson: I thought that such businesses had to be operating for at least 10 years.

468. Mr D Armstrong: That is only if conditions are attached. The vast majority of the applications that we will receive over the next five years will be from the 12,000 to 15,000 businesses that are already up and running. We will apply conditions about how they operate on their sites.

469. It could be argued that applying conditions to brand new sites would duplicate work. However, I am not certain that that would be the case. We are working on the basis that existing sites already have merit. We will tell the operators that they will have to meet access standards and that there may be time restrictions and loud music restrictions so that other people do not get disturbed.

470. The Bill provides a balance in that the Department will be granted the discretionary powers that the traffic commissioners have, and we will be able to grant licences. It will make life easier for the operator and for the people in the area if licences can be granted with agreed conditions or restrictions. That will be better than simply saying yes or no.

471. The Chairperson: Page 7 and page 8 of the summary of the main provisions refer to environmental matters. The summary states that:

“The determination may be on the suitability of an operating centre on environmental grounds; the attachment of conditions to a licence to prevent or minimise any adverse effects on using a place on an operating centre; the effect on environmental conditions in a locality of the use of the place as an operating centre.”

472. Your section of the Department is not normally the arbiter for such issues. That is usually the job of local councils through their health and environmental services departments. I am trying to tease out how the practicalities of the process are going to work.

473. Mr D Armstrong: A new operator setting up an operating centre will be required to go through the planning process. For the foreseeable future, the majority of applications that we receive will be from existing operators. When they submit an application and advertise, the people who live in the vicinity of the site will have an opportunity to make representations on environmental grounds.

474. In addition to that, we will have a statutory list of consultees whose opinions we will seek. Included on that list are the PSNI and the Planning Service. Therefore, the Planning Service will have a role in the process. Any declaration from the Planning Service that it is unhappy with an application will be taken into consideration.

475. The Chairperson: My point was that it is the health and environmental services departments of the respective councils that have the expertise on environmental concerns. I am sure that the Department has its own expertise, but usually the arbiters of issues over potential environmental hazards are the health and environmental services departments of the councils.

476. I am trying to determine the outworkings of the process. Any new application will go through the process. Inevitably, as part of the consultation process on planning, the health and environmental services departments of the various councils act as the consultees.

477. There could be a situation in which a group of residents have moved to a development that has been built only in the past five to seven years. That development could be in close proximity to an existing site for which an application has been submitted. Were those residents to object to the application, the Department will decide whether to grant a licence. However, the health and environmental services department of the relevant council would presumably act as the arbiter as to whether there is a potential noise nuisance.

478. Will the individual councils be statutorily consulted as part of the process?

479. Mr D Armstrong: Yes the councils will and the Environmental Heritage Service, as it currently exists, will also consult as part of the process.

480. The Chairperson: Would that apply to new applications in addition to established applications?

481. Mr D Armstrong: This would apply to any application whether new or existing.

482. Mr Boylan: Mr Armstrong alluded to the reversing and the driving into driveways. In rural areas drivers could, as Mr Armstrong pointed out, drive around the building to do this as there would be sufficient space to turn. However there may not be room for this in urban housing developments and the driver may have to park a three and a half ton lorry on the footpath outside their property.

483. Mr Armstrong also mentioned that there were currently 9,000 operating centre business, many of which could be in private urban developments. How would the proprietor be able to reverse from their driveway without causing a risk to road safety?

484. Mr D Armstrong: I indicated at the end of my short presentation that one of the big issues that the Department needs to examine is operating centres. That is, what actually constitutes an operating centre.

485. A balance needs to be struck between introducing legislation that will have an impact on a person who has been carrying out their business for a number of years and the issue of road safety. The Department has a number of options available in this area including, whether we establish an introductory period of time over which the standard can be brought in; or whether grandfather rights are granted to those businesses that have existing parking arrangements; whether the standards are applied as they are or whether the standard is dropped locally.

486. The Department will need to examine all of these options and decide on the best fit for Northern Ireland. In preparations we have already begun a process of consultation. It is a very difficult issue, as legislation will have an impact in someway if drivers cannot drive in and reverse out of their properties. However, the issue of drivers trying to drive into driveways, not capable of taking their vehicles totally different.

487. We do not know what proportion of the 9,000 business proprietors do park their vehicles at home, in the road, or can drive in and drive out of their properties without causing a road safety issue. To apply the current GB standard would be problematic at present and the Department needs to investigate the issue in a lot more detail before we move forward. Unfortunately I do not have an answer on this at present.

488. Mr Gallagher: What is the GB standard at present?

489. Mr D Armstrong: The GB standard is that if a vehicle is parked at home, in an operating centre that it must be able to drive in and out in a forward direction. In other words the vehicle must be able to be driven in, turned and driven out again without reversing over a public footway. That is the road safety issue in question and it is a valid one.

490. The Chairperson: Sorry Donald, I did not quite catch that. Do you mean that the vehicle must be able to driven in, turned and driven out again in a forward direction?

491. Mr D Armstrong: Yes. It must be able to go into the site and out again in a forward direction. Basically, this means that it must be go in and turn again and that the vehicle cannot be reversed in or out. This represents a problem for people who park at the side of their house and I accept that it is a problem. However, there is also a problem for road safety and people have been killed as a result of the parking or moving of vehicles in this way.

492. Again, I do not have a definitive answer on this yet and I freely admit it. However, one of the areas of difficulty that the Department have got to work with is what the standard is going to be and how that standard is going to be implemented.

493. The Chairperson: Thank you very much to all the witnesses who have attended today. The Committee now has plenty of reading to do on this subject, which I am sure we will revisit again.

5 June 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross

Witnesses:

Mr Donald Armstrong Mr John Brogan Mrs Gillian McIntyre

Department of the Environment

494. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): We now move to the departmental briefing on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. The Committee has been provided with a copy of the departmental briefing, which includes a summary of the overall purpose of the presentation; a document outlining how road haulage operator licensing functions under the existing legislation; information about changes in the licensing system that will be enabled by the Bill; and a list of key potential issues to be addressed by the Bill. Members may wish to identify other issues. We have also been provided with a Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill master file, which contains the documents for the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. It will be updated and retained by the Committee staff after each meeting.

495. I welcome Mr Donald Armstrong, Mrs Gillian McIntyre and Mr John Brogan.

496. Mr Donald Armstrong (Department of the Environment): Thank you for the invitation. The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill is now at Committee Stage, so we have drafted a short presentation, which aims to put the Bill into context and to focus on the key issues for scrutiny.

497. The Bill is not a riveting read; some people might consider it a cure for insomnia rather than an inspiration. Nevertheless, some aspects are worth mentioning. We will outline the philosophy behind the Bill, comment on the Bill’s powers and draw the Committee’s attention to specific areas of detail that we must begin to consider. We will comment on the range of documentation and guide members to the most useful sections. Finally, without telling the Committee how to do its job, I will outline how the Department can help with the process.

498. During the drafting of the Bill, the Department sought advice from a range of people, including our counterparts who use the Bill in GB. They advised that the Bill should be as straightforward as possible and contain basic enabling powers, the detail of which should be carried into subordinate legislation. With the agreement of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), we have followed that advice, and Gillian McIntyre has drafted the instructions for the Bill on that basis. Therefore, the Bill is essentially an enabling document, and, upon scrutiny, members will recognise that much detail is missing. Those details will subsequently be included in subordinate legislation. We will discuss and research those details more thoroughly, consider the options and reintroduce those details in the subordinate stages. However, we recognise that the Committee needs to know details, which will be discussed over the next few months.

499. The Bill attempts to focus on the drivers for change — road safety, fair competition, environmental impact and combating organised crime — that were discussed during previous presentations. In the coming months, we hope to demonstrate that the Bill addresses those issues, and members will, undoubtedly, have plenty of questions about that.

500. At a previous briefing, my colleague John Brogan provided an overview of the Bill, which he will now revisit. He will not go into the Bill in detail, but he will outline some of the Bill’s key powers and what those powers seek to achieve.

501. Mr John Brogan (Department of the Environment): Unlike other Bills, the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill is not divided into neat chapters, so it can be a daunting read. However, it has several distinct areas or clusters, and I shall identify those during my presentation.

502. The first area is covered by clauses 1 to 22. Those clauses comprise almost the entire first page of the contents list, and they refer to the powers of the operator’s licence. They establish the requirement to hold an operator’s licence and provide for exemptions. That section outlines the two different types of licence — the restricted licence and the standard licence — the application process and, importantly, determines the factors that will be used to assess applications. All applicants will have to demonstrate that they are fit to hold a licence and that they have the finances that are required to maintain and operate the business’ vehicles safely.

503. Standard licence applicants will also have to demonstrate standards of good repute, appropriate financial standing and professional competence. The reason for that is that we want operators to show strong standards of fitness and reputation, particularly those that are involved in hire-and-reward work. They will be required to show that they are professional, and that they are able to maintain their vehicles in a roadworthy condition.

504. The Bill also includes powers to attach conditions and undertakings. Those are intended to reduce road safety problems around operating centres and to reduce any adverse effects on environmental conditions around the operating centres. The licence holder will also have to inform the Department of anything that might affect the licence. That condition is generally applied to all licences; they must notify the Department of any relevant convictions, of an event that could affect their repute and any prohibitions, for example, for overloading. The reason for that is that the power to place conditions on a licence provides the Department with an element of discretion when making a final decision on an application. That leaves an option other than outright refusal.

505. The second area concerns disciplinary powers, and those are covered by clauses 23 to 26. Those powers are intended to keep a firm level of control on the operators. They should provide a deterrent to those who have a disregard for road safety and road traffic laws, and they should contribute to the image of a clean industry. They include the powers to revoke, suspend or curtail a licence and to take action against a licence holder in a range of circumstances, from a breach of conditions, to a failure to meet specified standard licence criteria. The Bill also includes the power to disqualify someone whose licence has already been revoked from holding or obtaining a further licence.

506. The third area is covered by clauses 27 to 31, and it deals with operating centres. It contains powers to carry out a review of an operating centre every five years and to close a centre down if necessary. The Department would seek to alleviate any problems that were found during the review. The Department would be able to attach certain conditions to the licence, or even vary existing conditions, which would, hopefully, resolve the problems without taking the drastic action of closing down an operating centre. The Bill is includes provision relating to environmental matters in and around operating centres.

507. The next area, which is covered by clauses 32 to 35, deals with legal issues. It includes powers to hold public inquiries into applications, or into disciplinary actions taken against a licence holder. It also includes provision for all decisions to be reviewed by the Department, and for an appeal to be heard by the Transport Tribunal if necessary. The Bill refers to that as the Upper Tribunal. In April 2009, the Transport Tribunal will be subsumed into a grand Upper Tribunal, so we have taken the opportunity to use the name by which it will be known when the Bill comes into force.

508. The fifth area contains the enforcement powers of the Department; those are covered by clauses 38 to 45. All the main powers, bar one additional power, have been in place in Northern Ireland since 1967, and they are currently in use to enforce the operator licensing system. They have been copied from the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, and placed in the Bill, because they work well. Among other powers, those include powers of entry to vehicles and premises and powers to seize documents and obtain information. The one new power relates to the impounding of vehicles and their contents. That will take place when a vehicle is detected as being used on a road without an operator’s licence.

509. The remainder of the clauses appear under the headings “miscellaneous” and “supplementary”. They deal with a range of miscellaneous matters, and I do not need to talk about those today. The final section of the Bill includes the schedules. Schedules generally deal with provisions that contain detail, as distinct from principles, which should always be in the main body of the Bill.

510. Detail can also be included in regulations, and that is the case with this Bill. Some detail has been outlined in schedules to the Bill, and some has still to be developed and drawn up in the regulations. There are six schedules, the most notable of which include the arrangements for the transfer of an operating centre from one licence to another and provisions for the detention of vehicles used without an operator licence, which I mentioned earlier.

511. Many of the powers that I have described can be linked to the four drivers for change that Donald mentioned: fair competition; road safety; environmental impact; and combating organised crime. To ensure fairer competition, all operators will have to be licensed. As regards road safety, the Bill’s powers are designed to maintain an element of control in vehicles, whereby every vehicle should be related to an operator’s licence, and it should be possible to trace any vehicle that is involved in an offence back to an operator. The operator must be held responsible for certain actions of his or her drivers. The environmental factors will be taken into account in the assessment of applications, and they will be kept under review. The measures to tackle organised crime will again involve all vehicles being registered and traceable to an operator. Vehicles that operate illegally will be impounded, along with their contents.

512. Mr D Armstrong: Members will become more familiar with the details of the Bill as times goes on, but I hope that John’s overview has set out the broad blocks of the Bill and the main areas: its application; discipline, the operating centres, and so on.

513. It is clear from reading the Bill that it contains very little detail — it has all been taken out. Broadly speaking, it provides enabling powers. Recently, Gillian McIntyre and I have looked at some of the key areas that must be addressed for the regulation stage. I have no doubt that the Committee will be interested in what is happening in that area. Gillian will expand on the four or five key areas on which we need to work over the summer and on which we hope to bring the Committee information.

514. Mrs Gillian McIntyre (Department of the Environment): As Donald said, the Bill is really a framework for the licensing of operators of goods vehicles in Northern Ireland. As members will know, much of the detail of the scheme will be contained in the regulations. We have identified five areas on which we feel that we must focus at this early stage so that we can develop proposals for regulations that will be workable and acceptable, both to the Department and the industry.

515. The first issue is that of operating centres, which has been mentioned many times, both by the Committee and at industry briefings. The main concern is the potential impact that the requirement for an operating centre may place on small businesses. In Great Britain, all operators are required to have an operating centre that is big enough, has safe access and meets environmental standards. In Northern Ireland, standards for operating centres are applied to the hire-and-reward sector only.

516. Mr T Clarke: Chairman, may I ask a quick question?

517. The Chairperson: Perhaps we will wait until Gillian has finished her presentation before taking questions.

518. Mrs McIntyre: The hire-and-reward operators here have to have an operating centre, although they do not have to meet the same stringent environmental standards as operators in Great Britain. The Bill will require all operators to have an operating centre. Given the large number of small operators out there, many of whom have only one vehicle, we are considering what an appropriate standard for Northern Ireland might be.

519. For example, we understand that many of the small operators in Northern Ireland park at home. In Great Britain, operators who wish to park at home must be able to drive into their driveway, turn and come out again in a forward gear. We are considering whether that standard would be appropriate for Northern Ireland. We are also considering other options, such as the granting of grandfather rights to existing operators. There is much work to be done in that area.

520. We are also researching the role of the traffic commissioner in Northern Ireland. During consultation, it was decided that there would not be a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland. However, the Bill gives the Department all the powers that traffic commissioners in GB have. The traffic commissioners in GB are the issuing authorities. They issue licences, hold public inquiries and take decisions on disciplinary matters. They have wide discretionary powers, and they are accepted by the industry, largely because of the degree of independence that they have. We are considering how best that function can be carried out. For example, we are considering whether the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA), which is, and will continue to be, the issuing authority, should carry out that role, or whether it would be better for the Department to carry out that function and keep it separate from the DVA. Those are further issues requiring our consideration.

521. One of the issues that was raised most at the industry meetings was exemptions, and the Department has been asked to examine that issue as a matter of urgency. GB has a long list of exemptions, and a list of exemptions also applies to the hire-and-reward sector in Northern Ireland. However, the exemptions are complicated and, in some cases, outdated. The DVA and our colleagues in the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) advised us that the Bill may provide a good opportunity to examine the list of exemptions more closely and consider a suitable list of exemptions for Northern Ireland. For example, we are determining the breadth of the definition of Crown vehicles and to which vehicles that will apply.

522. The Committee asked us to work closely with our counterparts in Ireland on the introduction of operator licensing in Northern Ireland. As the Committee knows, the current system of operator licensing in Ireland meets EU requirements and is similar to the current system here. A short time ago, we met officials in Dublin and, although a recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers recommended that the Irish Government consider the introduction of full operator licensing, our information to date is that they have no plans to do so. We will continue to work closely with our Dublin counterparts to share information on our respective plans and to co-operate where possible, for example, on enforcement.

523. In introducing the proposals, we are aware that they present a considerable change to a large number of operators. The wide-ranging change will present a challenge not only to operators but to the Department’s staff. We want to avoid peaks every five years when licences are up for review. We are considering, for example, how we might migrate the existing hire-and-reward sector to the system and how to introduce the own-account sector so that there is a transitional period. The Bill gives us the power to introduce appropriate transitional arrangements. We are considering various options: phasing in operators by fleet size; perhaps phasing in the standard at renewal stage; and the possibility of granting grandfather rights to existing operators.

524. Mr D Armstrong: Members can see that much work lies ahead of us over the next few months. Although the detail is to be provided through subordinate legislation, it is important that we get on with the work and bring the Committee some detail on what is happening to give members a flavour of the major issues that will arise.

525. The last stage of our presentation deals with the long list of documentation that the Committee has received. Gillian will go through the list and highlight to members the documents that she considers to be most useful to them at this stage of their consideration of the Bill.

526. Mrs McIntyre: It may be helpful to point out several documents that will give members a good background to the Bill. Early on, the Committee received copies of the policy memorandum that outlines policy and gives details of the consultations, the various options and the key measures. Today, members received a further two documents that set out how freight operator licensing operates under the existing legislation. Another document illustrates the changes to the licensing system that the Bill facilitates. All those documents provide good background information.

527. To gain an understanding of the contents of the Bill’s clauses, the explanatory and financial memorandum gives a brief policy summary and a short commentary on each of the main clauses. The summary of the main provisions of the Bill should be read together with that memorandum. It provides a fuller commentary on the content of the various sections of the Bill that John Brogan outlined. It is not a clause-by-clause examination, but it follows the structure of the Bill.

528. Members also have notes from the stakeholder meetings, questions and answers and the Bill itself.

529. Mr D Armstrong: I shall finish with our hopes and thoughts about working with the Committee during the next several months. Our team of three wants to give you as much support and be as helpful and as informative as possible. That may include providing clarification on the meaning of clauses, about which John is our expert, or helping to align the contents of the Bill with the submissions that members receive in response to the Committee’s call for views. That process will complete by 11 July 2008. We can answer questions, explain any aspects of the Bill and help the Committee to understand the freight industry as it is and as it will be in the future. We want to be as helpful as possible and to give Committee members as much assistance as they require.

530. In conclusion, we want to produce a good piece of legislation. To date, we have received a lot of help from the industry and from stakeholders. We hope that the Bill will be good for the future. Bad legislation is worse that none at all. We aim to create a good piece of legislation and we want to help members as much as possible to achieve that.

531. The Chairperson: Good. We look forward to working with you towards a productive outcome.

532. Mr T Clarke: I want to raise a few points because I might have missed the essence of Gillian’s comments on England and centres for small operators. Do small operators need a full operating licence for 3?5 ton vehicles?

533. Mrs McIntyre: A full operating licence is needed for any vehicle that weighs over 3·5 tons.

534. Mr T Clarke: So, licences are needed for all vehicles that weigh over 3·5 tons. That is OK.

535. The summary of main provisions, which refers to operator’s licences, says that it will not apply to certain vehicles, including small goods vehicles that weigh under 3·5 tons; vehicles that are used by a haulier who is established in another member state; and vehicles that are used by a haulier who is established in GB and not in NI. Does that basically mean that if a haulier is established elsewhere and not in Northern Ireland, it does not need a licence?

536. Mrs McIntyre: A haulier who is established outside Northern Ireland will not require a Northern Ireland operating licence.

537. Mr T Clarke: Therefore, if I were to establish a business in the Republic of Ireland and move the operation to Northern Ireland, would I be exempt from needing a licence?

538. The Chairperson: To clarify, a licence would not be needed in Northern Ireland; although one may be required in GB. A business established south of the border will not need a licence. The potential driver or owner of the business may not have a licence. Is that what you are saying?

539. Mr T Clarke: It refers to a haulier who is established in another member state. Therefore, if someone from Northern Ireland wanted to establish a haulage business in the Republic of Ireland, then move the operation to Northern Ireland, that person would not need a licence because he or she is established in the Republic of Ireland.

540. Mr D Armstrong: If someone wants to establish an operation in the Republic of Ireland, he or she is free to do so. As a foreign operator, his or her vehicle could come in and out of Northern Ireland. However, he or she cannot establish as an operator in the South of Ireland and work from the North.

541. The Chairperson: I understand Trevor’s point. Potentially, someone from Newry could simply move his or her operation down the road to, for example, Drogheda or Dundalk. Likewise, someone in Derry could move his or her business out the Letterkenny Road, and, bingo, he or she does not need a licence.

542. Mr D Armstrong: That is correct. However, that haulier would be classified as a foreign operator who is registered and hired for work in another member state, namely the Republic of Ireland.

543. The Chairperson: That would not affect the haulier’s work and business operationally, other than to lessen the cost that he or she potentially would have to pay and the regulation that he or she have to work under as a consequence of the Bill.

544. Mr D Armstrong: If a haulier has an operating centre or operates a business in Northern Ireland, and wants an operator’s licence in Northern Ireland, all the vehicles covered must be registered in either GB or Northern Ireland. Vehicles that are registered in the Republic of Ireland would not to be covered. If the haulier transfers its operation to another base —

545. Mr T Clarke: According the definition in the summary of main provisions, that will not apply to a vehicle that is used by haulier established in another member state. We had a presentation earlier from a representative of a business that has operated for over 100 years. I am sure, though, that the representative was not about when the business was established.

546. The Chairperson: He certainly did not look it, Trevor.

547. Mr T Clarke: According to that definition, there is nothing in the legislation to say that if someone moves an established business that has been formed in a state other than Northern Ireland, he or she is exempt from holding a licence.

548. Mr D Armstrong: If that person was to move that business and re-establish it in Northern Ireland —

549. Mr T Clarke: If someone established a business — for example, “McGlone Transport” — in Drogheda, and then moved it to Northern Ireland, it has been established in the Republic of Ireland.

550. Mr D Armstrong: That is different. There is no exemption for someone who transfers a business to Northern Ireland that has been established in another country. There is no provision for that. The legislation refers to operators and operating centres that are established in another member state, and can send their vehicles in and out of Northern Ireland. There is nothing to stop them from doing that.

551. The Chairperson: A haulage operator from Derry, for example, may operate a mile down the road across the border for all sorts of reasons, not least because of fuel costs. Have you picked up from the industry that it thinks that the extra regulation could potentially tip it over the edge?

552. Mr D Armstrong: We have not found that. The briefings that we gave and the questionnaires that we issued showed little interest in the issue of flagging out, as transferring business across the border is sometimes called. First, the standards that will be applied to vehicle roadworthiness and compliance with the law will stand, regardless of where the vehicle is registered. Secondly, the cost of licensing under the Bill will not be business-breaking money; it is a relatively small cost. Most businesses will not notice a huge difference in cost. It is less than the cost of one tyre for one vehicle a year.

553. Mr T Clarke: That is not a valid point.

554. Mr D Armstrong: Those issues were raised at our briefings, and we did not find any indication that significant numbers of operators wanted to flag out. Only around 11% of the questionnaires that we received raised the fact that they would even consider flagging out, let alone decide to transfer their business. Other costs are associated with transferring a business across the border that would not be incurred in the North. From our briefings, it has not come across as an issue that people wanted to register in the Republic of Ireland and would try to operate in Northern Ireland. As more detail emerges, that may well become an issue.

555. Mr T Clarke: Donald, can you find a location at which I could buy an operating centre for less than the price of a tyre?

556. Mr D Armstrong: No.

557. Mr T Clarke: The cost is more than the price of a tyre, so you are misrepresenting the case. For someone to have an operator’s licence, he or she must have an operating centre. Mr Armstrong said that the cost of licensing was less than the cost of one tyre for one lorry for one year. If an operator does not need an operating centre, the licence is an additional cost; therefore, what he said is incorrect.

558. Mr D Armstrong: We are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about the cost of licensing.

559. Mr T Clarke: As am I; and an operator must have an operating centre to have a licence.

560. The Chairperson: If you finish your point, Trevor, we can get clarification on that issue.

561. Mr T Clarke: To have an operator’s licence, someone will be required to have an operating centre. I count the cost of acquiring the operating centre as being part of the cost of acquiring the licence.

562. The Chairperson: Are you referring to someone who works from home and who parks their vehicle outside their house?

563. Mr T Clarke: It will include anyone who operates a vehicle weighing 3·5 tons and over.

564. Mr D Armstrong: When we refer to an operating centre, we mean the place where a vehicle is normally kept, stored or parked when it is not in use. In Northern Ireland, a significant number of people park their vehicles at home, and others park their vehicles at the roadside. Parking at the roadside will not be an acceptable way of storing a vehicle; people will have to find somewhere else to park their vehicles. As Gillian said, if the GB standard were to be applied in Northern Ireland, operators would have to be able to drive in and drive out of their driveways. They would have to be able to drive in, turn and drive out again.

565. Gillian mentioned that consideration must be given to whether that standard is acceptable in Northern Ireland. Given that lots of people in Northern Ireland park in their driveways, it may not be acceptable. It may be that our impact assessment results in that standard being changed. We do not anticipate that people who do not currently have somewhere to park their vehicles will have to buy operating centres. Everyone currently has somewhere to park their vehicle, but people who park on the roads will have to find somewhere else to park.

566. The Chairperson: Perhaps I am being a bit stupid, but do you define a road as being somewhere that is adopted by Roads Service?

567. Mr D Armstrong: That is the definition that we use for a public road when considering on-street parking.

568. The Chairperson: Potentially, that could affect quite a lot of people.

569. Mr D Armstrong: Yes, that is possible.

570. Mr B Armstrong: What will be done about a person who has a vehicle in the Republic of Ireland, lives in Northern Ireland and parks their vehicle on the edge of the road?

571. Mr Boylan: A mechanism is needed to check on drivers who come across to park outside homes in the North, because operating centres are not required in the South. Is that being considered?

572. Mr D Armstrong: It is currently unacceptable for people to regularly park goods vehicles on a public road.

573. Mr Boylan: That is the clarification that we were seeking.

574. The Chairperson: Members have all been out and about around housing estates and have seen lorries or vans parked outside houses on public roads. It may be unacceptable, but it happens. To pick up on what Mr Clarke said, the consequences of the legislation may be to enforce penalties and to force people to address the issue. We need to know what will be done and what the repercussions may be. Operators will have to find somewhere else to park vehicles and deal with the financial impact of that. The parking of vehicles on a road may be perfectly workable at present. However, whether it is acceptable is a different question.

575. Mr D Armstrong: That is correct. For owners to get an operator’s licence, an operating centre will have to be specified. When Gillian spoke about that, she said that we need to consider what it will mean for operators who currently park in a driveway or on a public road. We will have to conduct a lot of research to ascertain what will happen in such cases. The impact of insisting on the GB standard and of insisting that operators park off-road — as they ought to at present — will have to be considered. It is unacceptable for operators to park on-road at present; we are not changing legislation in that respect. However, as a requirement for an operator’s licence, operators must be able to specify where they will park, and it must be off-road.

576. Mr T Clarke: I want to return to the subject of operating centres. It was said earlier that there is no reason why an operating centre should not be from a private home, provided the vehicle can turn in the driveway and drive out again. There is possibly an option of doing that. However, the Department’s letter of 16 April 2008 states:

“Additionally and separately, an operator will have to ensure that any proposed operating centre meets the requirements of planning law.”

577. Most elected Members are aware that if someone applies to operate a registered business from a rural dwelling, planning permission will be refused. That means that rural operators will have to move their businesses to another operating centre.

578. Mr D Armstrong: We are not experts in planning. However, if a person has been parking in a driveway over a period of time, it is deemed as having been approved by the Planning Service.

579. Mr T Clarke: Not necessarily.

580. Mr D Armstrong: Approval of an operating centre and planning approval are separate issues. We talked about that at a previous meeting. We will not be involved in the planning constraints of an operating centre. However, planning law will impact on new operators, because existing operators, for the most part, will be deemed to have received planning approval, provided they have been operating in that fashion for years.

581. Mr T Clarke: Yes, provided they have been operating for at least 12 years.

582. The Chairperson: Trevor is correct about running an established business. We will return to the issue of the legislation’s knock-on effects.

583. Mr Boylan: My point is related to that. Many members have raised the issue of operating centres. We worry about it because there are a substantial number of single operators. We discussed that at a previous meeting, and we will come back to it.

584. We received a presentation from representatives of a transport company who discussed a level playing field. What are your views on exemptions? I do not refer, as Trevor has, to operators across the border who will have exemptions. I mean exemptions from licensing for Crown vehicles, and so on. Gillian has already referred to it, but perhaps she could elaborate on it.

585. Mrs McIntyre: At present, there is a list of vehicles that are exempt from complying with operator licensing, including emergency vehicles, such as fire engines, ambulances and certain military vehicles. The list is long and complicated, and, because of the wording, enforcement teams find it difficult to interpret. Provisions for Crown vehicles are the subject of discussions with officials in GB. We are uncertain what the final definition of Crown vehicles will be. Potentially, it could include the vehicles owned by local authorities and Departments.

586. Mr T Clarke: That is unfair.

587. Mr Boylan: I do not have an issue with emergency vehicles. We will wait for your reply, but the question needs answered. Emergency vehicles should be exempt, but a level playing field is required.

588. Mr Ford: I want to follow up the points that have been raised about ineffective flagging out, which the industry does not consider to be a particular problem. Therefore, we accept that. However, there is an issue about vehicles that are registered elsewhere being parked on the street; that will not lead to a level playing field. For example, it could be possible for somebody with a Monaghan or Donegal registration to regularly park in a housing estate in Antrim. There must be some way of regulating that. Will provision be included in the regulations, because there is none in the Bill?

589. Mr D Armstrong: I cannot give you an answer on that issue. I cannot imagine, for example, that the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill will contain provisions for vehicles that park on a road in a residential estate. I am happy to investigate the issue to ascertain how it will be addressed, and I will then respond. However, such is a provision will not appear in the Bill or in the regulations.

590. Mr T Clarke: There should not be a provision for that. If someone with an operating licence in Northern Ireland cannot park in the street — with the greatest respect, and I do not care where they are from — no one else should be allowed to do so. Why should we tie the hands of people from north of the border?

591. Mr Ford: That is the point that we tried to make during previous discussions on the issue. We wanted to ensure, as far as is possible, that there is a level playing field. About once a year, a Polish lorry driver may stop in the street, but that is not the same as parking regularly.

592. The Chairperson: As you can see, we have a flavour of some of the issues that are ahead of us.

593. Mr D Armstrong: I am gratified by that, because those are the issues that Gillian talked about in her presentation.

594. Mr T Clarke: I want to return to the issue of tractors used for purposes other than farming. A letter from the Department stated:

“Subject to further consideration, a person using a tractor for purposes other than farming would be required to hold an operator’s licence.”

595. Agricultural contractors are not deemed to be farmers because they have to use clear diesel in their vehicles. I believe that their vehicles should be classified the same as a tractor. That is an issue that must be tied down.

596. Mr D Armstrong: Farming and forestry vehicles will be included when we consider exemptions. A decision must be made as to whether they are classified on the basis of the function that they perform or on the type of vehicle. That is a huge area.

597. Mr T Clarke: A problem exists with that issue. Agriculture contractors are expected to use clear diesel because they have contracts, even though the purpose of their work is agricultural.

598. The Chairperson: The point has been well made. I am conscious of the time. We will revisit the issues that were raised. I thank Gillian, John and Donald for their time.

11 September 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Samuel Gardiner
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithí McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

599. The Chairperson: The next item of business is an update on the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Bill. It has been some time since the Committee dealt with the Bill. The Committee Clerk will talk members through the various stages.

600. The Committee Clerk: The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill Committee is now at the Committee Stage.

601. The Committee’s most recent piece of work on the Bill was to ask the Assembly to extend time to 12 December 2008. That was agreed; however, the Committee does not have to use all of that time. If its work is complete, it can report earlier.

602. Under the Committee’s instruction, a public notice was issued, inviting written comments. Three responses were received, and those are included in members’ documents. The Chairperson may want to take members through those, or give them time to consider them today. They are not long.

603. The Committee must now decide what, if any, oral evidence it wants to take. If the Committee believes that sufficient evidence has been received on the relevant issues, it may decide to take no more. Alternatively, it may consider that further issues arise from the oral evidence, which it may want to tease out in more detail. Furthermore, it may decide to hear evidence from other bodies — people who have not responded but from whom the Committee wants to hear.

604. Once that evidence has been received, Committee staff will collate the issues that arise from all of the written and oral correspondence and map those against clauses in the Bill. The clause-by-clause analysis will then begin.

605. The Department will receive, and respond to, that document and, at that stage, the Committee will decide whether to propose amendments to, or make recommendations on, the legislation. That will bring the Committee to the pre-report stage. The purpose today is, therefore, to decide on the evidence.

606. The Chairperson: When we initially discussed this some members — certainly Mr Armstrong and Mr Clarke — raised issues around the question of agricultural and horticultural vehicles. I think that it is important to hear from those people.

607. Mr T Clarke: They expressed concern on that issue in their submissions. Therefore, we must listen to them.

608. The Chairperson: The third written submission we received is from Ms Beverley Bell, traffic commissioner for the North West Traffic Area in England. She offers to make a presentation to the Committee. I am not so sure about that — how do members feel about inviting her to appear as a witness?

609. For the sake of clarity, do members accept her submission, which arrived after the 11 July closing date?

610. Committee Members: Yes.

611. The Chairperson: Do we wish to hear from her? No enthusiasm is evident.

612. Therefore, we will take evidence from the Ulster Farmers Union and the Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland. Is there anyone else from whom we want to hear? No?

613. I advise members that the Committee had agreed to treat the paper from the Federation of Passenger Transport as a submission in respect of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. However, the Committee staff contacted Mrs Karen Magill, chief executive of the federation, who advised that it would not be appropriate to treat its paper as a submission.

614. We have already taken pre-legislative evidence from two stakeholders — the Freight Transport Association (FTA) and the Road Haulage Association (RHA). Is there any other organisation, group or Government agency from which we must take evidence? No?

615. Mr Boylan: There is the issue of planning permission for three-and-a-half-ton vehicles operating from home. Do we need someone to advise us on that?

616. Mr Clarke: That would be helpful, Chairperson.

617. The Chairperson: I agree.

618. Mr Boylan: Should we hear from someone in the Planning Service?

619. The Chairperson: It should probably be the appropriate person dealing with that issue in the Department. What about hearing from enforcement officers, who are at the coalface? We can have the Department bring their respective officials in relation to planning issues. We will hear from enforcement officers, then. Is that agreed?

Members indicated assent.

620. Mr Clarke: We need a definitive answer, because we could not get a straight answer from the Roads Service witnesses on the obligations of persons operating from residential properties. We must have a definitive answer from the Planning Service on whether such operators must apply for permission to run businesses from home addresses.

621. The Chairperson: As a reminder to myself, in relation to the McAnulty case, aside from maybe notifying Mr McAnulty when the officials will be attending the Committee meeting, we should also notify Mrs Magill in order to keep her informed of developments.

25 September 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithí McKay
Mr Alastair Ross

Witnesses:

Mr Chris Osborne Mr Gregg Shannon Mr Harry Sinclair Mr Bailey Thompson

Ulster Farmers’ Union

622. The Chairperson: The Committee will be briefed by the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. Members received an update on the Bill at the meeting on 11 September, when it agreed to invite oral evidence from the UFU and the Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland. The Committee also agreed to take evidence from the Department’s enforcement and planning officials.

623. At its meeting on 18 September, members subsequently agreed to invite Beverley Bell, traffic commissioner for the north-west traffic area, to brief the Committee on the Bill.

624. Today, the Committee will hold its first oral evidence session, when representatives from the UFU will present their views on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

625. A copy of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, and relevant extracts from the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, have been added to the master file. It will largely, but not wholly, replicate the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

626. I welcome Mr Harry Sinclair, deputy president of the UFU, Mr Gregg Shannon, chairman of the UFU legislative committee, and Mr Chris Osborne, UFU policy officer.

627. Mr Osborne has given the Committee one amendment to the UFU’s submission. There has been an omission in its notes, and a line should have been included before the exemption stating that those were the exemptions in place in GB, and not a UFU wish list.

628. Mr Beggs: Can the Committee Clerk clarify whether I need to declare an interest each time as my parents run a family farm and may be affected by the proposed change, and they are members of the Ulster Farmers’ Union as well?

629. The Committee Clerk: I will get back to the member on that.

630. The Chairperson: I welcome the representatives from the Ulster Farmers’ Union.

631. Mr Harry Sinclair (Ulster Farmers’ Union): We have brought along another witness. Bailey Thompson, who is a fruit and vegetable grower from north Down, has come to give a practical view on how the Bill will affect him.

632. The Chairperson: The Committee usually gives witnesses a maximum of 15 to 20 minutes to make a presentation — or less if they prefer — and then members will ask questions.

633. Mr Sinclair: Thank you for the invitation. Our members have already been introduced, except for Bailey Thompson, who is a practising producer.

634. Although the UFU acknowledges the importance of road safety, any initiative is only as good as the drivers who operate the vehicles. In many cases, accidents are caused by the operator, and not through any fault with the vehicle. Chris will explain, first of all, why agriculture is treated differently from other industries.

635. Mr Chris Osborne (Ulster Farmers’ Union): As the legislation stands, there is the potential for a lot of agricultural vehicles to get caught up in the legislation — for example, a tractor carrying a trailer. For the purposes of this presentation, they will be described as dual-purpose vehicles and their trailers, which can include 4x4s and Land Rovers. In 2006, 10,586 tractors in classes 40 and 44 were registered, compared to almost 25,000 heavy goods vehicles.

636. Many everyday farm practices will be caught up in the legislation, for example, bringing input onto a farm, which could include fertiliser, manure, and so on — I will not get involved in the detail of waste — and a farmer taking his livestock from one field to another in a trailer pulled by a Land Rover.

637. The UFU has forecast that, if the current proposals were implemented, it would create over 15,000 operating centres — essentially, farms where vehicles would be stored. Harry referred to the acknowledgement of road safety. The PSNI’s statistics for 2007-08 show that there were 9,748 road casualties in Northern Ireland and, of that number, less than 1% involved other vehicles, which includes tractors. Northern Ireland transport statistics for 2006-07 show that 21% of roads are urban and 29% are rural.

638. The Committee will ask why farming should be treated differently to other industries such as haulage. In economic theory, there is the concept of the public good, which is defined as a good that is unrivalled and non-excludable. That public good is provided by farmers. Once that good is consumed, it is immediately replaced, and, for as long as that process is uninterrupted, it will continue. For example, when I will eat a potato, it will be replaced.

639. By securing that particular line, food supply is secured, and that takes care of local needs and export and trade needs. That is why we believe that we should be treated differently. Although we may not have considered it 10 years ago, there is a real prospect of food shortages, especially compared with the past 35 years.

640. Mr Bailey Thompson (Ulster Farmers’ Union): The existing legislation governs the weight and width of farm vehicles. Currently, that is heavily inspected by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI), the police, the Department of the Environment and, for fuel, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). If legislation is introduced for agricultural vehicles, how will that affect tachographs? One tractor may have four drivers — is each driver expected to fill in a tachograph every morning and carry that during a day’s work? That is my concern.

641. Mr Gregg Shannon (Ulster Farmers’ Union): A section of the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) is responsible for enforcing legislation that pertains to goods vehicles, buses, taxis, private cars and agricultural vehicles. There is, already, a substantial organisation that — if it does its job properly — covers the safety aspect and ensures that vehicle owners and insurance companies know the regulations. Therefore, the Department’s proposal for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to undertake that function is unnecessary. That measure will increase costs. What costs can be introduced legitimately? That matter has never been dealt with properly; everybody considers their own costs and assumes that they will continue. The proposal does not consider the increase or decrease in the number of people who need licences, and it does not take cognisance of other people’s involvement and whether they are doing their job.

642. There is no competition with hauliers. In the past couple of years, we have had substantial discussions with HMRC about red and white diesel. Red diesel is used for agriculture and off-road purposes only, and in certain other cases. That regulation is enforced strictly by HMRC, with the effect that farmers use vehicles on the road for agriculture purposes only. It is clear that that is outside the remit of goods vehicle licensing, and hire and reward.

643. Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposals, in their current form, would increase bureaucracy and red tape. Although the cost of writing a cheque for £100 for a licence might be insignificant to some operators, the cost of maintaining records — which can be forged — could be expensive. For example, if a fellow just walks around a lorry, and signs off that he has completed its six-weekly inspection, who is to say that he actually did it? The crux of the matter is that, if stopped, the vehicle must be up to standard, and that will not be achieved by someone coming to examine my, Harry’s or anybody else’s records.

644. This proposal far exceeds the system currently operating in GB. If DOE were asked to report on arrangements in other EU countries, it would be interesting to hear the reply. At a recent meeting, DOE representatives assured me that these proposals are not EU driven. Therefore, why should this country, which must compete on equal terms — perhaps not even equal terms, because of its distance from markets — with all the other food producers, bear extra costs in advance?

645. If the spot checks required by existing legislation were properly carried out — bearing in mind that that legislation is concerned with public safety and not just operator safety, and the cost of carrying out those spot checks is therefore part of normal Government costs for protecting public safety — it would not be necessary for the farming industry to bear those additional costs, which would be applied inefficiently.

646. Mr Sinclair: Transport for hire and reward must be treated differently from transport of necessity and occasional use. Generally, farmers haul their own products; they do not use transport for hire and reward.

647. Gregg mentioned increased bureaucracy and red tape, which, as everyone knows, involves extra costs. The agriculture industry runs on fine margins, and any additional costs must be passed down the line. The last thing that any politician, or anyone else in society, wants is increased food prices, and the proposals would result in additional costs being passed along the system. That would be the only way to pay for complying with the new legislation, and that is the last thing that the industry wants, which is why we are calling for the exemption of all vehicles involved in agricultural activities.

648. Mr G Shannon: It is tremendously important to note that agricultural vehicles are not on the road for 12 months in a year. Silage trailers are used perhaps for three days over a six-month period. Combines are used, at most, for a couple of months in a year. All such vehicles would require exemptions. Why spend time producing those exemptions, when existing exemptions serve the same purpose?

649. The Chairperson: We hear what you are saying: as with most things, a bit of common sense is required.

650. Mr T Clarke: I welcome the Ulster Farmers’ Union to the Committee. The witnesses have touched on the nub of the matter, although they did not go far enough. The Bill is bureaucracy gone mad. From the start, I have totally disagreed with it.

651. Harry did not mention a matter that I raised concerning agricultural contractors, and there is an argument that such work should be treated as hire and reward. However, if we look at the casualty and injury statistics related to farm vehicles, it is clear that those injuries do not come about because a vehicle is not parked in a locked yard. The Department is attempting to create something for which there is no justification. There is no reason for it. We have received injury statistics, but those injuries did not happen because a vehicle was parked in the wrong place; they relate to road-traffic injuries. Consequently, I cannot understand how legislation requiring farmers to have a licensed yard would make the roads any safer. As you said in your submission, the MOT test that we have here is good; vehicles must be brought up to the required standard, and they either pass or fail. That goes far enough towards meeting operational safety requirements. This legislation is bureaucracy gone mad, and I support you on that.

652. Mr G Shannon: I am glad that someone sees things the same way as we do.

653. I could talk for hours, if necessary, on recoupment of full costs, because nobody has defined what they are. In fact, in that situation, every Department wants to recoup full costs. Farmers want to recoup full costs for their agricultural produce. However, they do not get them. When they look for that, the first question that they must ask is whether they can effectively reduce the cost of what they do and produce the same result. The Bill, as we see it, does not begin to deal with that issue.

654. Mr Ford: I want to ask you about a reference that you made in your earlier remarks. What is the position under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 — the equivalent legislation — in Great Britain as it relates to agricultural vehicles?

655. Mr Osborne: GB has full exemptions.

656. Mr G Shannon: It has four pages of them.

657. Mr Ford: At the end of your submission dated 22 September, under the heading ‘Operational Considerations’, you have listed the matters that you believe should be exempted. Does that follow broadly the list of exemptions that are available in GB, apart from the fact that you have listed them on less than half a page, rather than on four pages?

658. Mr Osborne: Yes.

659. Mr Ford: It seems to me that there are other issues that you have not entirely acknowledged. Your submission is written for the fellow who puts a pallet of manure on the trailer behind his Massey Ferguson 35 and potters two miles along the road from his neighbour’s field to his own land. However, a certain number of such vehicles are used to do similar work to that which is done using lorries. It may be useful to examine exemptions in that area under operational considerations. It will be difficult to find exemptions on a wider basis than that which the Department will accept, because that would create a gaping hole whereby people might sell their lorries and replace them with fast tractors.

660. Mr Osborne: Very much so.

661. Mr G Shannon: We have already agreed the matter with HMRC. It accepts that people who carry out contract work are on the road more often than the man, of whom you painted a good picture, who tows a pallet of manure. He still carries agricultural produce from one guy’s field to his farm or storage area out of necessity. These days, the size of farms requires farmers to go on the road. However, a tractor is not the type of equipment that would be used for hire or reward in the broad sense, like the 24,000 lorries that move stuff about in Northern Ireland.

662. Mr T Clarke: Gregg is saying that fast tractors do not go to the Continent and lorries do not lift silage.

663. Mr G Shannon: In fact, fast tractors have been well and truly stamped upon by HMRC; quite rightly, in our view. Put it this way: we are here to argue for our exemptions. There are good economic reasons why they should be made. For a while, everyone was chasing everyone else up and down roads because fast tractors carried everything. HMRC then stopped the use of red diesel. Red diesel was all that made fast tractors economical. When its use was stopped, fast tractors disappeared.

664. Mr Ford: That was the further point that you made in your submission when you referred to HMRC policy. Do you and HMRC agree fully on what is red diesel allowable and what is not at this point in time?

665. Mr G Shannon: At this point in time, yes.

666. Mr Osborne: In our eyes, yes. We relay that to HMRC. On occasion, it approaches us and asks our view on what constitutes —

667. Mr Ford: My understanding is — at the risk of mixing metaphors — that there are still a few grey areas between the red and the white.

668. Mr Osborne: Yes, but our users are always fully aware of what they are entitled to use.

669. Mr G Shannon: The matter is always open for discussion, Mr Ford.

670. Mr Sinclair: Generally, those grey areas are on the borderline of agricultural activity. Ultimately, the Ulster Farmers’ Union represents farmers and agricultural activities. If people venture into other activities, they do so at their own risk. We feel that they jeopardise the entire industry.

671. Mr Ford: Do you consider the HMRC rules as appropriate guidelines on how the DOE might apply this particular piece of legislation?

672. Mr G Shannon: I think that that is putting things slightly back to front. HMRC runs its own show, and it will approach us and tell that a certain vehicle should not have the advantage of using red diesel. As Harry said, if it is not for agricultural activity, we would not support it.

673. Mr Ford: The point I am making is that if the Committee advised the Department that agricultural activity should be exempt, it would be easier to use existing rules to determine that exemption.

674. Mr T Clarke: It would be easier to throw it out. The Bill is a waste of time.

675. Mr Ford: You have lost the principle of the Bill, Trevor.

676. Mr T Clarke: The principle of the Bill is road safety, and the Department claims that the Bill will prevent road accidents. No one can convince me that parking vehicles in a secure yard will make roads safer. The whole Bill is a piece of nonsense and should be scrapped as soon as possible.

677. Mr G Shannon: We were not surprised to learn that 70% of vehicles that were checked were not up to standard. However, checks had not been conducted prior to that occasion. If checks had been ongoing, that 70% figure would be useless — it is only a spot check. Spot checks should be conducted regularly. After an MOT vehicle test, the standard of the car is not questioned for the next 12 months unless it is involved in an accident. The whole Bill is loose.

678. Mr Beggs: Large numbers of hauliers are unfit to be on the road, and the Bill must tighten existing regulations. However, the farming industry does not contribute to many road accidents, and, therefore, the numbers seem disproportionate.

679. Is a detailed breakdown of those other vehicles available? How many are steamrollers? How many are other vehicles unconnected to the farming industry? A breakdown of the number of agricultural vehicles would be useful.

680. The Chairperson: If that breakdown can be provided.

681. Mr Beggs: A letter from the Department indicated that the Bill will include powers to exempt certain vehicles and that the regulations will be provided for scrutiny. Has that been provided? Has it already been agreed to exclude —

682. The Chairperson: Mr Osborne’s letter outlined that DOE had assured the UFU that, because only enabling powers are involved, exemptions will be dealt with at the subordinate stage and, at that time, the UFU’s views will be considered. Therefore, the process has probably not reached that stage.

683. Mr Beggs: I have experience of the rural community. One of my neighbours frequently uses his tractor to cross the road from one part of his farm to the other — that is the extent of his road usage. It would be draconian to create operator licences to enable people to cross the road. Furthermore, given the statistics that have been provided to the Committee, it is unnecessary.

684. The Department has been talking about tractors; 4x4 vehicles are used infrequently to travel to a market or abattoir, and most farms do not use those vehicles every week. Has the UFU discussed with the Department whether it intends to include 4x4s in the operating-licence criteria?

685. Mr Osborne: My understanding is that 4x4s may be included. We have not spoken to the Department — that is based on reading the proposed legislation and, if we do not speak up, those vehicles could be included. The UFU is asking that if 4x4s are being used for agricultural purposes — that is, a dual-purpose vehicle with a trailer — they should be exempt.

686. The Chairperson: To give a quick synopsis, is the UFU saying that it would prefer that agricultural activity be exempted in line with GB?

687. Mr Osborne: Yes; we could have said that in one sentence.

688. The Chairperson: I am just trying to capture the mood of what has been said.

689. Thank you all very much for your time.

2 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross

Witnesses:

Mr Colin Eve Mr Robin McKee Mrs Bernie Cosgrove		Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland
Mr Richard Lee Mr John Martin Mr Simon Kirk		Department of the Environment

690. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): I welcome Mr Robin McKee, the chairman of the Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland, and his colleague Mr Colin Eve, who are here to give evidence on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. Gentlemen, you will have 10 or 15 minutes to make your case, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions and elicit any further information if required.

691. Mr Robin McKee (Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland): For members who are not familiar with the Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland, it is a consultative committee that was set up by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to represent apple, mushroom and vegetable growers, and nurserymen, landscapers and gardeners. The forum represents mainly small businesses, many of which are family businesses.

692. I thank members for taking the time to listen to our views on the Bill. I emphasise that all members of the forum fully acknowledge the need for a Bill to increase road safety, and they already adhere to the current legislation, the MOT and PSV monitoring, by keeping their vehicles roadworthy. Colin will now make a presentation to the Committee on our views.

693. Mr Colin Eve (Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland): To avoid drastic note-taking, I will leave copies of the presentation for the Committee. The current legislation allows for exemptions for the agriculture, horticulture and forestry industries. At the time the legislation was brought in, those exemptions were introduced with good reason, because we are not hauliers. Our vehicles are not on the roads daily, and we do not make a living from haulage. The majority of the forum’s members may have their vehicles on the road for a small percentage of the year and, through carrying out their tasks, inadvertently fall into the category of carrying goods for reward. Some examples are: the apple grower who uses a vehicle to transport his harvest for eight weeks a year; the farmer who cuts and collects a neighbour’s silage once or twice a year, and the landscape gardener who cuts the grass and prunes the shrubs for Mrs Smith and removes the cuttings to a registered waste centre.

694. In no way can those activities in our industry be used to imply that we are the same as hauliers, nor can it be claimed that our activities on the road are a risk to road safety. According to PSNI statistics, collision casualties resulting from other road users, including tractors, is less than 1% in any of the last five years. That is a strong indicator that the current regulations work.

695. The Road Haulage Association is arguing strongly for all-in legislation. Its argument is that some companies that should currently be operating under an operator’s licence are not, thereby endangering lives on the road. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that those lawbreakers should not be confused, or grouped, with those industries that work legally and safely within the current legal exemptions. Our members are not lawbreakers.

696. The association’s concerns are already addressed in current legislation that provides for the prosecution of those companies that break the law. However, the truth of the matter is that, with only approximately 20 enforcement officers in Northern Ireland, it is not the lack of legislation that allows individuals to continue breaking the law, but a lack of manpower on the ground to catch them.

697. It has been quoted that the preferred number of enforcement officers is 50, and we suggest that drawing in new industries, such as horticulture, farming and forestry, under the legislation is intended not to improve road safety but to spread the cost of enforcement. The problem with that plan is that by adding all those industries, an increase of enforcement officers from 20 to 50 will be completely lost. The implementation of the new legislation, without including exemptions similar to the current ones, will mean that every single one of the approximately 15,000 farmyards will become an operational centre, as will all premises of landscapers, gardeners and growers. The percentage increase of the population to be policed would far outstretch the percentage increase of law enforcers.

698. Given that the current number of law enforcers is stretched and unable to catch the lawbreakers, what chance would they have when required to police virtually everyone? The individuals who dare to operate illegally, daily, will simply disappear into the massive sea of bureaucratic visits and policing of all the new operational centres. Surely, it makes more sense to increase the number of law enforcers from 20 to 50 in order to enforce current legislation.

699. We are wary of the Department’s suggestion that this legislation will cost so little to our members that it is not worth worrying over. The amount quoted to the Horticulture Forum, and probably to the Committee, is approximately £47·62. That quote is indicative of how loaded this new legislation is to the advantage of the haulage industry, and to the disadvantage of those represented by the Horticulture Forum.

700. The figure is based on those companies that have 10 vehicles with a cost of £2,381 for a five-year licence. That does amount to £47·62 per vehicle per annum — a figure which is frequently bandied about as being the cost of a tyre, and not very much at all if someone’s vehicle is out each day making money from hauling. However, our members are not hauliers, and do not fall into that category. Some will fall into the category of three vehicles, but the majority fall into the category of one vehicle, costing them £152·20 per vehicle — a vehicle which they may use for only one month of the year or even less.

701. There are those who believe that £152 does not sound very much, but the additional and real cost will not stop there. There is additional record keeping, auditing, additional vehicle maintenance requirements — despite the fact that we are already paying for annual MOTs and PSVs — and the required proof of sufficient financial resources.

702. For haulage companies, all those requirements are already part and parcel of their daily administration. Indeed, the majority are already required under current legislation. To haulage companies, therefore, the cost and impact is minimal. For our industries, it is all new, and additional to the costs and overheads under which we are already straining.

703. According to statistics from the Federation of Small Businesses, Northern Ireland is unique in its very high percentage of small businesses, particularly small, family-run businesses for which a large and experienced administrative team is an unknown luxury. The cost of this proposed legislation to our members is by no means simply the cost of a new tyre every year. Those extra costs constantly add to the bureaucratic noose.

704. The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill research paper of May 2008 states that the impetus for change comes from the freight industry, whose concerns include the “extent of illegal operations” and the “need for more and better enforcement”. They are losing business to illegal operators. Their concerns may be justified, but why are our industries, which are entirely unlike the freight industry, being asked to contribute to the cost of responding to those concerns? Our industries do not ask for the freight industry to share the cost of legislation affecting us.

705. If more and better enforcement is needed, why is the freight industry seeking to increase the numbers of operational centres out of all proportion? If you cannot find a needle in a haystack, you do not make the haystack bigger.

706. It is claimed that Northern Ireland has much weaker freight licensing enforcement powers than GB. Statutory agencies have complained about the standard of Northern Ireland vehicles crossing to GB. Farmers do not go over to GB in order to bring in their neighbour’s silage, and gardeners and landscapers do not take the boat over to England and Scotland in order to landscape Mrs Smith’s garden. It is not the vehicles belonging to our industries that are raising those concerns.

707. With regard to road safety, according to PSNI statistics, collisions and casualties resulting from other road users, including tractors, amounted to less than 1% in any of the last five years.

708. On the subject of environmental standards, the Bill research paper states that:

“Present licensing arrangements offer no effective safeguards against operators who pay no attention to the environmental standards of their operating centre”.

709. By all means change legislation in order to give enforcement officers that facility, but how can that be achieved by creating in excess of 15,000 more operating centres? Law enforcers will be overwhelmed, the cost to decent law-abiding people will be increased, and lawbreakers will be hidden in the sheer volume of operating centres.

710. The members of the Horticulture Forum for Northern Ireland welcome effective legislation that brings about road safety. However, the proposals will not achieve that by roping in our industries, and we are being rounded up and herded in to reduce the financial burden of addressing the dissatisfaction of the haulage industry.

711. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Do members have any queries?

712. Mr I McCrea: The views of the horticulture industry have been made very clear. Obviously you will raise some of the relevant issues directly with the Department, but we will also include them with the other matters that we wish to raise. There are important issues concerning whether horticulturalists should be included in the scope of the Good Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, or even — taking account of Trevor’s opinion — whether the Bill should be passed at all. You have probably added to my colleague’s desire to see the Bill fail. I welcome your presentation; it provides some more food for thought on the issue.

713. Mr Boylan: Thank you for your presentation. I understand that, if the Bill is to be passed, you would like there to be exemptions, but you must realise that the hauliers should not carry the entire burden. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve road safety, and a balance must be struck. I speak from a rural point of view, and 70% of road fatalities occur on rural roads. I take on board the points that you make about the industry, but, at the end of the day, it is for the Committee to scrutinise the Bill and ensure that it can achieve its aims. You have made it clear that you would like there to be exemptions, but currently the road hauliers are carrying the entire burden. Can you respond to that?

714. The Chairperson: I should mention that last week the Committee heard a presentation from members of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), who requested that there be a range of exemptions to the Bill more or less equivalent to the exemptions in Britain. I have sympathy with your view, and you make many of the same points made by the UFU, because we are dealing with more or less the same issue — agriculture — although in a different form. Are there exemptions in GB that apply to horticulturalists; people growing apples, or mushrooms, or whatever the case may be? Are there exemptions over there that could read across here? Perhaps it is unfair of me to ask that; you may not know.

715. Mr McKee: There are exemptions for Land Rovers and trailers, etc; those would cover quite a range of vehicles. However, there are a number of details that are unclear. A landscaper, for example, may have a van with a small trailer attached; we are unsure whether that would be exempt. There are also a lot of small 7·5-ton lorries; we are not sure whether those would be exempt.

716. The Chairperson: I am thinking specifically of people engaged in horticulture in Britain. What are the exemptions there? Perhaps you do not know. The UFU, last week, made a strong case for a range of exemptions for people engaged in farming. Are there a number of exemptions in Britain that could simply be applied here, or, if not, why should the law be different here? Take some time to think about that, and if there is any information that you can offer, please do.

717. Mr Boylan: That is the point that I was making. You have mentioned apple growers working eight weeks a year, and so on. Have you thought about the issue of exemptions mentioned by the Chairman?

718. Mr Eve: We have discussed exemptions. Primarily we would like to see a total exemption for the local horticulture industry; that would be our main concern. There are exemptions based on the distance from the operating base. I believe that, currently, operators working within 50 km of their base are exempt. If there are to be exemptions, we would like to see those transferred across. There are other minority details concerning, for example, a landscaper taking topsoil to and from sites. I think that there is legislation being passed by the EU; topsoil is currently classed as a waste product.

719. The Chairperson: That is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA).

720. Mr Boylan: You mentioned enforcement in your presentation, and, obviously, there is a need for more enforcement; the question is how that enforcement can be generated. We have heard a number of presentations, including from the road-haulier groups, and they are calling for more enforcement. How can that be achieved?

721. Mr McKee: Do you mean how can it be financed?

722. Mr Boylan: That will be part and parcel of it, if the Bill is to be passed. That issue must be taken on board as well.

723. Mr Eve: I do not understand why the current enforcement officers — I think that there are 20 of them —

724. Mr T Clarke: They do not understand either.

725. Mr Eve: Currently, there is no effective enforcement; generating new road-haulage operational centres is not going to achieve any more enforcement.

726. Mr Boylan: We are not disagreeing with you, and that is why we are challenging the Bill. There can be exemptions in place that will apply to the horticulture sector but, if there is going to be enforcement, we need to ensure that it is effective.

727. Mr T Clarke: I am totally opposed to the Bill, and I do not see how it is going to do what it is meant to do. Keeping slow-moving tractors in an operating centre or charging a fee for an operator’s licence is not going to make the roads any safer; I cannot see how the Bill is going to do that. We all want to see an improvement in road safety, but every time I read the Bill I get more apprehensive. People will be charged for having a certain number of vehicles, which must be kept in a special yard, and, after someone has invested money, the Department can review that yard every five years — I have major reservations about that. I support, initially at least, the call for the agriculture and horticulture sectors to be exempt; I would go further than that, however. I think that other members of the Committee know my view.

728. Mr Ford: In your presentation you talked about people who inadvertently fall within the regulations, and the Committee has great sympathy for the man who puts his neighbour’s hedge trimmings into a trailer behind a tractor. Last week, I was talking to the Farmers’ Union about what might be regarded as a red-diesel exemption; if something can be legitimately done with red diesel in a tractor then the question arises as to whether that should be exempt. It seems to me that once you start talking about landscape contractors travelling around a fair bit in 7·5-ton lorries, then you are into a completely different style of use. Although we could all agree on the exemption for the low-key, local, tractor-based activity, the Horticulture Forum seems to be trying to make the case that the 7·5-ton lorries used by its members are different from everybody else’s. I do not see that point.

729. Mr Eve: Landscapers are part of the Horticulture Forum, but we represent —

730. Mr Ford: I am looking at that particular sector and I cannot see how it can easily fall within, what could be broadly termed as, an agricultural exemption.

731. Mr Eve: The landscape industry is probably more commercial than the other industries that we represent. I apologise that I keep going back to the same point, but the landscape companies that are operating perfectly legally today and are maintaining their vehicles, generally tend to be small companies. The cost of the licence is relatively OK; however, the issue is the administrative burden on those small companies and the bureaucracy that comes along with that licence.

732. Mr Ford: Within half a mile of me there are two businesses in adjacent yards: one is a landscape contractor who employs four or five men; the other is a single-manned meal and fertilizer business who does a lot of haulage on his own account. Why should the landscape contractor be exempt when the fellow carting meals and manures is clearly not going to be exempt?

733. Mr Eve: Regarding the chap who is carrying the meals and manures, that is his daily haulage business, Monday to Friday. Generally, a landscape contractor — if he is sowing out a lawn, pruning a bed or building a deck at the back of somebody’s house — is not a road haulier.

734. Mr Ford: Nonetheless he is at times hauling quite significant loads in a vehicle of substantial size. If he were merely running a tractor around the townland, I could see what you are talking about.

735. Mr T Clarke: Surely, the authorities have a comprehensive list of all vehicles. If enforcement procedures in the past were right, you could go to any vehicle and carry out a spot check. An MOT or PSV is only as good as the day you get it — we are all aware of that. If you drive the vehicle down the road and something falls off it, and if you take it back in again, it will not pass the PSV or MOT test. A proper enforcement regime in Northern Ireland should have a database and be able to check those vehicles. If vehicles are not roadworthy, they should be stopped. However, operating centres are created to provide some other form of mechanism. That is totally wrong. The mechanism is already there. An MOT or PSV certificate is accurate only for the day of the test. There is nothing to prevent enforcement officers from spot-checking vehicles. How often have any of us been stopped on the road within the last few months or have witnessed spot checks on lorries? Yet, here we are, bringing in a Bill to try to —

736. The Chairperson: I hear what you are saying, Mr Clarke, but I am anxious to clarify one point. We all know that there are different people involved. The people in the agriculture sector — represented by Mr Clarke — are only one category. However, to tease out Mr Ford’s point, we all know people who are engaged in laying lawns, cutting, clipping, and so on, and we all know that trailers are attached to small lorries or vans for those operations. You can clearly see that there is a distinction between those two types of operation. We are trying to establish whether there is some sort of clear read-across that is consistent. We will ask the Department about that, and if it can supply us with that detail without too much difficulty, so much the better.

737. I like what we are hearing from the Horticulture Forum because you represent an interest that is slightly different to all the other cases presented to us. I want to know how this aspect has been handled in Britain.

738. Will you clarify for the Committee your response to Mr Ford’s question about people involved in landscaping, and so on?

739. Mr Eve: The Bill has been driven by the haulage industry. The average landscape gardener is not a haulage company and should not bear the same burden of administration that hauliers pay for running lorries. To turn that around, if another 20,000 or 25,000 operators’ licences are issued, those companies may legally haul goods on the road. That is probably not good, competitively, for the haulage industry.

740. The Chairperson: I do not think that that point follows. Because those firms are defined as such does not mean that they will engage in the same activity as the freight people.

741. Mr Eve: They could, though.

742. The Chairperson: The basis of your argument until now has been that they are doing something different to the freight companies.

743. Mr Eve: Yes; that is why I say that the current situation should not change. We do not see why growers of mushrooms, apples or vegetables, or landscape gardeners should be brought under the same umbrella as the haulage industry.

744. The Chairperson: I accept that point. However, we are teasing out the point, and we need a little more —

745. Mr Ford: The argument that Mr Eve has just made could be made by anyone hauling goods on his own account. The point of the Bill is to bring those hauling goods on their own account under the same licensing regime that those who do so for hire or reward are already under. That is my difficulty. Certain types of vehicles could be exempted: a slow-moving tractor, involved in agricultural operations and using red diesel may be identified as distinct. However, a certain section of your members’ vehicles are no different from those operated by others who come within the scope of the Bill That is assuming that the Bill goes ahead — Trevor may kill it off completely.

746. In those circumstances, I am trying to see how you can create a case for all your members, as distinct from those who seem to be quite close to what is being done by other people who come within the scope of the Bill.

747. Mr Eve: We need to go back to our industry, back to the Horticulture Forum.

748. Mr Ford: When you have another paper, please send it in.

749. Mr T Clarke: There is another way to ask that question, Chairman.

750. The Chairperson: Is this a follow-up question?

751. Mr T Clarke: Yes. David asks how the distinction will be drawn. You could turn the question around. The figures from the 2005 road freight compliance survey show that some 44% of vehicles were not roadworthy; 18% were guilty of tachograph/drivers’hours offences; 2·4% of loads were overweight; motor tax offences were running at 3%; and 2% of drivers were not properly insured. How will the Bill change that?

752. Mr Ford: You will need to ask the Department that question.

753. Mr T Clarke: I look forward to that.

754. Mr Ford: Given that the Assembly approved the Second Stage of the Bill, I thought that we had accepted its premise.

755. The Chairperson: We have a long list of questions to ask officials from the Department, including the enforcement officers who will give evidence to the Committee after this session. The Horticulture Forum representatives are welcome to stay to hear their contributions.

756. Mr Beggs: The Bill has appropriate balance. Do you want a blanket exemption for the horticulture industry? Multimillion-pound companies such as Emerald Lawns and Monaghan Mushrooms, although not in our jurisdiction, have a large number of employees who transport goods by road every day. Do you accept that there is a risk associated with carrying heavy goods? Do you accept that a blanket exemption for your industry is not feasible because the risk is there?

757. Mr Eve: The companies that you mentioned use HGV lorries.

758. Mr Beggs: If there were an exemption for the entire horticulture industry, that would apply to them. Is that what you are asking for?

759. The Chairperson: I do not think that that is what they mean.

760. Mr McKee: No. Of course horticulture companies that use HGV lorries should be subject to the legislation.

761. Mr Beggs: How will that distinction be drawn?

762. Mr McKee: All lorries that weigh 7·5 tons or less should be exempt. Vehicles that require the driver to hold only a normal driving licence should be exempt. However, vehicles that require the driver to hold a HGV licence should be subject to the new legislation.

763. Mr Boylan: I want to come back to the matter of enforcement and road safety — and I thank Mr Beggs for introducing an all-Ireland element to the discussion; it saved me from doing so. Road hauliers feel that they are carrying the burden of enforcement. We must strike a balance. Some of the points that you have raised about exemption have merit. Overall, we must address that issue as well as the section on enforcement.

764. Mr Eve: Given the size of the horticulture industry, it will not generate much revenue under the new legislation. I would have thought that the other industries that you are going after would make up the bulk of your finances.

765. Mr Boylan: In your case, you are fighting for your members.

766. The Chairperson: Mr McKee, Mr Eve, thank you very much for your time. You are welcome to stay to hear evidence from the Department. If you have any further information please forward it to the Committee.

767. I now welcome Bernie Cosgrove, John Martin and Richard Lee from the Department of the Environment’s Driver and Vehicle Agency. Thank you for attending. Obviously, you did not hear what was said beforehand. It is a pity that you were not present to hear the issues that members raised. Would you like to start your presentation?

768. Mrs Bernie Cosgrove (Department of the Environment): First, I apologise on behalf of Brendan Magee, chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Agency, who is unable to be here because he is out of the country on business. I thank you for inviting us to appear before the Committee.

769. We have scrutinised the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill closely. We broadly support the enhancements and measures that the Bill will introduce, particularly in levelling the playing field between hire-and-reward operators and own-account operators. The Bill will also give us additional enforcement powers to tackle non-compliance in the industry.

770. The Chairperson: Is that the end of your presentation?

771. Mrs Cosgrove: We are willing to answer any questions that members may have.

772. The Chairperson: It is a pity that you were not here earlier. If you had been, you would have heard representatives of the industry expressing their concerns about enforcement.

773. Mr T Clarke: I will go straight for the kill: what difference will the Bill make to enforcement practice?

774. Mr John Martin (Department of the Environment): The Bill will give us additional enforcement powers in both the hire-and-reward sector and the own-account sector. The own-account sector is not licensed, and, therefore, it is not subject to the same regulatory requirements as the hire-and-reward sector. The Bill will enable us to acquire more information from the own-account sector.

775. The Bill also proposes to introduce a requirement for operators to keep maintenance records. Currently, operators are not required to keep maintenance records for their fleet, and we have found that quite a few operators do not maintain their vehicles. Indeed, our fleet compliance survey indicated that upwards of 40% of those vehicles were not roadworthy. The new requirement means that operators will be obliged to keep records and ensure that vehicles are maintained throughout the year, rather than just once a year for the vehicle test.

776. The current provisions for the suspension and revocation of operators’ licences — as outlined in the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 — are too weak to properly regulate licensing. The Bill proposes to bring our licensing into line with that in GB, where the traffic commissioners have additional powers to regulate the industry in cases of non-compliance.

777. Mr T Clarke: Do you feel that the Driver and Vehicle Agency is adequately resourced to tackle enforcement?

778. Mr Martin: No, we are not adequately resourced to deal with enforcement. The problem is a combination of a lack of sufficient resources and the inadequacy of the regulation regime.

779. Mr T Clarke: Forgetting the regime for one moment, are you adequately resourced to enforce licensing in Northern Ireland?

780. Mr Martin: Currently, as we stand, no, we are not.

781. Mr T Clarke: You are not adequately resourced at the moment. You will be even more inadequately resourced if you are granted more powers; the problem will become twofold.

782. Mr Martin: We are trying to align our regime with the GB regime. We bid for additional resources for goods-vehicle enforcement under the comprehensive spending review (CSR) process last year. Those resources would enhance our ability to deal with some of the enforcement issues, but they have not come into play yet. However, resources alone are not enough; we need a much tighter regulatory regime to deal with people who continually ignore the legal requirements.

783. Mr T Clarke: The industry is concerned that current enforcement is inadequate. I do not know whether that concern was raised today, but I have certainly heard it in the past. We should not be going from A to Z so quickly. People who use the roads have said that the enforcement is inadequate. Indeed, I cannot remember the last time that I saw vehicles being stopped. I am greatly concerned that enforcement is not adequate at the moment. We are trying to get to the point at which it is excellent, but we do not even have a good standard of enforcement.

784. Following on from that, there is the issue of vehicles that are not roadworthy. We have statistics here about illegal operations: 44% of vehicles were not roadworthy; 18% were guilty of tachograph offences; 2· 4% were found to be overweight. What difference will the Bill make to those statistics? If enforcement is not happening at the moment, that will not change.

785. The Chairperson: I wish to have a little more clarity about that issue. What potential percentage increase is there likely to be in the number of vehicles that fall within the remit of the Bill?

786. Mr Martin: The own-account sector, which is unlicensed, makes up approximately 75% of the fleet in Northern Ireland. The other 25% comprises the licensed fleet — the vehicles that fall within the licensing regime. We have been working with our counterparts in GB. The level of non-compliance is much lower in GB, but that is not solely because of the enforcement action that is taken at the roadside, where the vehicle is stopped and the person prosecuted. There is a much more robust licensing regime in GB to back up enforcement. That means that if people are found to be non-compliant on a regular basis, they will lose the right to carry out their business as a licensed operator. It is a combination of effective roadside enforcement and a licensing and regulatory regime to back that up.

787. The Chairperson: To go back to my point, what is the anticipated increase in the number of operators that will fall within the remit of the licensing regime set out in the Bill? Is it a 75% increase? You mentioned a 75-25 split. Do you anticipate a 75% increase in the number of enforcement officials? We have heard today from one area of the industry that there is currently no effective enforcement here.

788. Mr Martin: We do not envisage a 75% increase in enforcement staffing. Seventy five per cent of the fleet does not fall within the licensed sector. However, those vehicles are still used on the roads, and we will continue to stop those vehicles in order to determine their roadworthiness and vehicle weight. We still encounter those vehicles at the roadside despite the fact that there is no licensing regime to regulate them. We stop those vehicles and deal with issues as we encounter them.

789. Mr I McCrea: What resources are currently in place? How many enforcement officers are there, and how many should there be?

790. Mr Martin: The total staff complement of the section is 28. Under the CSR process, we bid for resources for an additional 33 members of staff. Not all of those staff would be dedicated to goods vehicle enforcement, but we are talking about a 100% increase in the staffing complement in order to put us on a par with our counterparts in GB. The bid was approved in its entirety because of the issues in the industry.

791. Mr Gallagher: We are all trying to improve vehicle safety on the roads. The problem is that there may be an operator who regularly has four or six heavy vehicles on the roads that are not compliant, and which pose a risk to the safety of other road users. We are trying to arrive at an agreement about a Bill that will deal with such problems and achieve the objective of vehicle safety.

792. You propose to include in the new legislation certain operators who might do some seasonal lawn mowing or hedge cutting, usually for a very small return. Those people could now be regarded as operators and as running operator centres. In addition, there is the licence, the costs, and the additional bureaucracy involved in complying with the new arrangements under discussion. The range of operators covered by the Bill seems unfair. What exemptions might be possible, and what is the situation in Great Britain? Is there anything that we might learn from the experience in Great Britain?

793. Mr Martin: From our perspective, and from our knowledge of the GB licensing regime, exemptions are provided that are worth considering. However, we want to ensure that there is a level playing field for anybody who operates a vehicle on a commercial basis to carry goods for either hire and reward or for their own benefit. The procedures could be worked back from the starting point to see whether certain sectors of the industry would be worthy of an exemption. However, the underlying requirement is that, irrespective of whether people are in the licensing regime or not, they must still maintain their vehicles and comply with all the other legal requirements.

794. Difficulties would arise if vehicles or operators were outside the licensing regime. What action could be taken against them to allow them to continue to operate within that sector? In other words, if someone is continually non-compliant and completely ignores the legal requirements about roadworthiness, etc, that could cause danger to other road users, should that person be allowed to continue in the business? That is where the weakness is in the current system: if people completely ignore the legal requirements there are no effective licensing sanctions that can be used against those operators to take them out of the industry. The difference between the system here and the system in GB is that the authorities there have the autonomy to suspend or revoke an operator’s licence. That is why the GB’s level of non-compliance is much lower.

795. Mr T Clarke: I disagree, John. You referred to a level playing field and the weakness in the system. The weakness lies with the enforcement. The current legislation allows for a proper enforcement regime, and there are fines to support that. However, the DVA is not conducting its role properly. It is unfair to blame the industry because it is not comparable to that in England.

796. With respect to the level playing field, the land border with the Republic is another difference between Northern Ireland and England. Operators in the Republic can come and exploit Northern Ireland because the Republic will not have the same licensing regime as it is hoped to introduce here. You want fairness in the system and yet you are creating unfairness. The operators here will be at an unfair disadvantage to those in the Republic of Ireland.

797. The Chairperson: The point about the relocation of industry was raised before.

798. Mr Martin: In respect of Mr Clarke’s point about the enforcement responsibilities, the unfortunate fact is that when we prosecute people, the fines may not necessarily be a deterrent. We have lists of operators who have been prosecuted on countless occasions — well into double figures — but those who operate those types of fleets seem to view the fines as a running expense and a cost that must be borne. Some operators have a horrendous list of offences, both in the own-account sector and, maybe fewer in the hire-and-reward sector, but, obviously, effective enforcement has not been able to deal with that. We are taking cases to court and getting prosecutions. We are taking unroadworthy vehicles off the road. However, that is not acting as a deterrent.

799. In our discussions with GB, we are asking why that is the case, and why the operators continue to operate despite the fact that we are taking them to court regularly. What is missing in Northern Ireland is an effective licensing regime to back up enforcement at the roadside. Quite a number of people have been prosecuted for a lot of offences through our process of prosecuting at the roadside, but it is not acting as an effective deterrent. People’s attitudes to compliance will change if the prosecutions are fed into the licensing regime and result in the suspension or revocation of a licence.

800. Mr T Clarke: Chairman, can we be provided with the statistics for the enforcement cases that have been taken in the past five years, the convictions, and the number of those that were duplicate or triplicate?

801. The Chairperson: We can certainly get that.

802. Has the relocation of industry come up as an issue — or, perhaps, I should ask the Planning Service about that? Through your correspondence or any of your dealings with the industry, have you been given cause to believe that there will be displacement of industry as a result of potential enforcement?

803. Mr Martin: The hire-and-reward sector is subject to the enforcement regime from a licensing perspective and on the roadside. We have not seen any great displacement of the industry to Southern Ireland as a consequence of that. It is not necessary to be based in a particular location to be part of the hire-and-reward sector, but people who run quarries or building-supply businesses in the own-account sector cannot really operate from another jurisdiction.

804. The Chairperson: They can operate from another jurisdiction. We heard this argument before, particularly in relation to issue of rates and industrial deregulation. Businesses, especially in Derry, can just go down the road to one of the big industrial estates in Letterkenny. That is business; that is how those businesses can operate to cut costs.

805. Mr Martin: I am not saying that it would not be a problem, but, up to now, we have not seen any evidence of that, and I do not know whether it will happen. The hire-and-reward sector is licensed currently, and we have not seen much evidence of that. I cannot predict whether it will be the case in the future.

806. Mr Boylan: The question of how this will be enforced keeps raising its head. You are talking about 75%; but there is an issue about the 3·5 ton vehicles. A large percentage of those vehicles will be operating from home. There should be a level playing field, but, perhaps, tractors should be exempt. If this legislation progresses, somebody will have to pay for it, but it should be the same across the board. How should we deal with the actual enforcement? Will there be a database of the people who have paid? Will there be a manned mobile unit on the side of the road? We are talking about 3·5-ton vehicles and big vans that are operating from homes. How will you enforce the legislation and ensure that every operator and vehicle is licensed.

807. Mr Martin: Under the proposed regime, vehicles up to 3·5 tons — the like of builders’ vans, for instance — will be exempt.

808. Mr Boylan: I know that, but there are bigger vans than 3·5-ton twin-axled vehicles. How will the issue be addressed, realistically?

809. Mr Martin: Recently, we purchased new equipment, including automatic number-plate recognition equipment. Four or five years ago, our main focus was on checking high numbers on vehicles. However, we found that we were focusing more on checking vehicles than on checking vehicles that had offences. We reduced the number of vehicles that we check and try to focus our attention on vehicles that are non-compliant; we target our resources at the most non-compliant.

810. Over the past 12 to 18 months, the number of non-compliant vehicles that we have detected has increased, despite the fact that the overall number of vehicles that we checked had reduced dramatically. The percentage of the vehicles that we have seen has increased as well. We are more effective now in targeting the non-compliant operators. Any information or intelligence that we have on a non-compliant operator is fed into our database, and that enables us to target the vehicles as they travel along the road.

811. Mr Gallagher: My point about providing details on vehicles that had been apprehended has already been raised.

812. Mr Beggs: The purpose of the legislation is to try to improve road safety. That is the main reason why the legislation is being proposed. Mention was made of potential displacement in an attempt to avoid some aspects of the legislation. Are you talking to your counterparts in the Republic of Ireland in order to avoid the risk of an increased amount of accidents or poor vehicle maintenance because of the difficulties that could arise with operators in that part of the world.

813. Mr Richard Lee (Department of the Environment): We run a lot of joint operations, both with the Road Safety Authority in the South, and with the Garda Síochána. We have regular contact with those bodies; it is not the case that we sit alone and do not have intelligence from our colleagues in the South.

814. Mr Beggs: Is similar legislation being proposed in the Republic of Ireland?

815. Mr Lee: I am not aware that similar legislation is being proposed on operator licensing.

816. Mr Beggs: Therefore, a single operator who wanted to avoid the legislation could displace his location.

817. The Chairperson: An operator could, for instance, move from Newry to Dundalk.

818. Mr Beggs: Given that the legislation is concerned with road safety, are you pressing that issue with your opposite numbers in the Republic of Ireland?

819. Mr Martin: Colleagues in the Department of the Environment have had several meetings with our counterparts in Southern Ireland to discuss that. A few more meetings have been scheduled to try to tease out the issues and identify whether an enhanced regime will be introduced in the South.

820. The Chairperson: I thank the witnesses for their time.

821. The next briefing will be from the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. I welcome Mr Simon Kirk, who has been sitting at the back and taking in everything.

822. Mr T Clarke: Chairman, the need for a level playing field has been mentioned. The Department has provided a comparison of the fees for Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A licence for an operator with 10 vehicles costs £2,381 in Great Britain, £3,150 in Northern Ireland and £772 in the Republic of Ireland. That is, supposedly, a level playing field.

823. The Chairperson: Mr Kirk, thank you for your attendance today. A number of issues were raised initially on the implications for planning. Will you provide a brief overview of that?

824. Mr Simon Kirk (Department of the Environment): The Planning Service would only be involved if someone proposed to establish a new haulage business, or if they used a site that was not authorised. Once a haulage operator is operating from an established centre with the benefit of planning permission, or because it has established-use rights, there is no issue for the Planning Service.

825. Mr T Clarke: Chairman, can we cut to the chase? That is nonsense.

826. The Chairperson: I appreciate that Trevor is anxious to speak, but we will wait until Mr Kirk is finished. Please continue.

827. Mr Kirk: If an operator were to park a vehicle at a dwelling overnight, that, on its own, would not constitute development.

828. Mr T Clarke: Can I have that in writing? A lot of people would love to have that written down.

829. The Chairperson: You will have it in writing, because the Committee meeting is being covered by Hansard.

830. Mr T Clarke: Brilliant stuff.

831. The Chairperson: Trevor, please let us hear what the man has to say.

832. Mr Kirk: That is the essence of what Planning Service has said. If a haulage business is operating with the benefit of planning permission, there is no issue for Planning Service.

833. Mr T Clarke: That is missing the point.

834. The Chairperson: I know, but do you have something further to add?

835. Mr Kirk: No, I have nothing further to add.

836. The Chairperson: We will hear what the point is.

837. Mr T Clarke: Under the new legislation, a small operator with a medium-sized van that is 3·5 tons would need an operating centre. What if he is operating from home? What will the Planning Service’s view be on that arrangement?

838. Mr Kirk: The parking of a vehicle —

839. Mr T Clarke: No, he is running a business from his home. The operating centre is establishing his business from his residential property. What is the Planning Service’s view on that?

840. Mr Kirk: There are certain instances in which a person can run a business from home — as long as the principal use remains as a dwelling house and no material change has been made to part of the curtilage or the dwelling. Parking and running a vehicle from home does not constitute a business.

841. Mr T Clarke: Chairman, could I get that in writing? I want that in writing from the Planning Service, because that is utter nonsense. I know of cases in which owners of small businesses have run businesses from their homes, and the Planning Service has taken enforcement cases against them to prevent them from doing so. They have had to move their business and establish proper premises. Therefore, what you are saying today totally contradicts what has happened in the past.

842. The Chairperson: Mr Kirk, let me put our concern to you. Say, for example, a self-employed man who works in the haulage business parks his lorry at the side of his house. At the moment, all he is doing is parking his lorry at the side of the house and perhaps writing out a few invoices from inside the house. The concern is that, under the provisions of the Bill, his home could be classed as a business.

843. Mr T Clarke: It would be classed as his operating centre.

844. The Chairperson: Yes, it would be classed as his operating centre. Therefore, in the Planning Service’s eyes, the use of his home would change: it would no longer be a place to park the lorry but an operating centre or a business. Can you give the Committee an assurance that that would not happen?

845. Mr Kirk: We are talking about a material change in the use of land. It is a matter of fact and degree. Simply parking a vehicle in your driveway overnight does not constitute —

846. Mr T Clarke: Do you see this title “operating centre”; that is an establishment. That is nonsense, Chairman.

847. The Chairperson: Hold on a minute, Trevor.

848. Mr Kirk: It is not nonsense.

849. Mr T Clarke: It is utter nonsense.

850. The Chairperson: Hold on just a wee minute. I want to get this matter clarified; just bear with me a minute.

851. Mr Kirk: Sorry, Mr Chairman.

852. The Chairperson: Under current planning law, that is the case — parking a vehicle at the side of your house is no problem. The issue being raised is that, under the proposals in the Bill, the house would become an operating centre, and that that could be interpreted as a business as opposed to a private residence. Thus, that proposal would have important consequences. The Committee is seeking an assurance from the Planning Service and the other wing of DOE that the term “operating centre” will not automatically be interpreted as a business. That is what we want clarified.

853. Mr Boylan: Let me put it another way — and Simon, I have your notes. A large number of vehicles are over 3·5 tons. A driver may park his vehicle at his house, offload the goods, put them in a garage overnight and reload them in the morning. Where does the Planning Service stand on that issue? Would it class that activity as operating a business from home? Clearly, that could happen. From what you have told us, I understand that it is alright if the driver leaves the goods in the vehicle overnight and drives away the next morning. However, on some occasions, the person may have to offload the goods in the garage, yard or wherever. In those cases, would they need to register a change of use of their building or garage under the terms of the new legislation?

854. Mr Kirk: It is sometimes difficult to establish that a change of use has occurred. It is a matter of fact and degree. In a case where goods are occasionally being taken off the vehicle and put in the garage, it might be concluded that change of use had not taken place.

855. I must point out that anyone who is subject to enforcement action will clearly have the right to an appeal before the Planning Appeals Commission. The first ground on which anyone will challenge us is that the development does not require planning permission. If we say that a man is just parking a vehicle at the side of his house, but we have decided that there has been development because there is some other licensing operation, the appeal would fall.

856. Mr T Clarke: I declare an interest in this issue, because I had an enforcement case taken against me for parking cars in my yard. I lived in the dwelling for eight and a half years and parked cars in the yard for eight and a half years, but an enforcement case was taken against me for doing so.

857. The Chairperson: What was the case based on?

858. Mr T Clarke: I was parking vehicles in my yard that were then taken on to auction houses, but what is the difference between that and someone using a van for their business and parking it at their house? It is still an operating centre.

859. The Chairperson: We need written clarity from Planning Service in the context of the operating centre and the potential for it being interpreted by a planning official as a meaningful change of use from a residence to a business. That is the key issue.

860. Mr Kirk: If someone is living in the house, it remains a dwelling. Are you asking what would happen if part of the curtilage changed? In other words, what would happen if there were a partial change of use?

861. The Chairperson: No, I am not asking that. We have been involved with councils long enough to know the situation. If another wing of the Department decides that a dwelling is an operating centre for the purpose of that business, somewhere along the line, a planning official could interpret that as an operating centre for business, when it is supposed to be residential. That would bring people into an area where they do not want to be. Therefore, that issue must be verified.

862. Mr Boylan: It is vital to clarify whether goods stored on a property would definitely mean that the building is being used for a business. The issue relates to the operator’s licence and the need to have an operating centre. I would like you to clarify the issue relating to storage and movement of goods from operating centres.

863. Mr Kirk: I will clarify that. I can point to pages of case law, but it will very much depend on fact and degree, the amount of times that it happens, the size of the goods and where they are being stored.

864. The Chairperson: I appreciate all that. The nub of the matter is that it will boil down to some planning official deciding how an operating centre impacts on the interpretation of whether a property is used as a dwelling.

865. Mr Kirk: If the Bill becomes law, we will clearly have to brief and give guidance to our staff.

866. Mr T Clarke: Not guidance, because guidance is interpreted in different ways by different councils. Guidance does not work for Planning Service, because the Minister sent guidance notes to Planning Service relating to Planning Policy Statement 14 (PPS 14), but it did not understand them either, because everyone interpreted them differently. Guidance does not work.

867. The Chairperson: The Committee needs clarification on the key issue of the operating centre and the potential for impact in interpretation of planning law, from tipping the balance between residential and business. Committee officials will be in touch with departmental officials on the matter. That is really the nub of the issue.

868. Mr Kirk: I would like to make one final point: even if it was a business, if it has been established for a period of time, it is lawful.

869. Mr T Clarke: The issue also relates to how the Department would count that.

870. Mr Kirk: It is simple. It is four years for a building and 10 years for change of use of land.

871. Mr Boylan: There will potentially be numerous businesses operating in the countryside because of this Bill

872. Mr T Clarke: Is it 10 years for a business?

873. Mr Kirk: No, it is four years to enforce against operational development of a building and 10 years for change of use of land.

874. Mr T Clarke: I parked vehicles at my yard for eight and a half years, and I still lived in the property.

875. The Chairperson: I am sure you have a fair idea about the issue here, Mr Kirk. We would be grateful for written clarity on it, but I am not sure whether you can provide it in isolation; you will certainly have to liaise with your departmental colleagues on the operating-centre issue. Thank you for your time.

9 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witness:

Mrs Beverley Bell

North Western Traffic Area

876. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): The Committee, today, holds its final evidence session on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill and will hear from Beverley Bell, Traffic Commissioner for the north western traffic area. The Committee has heard the views of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), and last week, it heard evidence from departmental enforcement officers and planning officials, as well as from the Horticulture Forum.

877. A copy of Mrs Bell’s written submission on the Good Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill is included in members’ packs. It makes reference to the requirement in statue for Traffic Commissioners to produce an annual report. Members have also been provided with a copy of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s annual report 2006-07, which include statistics on goods vehicle operator licensing. An electronic copy of the report has also been issued to members.

878. Tom Wilson, Freight Transport Association, has forwarded a paper regarding the function of an independent regulator for the licensing of goods vehicle operators, which is included in the pack.

879. I welcome Beverley Bell, Traffic Commissioner for the north western traffic area. It is good to see you. You are very welcome indeed. Thank you for making a submission to the Committee. You have around 15 minutes in which to make a presentation. We are flexible and will not press you to stick rigidly to the time limit. There will then be a question-and-answer session with members.

880. Mrs Beverley Bell (North Western Traffic Area): I hope that this will not be like the European Court where the microphone is switched off after 15 minutes.

881. The Chairperson: No, but I think that that is a good idea. I can think of a few cases where that would be very helpful and a few cases where an electric shock could stimulate witnesses into giving more information.

882. Mrs Bell: I could use that for some of the solicitors who appear before me. I would love to be able to shut them up after 15 minutes. There is no danger of my speaking for too long, I assure you.

883. Thank you very much for inviting me. I love coming over here, and I love your Building; it is fantastic. I welcome the opportunity to speak with you and possibly engage in some debate, rather than make a formal presentation. I will say a little about my background: who I am, where I am from, what I do, and how I approach regulation.

884. My first point is that I have two factors: one is aggravating and one is mitigating. I will let you decide which is which. I am not a civil servant, but I am a lawyer, so I will let you decide which is aggravating and which is mitigating. It is important, as far as I am concerned, that the regulation that I do is independent and is not linked to the Civil Service.

885. I used to be a solicitor in private practice doing prosecution and defence work, criminal work, and transport law. That is where I first became interested in transport law. I was appointed in 2000. At that time, as I have mentioned in my written submission, the north-west traffic area had suffered from under-regulation for a long time, for a number of reasons. My job was to improve and increase the standards of the operators in the north-west traffic area. Having done so over the last seven or eight years, we are now moving on to the promotion of best practice. We have upped the skills of operators in making sure that road safety and fair competition are not jeopardised.

886. I am sure that when the Committee scrutinises a piece of legislation, it questions the purpose of the legislation, why it is being examined, and why it is being brought into play. That is what I talk to operators about when they see me at public inquiry. I tell them that my job is never about red tape; it is about the promotion of road safety and fair competition. Although I tend not to get too passionate in my work, it really is the driving force behind everything that I do, and everything that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) does. I welcome debate on road safety and fair competition.

887. An aside to that is the environmental protection aspect of the legislation. We examine that when we look at operating centres. I will not talk about that in great detail in my presentation, but I want to flag it up and if you want to ask questions around the issues of environmental protection and operating centres, then I will happily do what I can to inform you how we implement that in the north-west traffic area.

888. The other key point for me is what we say to operators, and what operators say back to us, which is that ours is regulation with a light touch. I say that that is absolutely fine, but it is not with a soft touch — more on that later.

889. Another key feature included in my written representation is that I regard — and I speak for my fellow commissioners here — exercising of discretion as key to my role. I came over about five years ago when I first became involved in looking at what happens here, and spoke to some civil servants about regulation: how they regulate; how they grant licences; and how they take licences away. They asked me how that could be done without exercising discretion. My answer was the same then as it is now — I do not think that that can be done without discretion. It is a matter of how that discretion is exercised. That leads me to look at the separation of those powers.

890. I am completely naive as far as politics is concerned, and that is absolutely right, as my job is non-political. The commissioners and Government regard it as essential that we are not part of any political process, interference, pressure, or influence. For that reason, the licensing authorities — let us remove the word “commissioner” for the moment — have the respect and confidence not only of the industry but, most importantly, of the Government. We are currently going through a process with regard to the implementation of the Local Transport Bill [HL], and commissioners have appeared before the parliamentary Transport Select Committee. In a recent debate, Rosie Winterton, the Transport Minister, spoke about the high regard in which the Government hold Traffic Commissioners. Our independence of Government and the respect that we have from the industry puts us in a very strong position.

891. I have spoken about regulation in the north-west of England, but Traffic Commissioners regulate in generally the same way right across Great Britain. We adopt a two-pronged strategy, which I call the carrot-and-stick, or enforcement-and-education, approach. We try to both enforce and educate.

892. At public inquiry yesterday morning, I dealt with two operators who had not been not been doing what they should under the terms of their licences. One of the operators did not bother attending — which is always a bad start to a public inquiry — so I took his licence away from him. The other operator did attend the inquiry because I had recently taken his vehicles off the road for a few days. We were able to resolve matters — he is back on the road and everything is as it should be. That is an example of the enforcement aspect of our regulation.

893. However, education is also key to our regulation. Yesterday afternoon, I made a presentation to around 170 operators from all over the country to alert them to the new initiatives that are being introduced by VOSA and the European Parliament and to ensure that they are complying with what is required.

894. As I said in my introduction to those operators, commissioners can suffer from their press. We are reported in the trade magazines ‘Commercial Motor’ and ‘Coach and Bus Week’, and it can seem as though we are harsh or strict and wanting to take action against operators. The advantage of engaging with the industry — and attending meetings such as this one and the Select Committee — is that people can see us as individuals who are committed to promoting road safety, fair competition and, just as importantly, making operators’ jobs easier.

895. In my annual report last year, I wrote that the work of operators and commissioners is similar in some respects — we can both run things properly with the right staff and systems. It is only when those systems and procedures go wrong that difficulty arises. If our system goes wrong, it might mean that an operator gets a licence a week late. However, if an operator’s system goes wrong, a wheel may come off the vehicle and someone could be killed.

896. There is something that I had not appreciated was such an issue here, and that is the use of commercial vehicles for criminal activity. I have been talking to the police in the north-west traffic area about that, and having done a bit of research, I see that there are some big issues regarding the criminal activity that surrounds some specific types of commercial vehicles. A quality operator-licensing scheme — whether own account or hire and reward — would go a significant way to addressing that criminal activity.

897. Those are the key issues that I wanted to flag up to the Committee. However, I am more interested in debate than formal presentation, and more interested in answering the Committee’s questions and hearing what members think is good and, perhaps more importantly, what is bad about Traffic Commissioners.

898. Mr Beggs: Thank you for your presentation and for coming to give us the benefit of your experience. In your written submission, you indicated that you have become increasingly frustrated by the illegitimate haulage industry’s attempts to circumvent your orders and by its continued unsafe and unfair competition. One of the ways in which they do that is to operate from a Northern Ireland or Republic of Ireland base. Can you give us more information about the sort of things that have been happening, and what experiences have you had on your patch of vehicles with poor safety standards?

899. Mrs Bell: Do you mean with regard to vehicles operated from here?

900. Mr Beggs: Yes.

901. Mrs Bell: The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association have already provided statistics for unsafe vehicles in the UK. However, I can tell you that, in the north-west traffic area, when VOSA targets vehicles from Northern Ireland or the Republic, its hit rate for prohibiting vehicles and drivers is substantially higher than for operators based in the north-west.

902. Heysham docks provide another example on my patch. When operators that are licensed by me attach trailers that have come from Northern Ireland to their tractor units, the chances are that those trailers will be in such poor condition that the operators will immediately incur a prohibition. Consequently, before allowing such trailers to operate on a vehicle that I have licensed, operators in my patch employ mechanics at the docks to submit them to a safety inspection.

903. Mr Beggs: Have your efforts to drive up industry standards had an impact on road-safety figures for accidents involving heavy goods vehicles?

904. Mrs Bell: It is not for me to justify my existence, but others who work with me tell me that there has been a significant improvement in the state of the fleet and in the culture of compliance by operators, and that is the key.

905. When I started eight years ago, I was worried because I was the youngest, and the first female, commissioner, and I thought that operators might think that I was just a soppy girl. Therefore, in order to hit the ground running — being reasonable, of course, and, given that I am a lawyer, going through all the necessary legal procedures — I took away a few licences just to show them who was boss so that they would sit up and take notice. I did not revoke licences just for the sake of it, but I did take robust action, because it was important for the operators to be aware that the relevant body — whether a commissioner, a licensing authority or a Government agency — was prepared to take such action.

906. Moreover, if you look at the report, the statistics for the number of licences that I and my colleagues revoked speak for themselves, and that is what makes the operators sit up and take notice. Operators can be prosecuted by VOSA, or your equivalent, until the cows come home, but that means nothing. However, they can be given a fine of a couple of hundred quid for a defective brake, and I can take the vehicle off the road until the brakes are mended. That is what they listen to.

907. For me, it is not just about banging a drum; it is about winning operators’ hearts and minds. Generally, they grow to understand that it is not good customer service to say that goods cannot be delivered because an examiner has put a vehicle off the road and that it must remain parked up until its braking system is sorted out. Maintaining a safe and efficient fleet improves operators’ bottom line and enables them to get on the road and do their business.

908. Mr Beggs: You said that you have recently been advised that commercial vehicles are sometimes caught up in illegal activity. If an operator has a track record of illegal activity, presumably that is grounds for removing the licence, which, in turn, prevents the abuse of vehicles for such activities.

909. Mrs Bell: Absolutely. A couple of years ago, I had a case involving an operator from Liverpool, and I was concerned that his business was a front for illegal drug smuggling and money laundering, and — joy of joys — I saw on television that he got nine years. That is a good example of somebody using his business as a front for illegal activity.

910. Mr Ford: I welcome you as well. Your written submission states — and you have just re-emphasised it — that the key to effective regulation is to grant discretion to the regulator. Do you believe that you have greater discretion than a civil servant doing the same role would have, and if so, why?

911. Mrs Bell: I am not subject to influence— be it good, bad or indifferent — from a line manager. I am free to make the decisions that I feel are appropriate, subject to the checks and balances that apply when I sit in a quasi-judicial capacity. That is so different from the way in which a civil servant would work. That is why there is a real value in what we do as regulators.

912. Mr Ford: How do you liaise with VOSA regarding your almost parallel responsibilities?

913. Mrs Bell: We do it all day, every day in many and different ways. I will give some examples. In most cases, VOSA staff deal with the checks and balances of a licence application, such as whether the person has the licence fee, a certificate of professional competence (CPC), and so on. Once the groundwork is complete, I sign off on the case. It might take the civil servants a long time to conduct the admin work, whereas it takes me only a short time to sign off on a case. I have complete trust and faith in what they do. That is the nature of our relationship. I trust them, and they trust me.

914. I spend a large part of my time dealing with non-compliant operators — the naughty boys. In those cases, the civil servants might have only a small amount of work to do, and I will do the lion’s share. They set out the reasons why an operator is bad and hand the case over to me. I then deal with the case through an inquiry, a hearing or an interview in my office.

915. Does that answer your question, or do you want some more detail?

916. Mr Ford: No, that is a good start, because the next question I was going to ask is what exactly you mean by “public inquiry”.

917. Mrs Bell: I am sorry; my apologies. Most of my time is spent in a courtroom-type setting. It is great fun; you must come and watch. I come in, everyone stands up, I go into formal mode, and then they all sit down. I hear evidence from VOSA witnesses about, for example, an incident in which a wheel came off an operator’s vehicle but fortunately nobody was killed. Then I hear from the operator about why it went wrong and, much more importantly, what has been done to put it right. The public inquiry is the mechanism by which I decide what to do with the licence.

918. If an operator has a licence for 20 vehicles, I must decide whether it should be allowed to continue to operate those vehicles or whether its licence should be reduced to 10 or five vehicles, or whether the vehicles should be taken off the road completely, or whether the drivers should undergo training.

919. It is not my job to put operators out of business — a common misconception; it is my job to make them comply. I do that in a number of ways. I am not a judge, because I have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings. I want to get operators back on the straight and narrow; I want to make them comply. The sort of orders that I might make day in, day out, are that drivers must be trained to perform daily walk-round checks or that they must be trained in the tachograph regulations. I probably spend around four days a week in public inquiry, hearing from the operators and their solicitors.

920. Mr Ford: You said that you do not have power to compel attendance at the inquiry. Nevertheless, you go ahead and make your determination.

921. Mrs Bell: The question I ask myself is this: if I do not meet the operators, how can I possibly conclude that their operations are safe and legal to continue? Operating licensing is based on trust. I grant a licence on the basis of promises that are given to me. I must meet the operators to ascertain whether I can trust them. If they are not there, I cannot question them and find out.

922. Mr Ford: What staff, as opposed to VOSA staff, do you have to carry out those functions?

923. Mrs Bell: There are two types of staff. However, all the staff who work for me are VOSA staff.

924. Mr Ford: Are they with you on secondment?

925. Mrs Bell: No; I do not know how to describe it, but the Government sort it out and all the staff are from VOSA. There are two groups of staff. The first group is the 50 or so licensing staff based in Leeds, who are very efficient. I work electronically with them, because I am 50 miles away, and they cover the whole of Great Britain. The second group is the 10 staff in my office. It is their job to deal with compliance issues, so they prepare the cases for public inquiry and do other preparation. In many cases, we might send operators warning letters to tell them that we have marked their card, that they are on our system and that we know that they have done something wrong. We then check in a year that everything is in order.

926. Mr Ford: Are appeals against your decisions to a court?

927. Mrs Bell: There is an appeal process, and appeals are made to the Transport Tribunal. However, that will be replaced by the upper tier, because we are having a shift.

928. Mr Ford: What percentage of your decisions are appealed?

929. Mrs Bell: Far too many — the percentage of successful appeals is tiny compared to the amount of work that I do. It is in the statistics. From about 180 public inquiries every year, three or four of my decisions are overturned. If I did not want my decisions to be appealed, I would not be so robust — I would just get operators to agree not to be naughty again. However, because I am not afraid to take robust decisions, I do not mind those decisions being appealed. I do get it wrong sometimes — as a woman, I do not mind admitting that.

930. The Chairperson: We are all human.

931. I want to pick up on a couple of points. Who regulates you? If you tell an operator that all of his or her drivers must go on a training course, how do you ensure that that happens?

932. Mrs Bell: They provide evidence. I am regulated in two respects. First, as I said to Mr Ford, if I make a mistake in a public inquiry, when I have my judicial hat on, the Transport Tribunal, or the upper tier, will correct me. When the new legislation is passed, I will be appealed on a point of law. Second, as a Traffic Commissioner and a licensing authority, I am accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport, which is the equivalent of being accountable to the Department here. That is why we publish our annual report — it justifies what I do. If the Select Committee or the Secretary of State ask for proof that I am effective as a regulator and that I am doing my job properly, I can give them the annual report.

933. The Chairperson: That happens once a year. However, if you want advice on how to pursue a matter, who do you contact?

934. Mrs Bell: We have regular dialogue with the Department for Transport and VOSA. We have tripartite meetings on a quarterly basis. Therefore, if I wanted to implement a new initiative that I am piloting in the north-west, I would contact a senior civil servant in the Department for Transport and the chief executive of VOSA to ask their opinion.

935. I would proceed only if I had their buy-in, because, although I am not a civil servant, I am paid by, and accountable to, Government. Therefore, I must work with them, and follow and inform their policies.

936. The Chairperson: So, although you direct your initiatives, they comply with Government policies on matters such as training.

937. Mrs Bell: Yes.

938. The Chairperson: Will you elaborate on that point? How do you ensure that that happens?

939. Mrs Bell: There are two ways. I might, for example, request that driver training be done by a recognised third-party provider, such as FTA or RHA, and I would then simply ask for evidence. Consequently, if FTA sends me certificates to demonstrate that drivers have done the course, then that is fine; it reduces the administrative burden on, and the cost to, the operator.

940. Similarly, if I have allowed a license to continue, but I have not asked for any undertakings, I would ask VOSA, the enforcement agency, to go back in six to 12 months to check, and I can stipulate whether that inspection should be announced or unannounced. The beauty of operator licensing is the continued relationship between the operator and the enforcement authority.

941. Mr T Clarke: I, too, welcome you. I am a little alarmed by your response to a question asked by Mr Beggs. You said that trailers coming from Northern Ireland are more likely to be unsafe. I am one of the Committee members who are against the Bill, because I do not understand how having an operator centre would address those problems. Those have nothing to do with such centres or the Bill, but arise from the process through which trailers must go. If trailers possess an MOT or PSV certificate, how do so many leave Northern Ireland and go to England in an unsafe state?

942. Mrs Bell: First, it is not operating that promotes road safety but operator licensing, based on the operator’s repute, financial situation, professional competence and his undertakings. Operating centres are a separate matter; granting a licence makes an operator safe.

943. VOSA has a brilliant slide — which I now wish that I had brought — to demonstrate the MOT standard, which is the absolute minimum for a vehicle to comply with the construction and use regulations. On the day that a vehicle undergoes its MOT, it has had the bare minimum of maintenance. When an operator carries out regular safety inspections of a vehicle, during which a mechanic crawls all over it to check that everything is OK, its standard of roadworthiness should be much higher.

944. Consider the following: the standard at which a vehicle should be on the day of its safety inspection is considerably higher than on that of its MOT inspection. Every time the vehicle then goes out on the road to deliver its goods, that standard decreases a little, gradually getting worse until, at the end of six weeks, it reaches MOT standard. At that point, the vehicle undergoes another safety inspection, and the standard goes back up to that which was achieved six weeks previously. If, as you suggest, the vehicle merely achieves the MOT standard and then goes on the road, it starts at the bare minimum standard — only just complying — and therefore, over that time, wheel nuts become loose and the vehicle’s physical condition will deteriorate. Eventually, it will become an unacceptable risk to road safety —

945. Mr T Clarke: I do not buy into that —

946. Mrs Bell: Please let me finish.

947. Mr T Clarke: Allow me to make my point; this is going nowhere.

948. Mrs Bell: The vehicle becomes an unacceptable risk to road safety, and that is when collisions happen, and a fatal incident or a serious injury occurs. That is what operator licensing is about. As I said, I wish that I had brought that slide, although I can certainly email it to you.

949. Mr T Clarke: Having had a motor background and having worked in that environment, I know that someone crawling under a trailer to conduct a visual check will not achieve that big difference in roadworthiness.

950. Mrs Bell: It will.

951. Mr T Clarke: I beg to differ. I have worked in the motor industry for —

952. Mrs Bell: Where is your evidence?

953. Mr T Clarke: Where is your evidence to the contrary? To take that point further: you said that there have been occasions when wheels have fallen off lorries that have already complied with all the other regulations. So where is the evidence that the gap of six weeks has worked? The evidence seems to point to the contrary — the fact that the wheel fell off suggests that it did not work. They have bought into all this —

954. Mrs Bell: Sorry, you will have to speak more slowly, Mr Clarke — it is the accent.

955. The Chairperson: You will have to clarify that point. We started by talking about how a vehicle from Northern Ireland might be in poor condition compared to the vehicles in GB, which are kept to a higher standard because of the inspection process there. Your point is that those cursory, or more detailed, inspections should, naturally enough, improve road safety.

956. Mrs Bell: It “will” improve road safety, not “should”.

957. The Chairperson: I said that, naturally enough, it should improve road safety. The way I see it, that almost makes a case for a more frequent MOT or PSV rather than an increased —

958. Mrs Bell: They are two different things; one is a test and one is an inspection.

959. The Chairperson: I appreciate that. However, my point is that, if there is already a test to ensure that a minimum standard has been met — and officials here would argue that it ensures that slightly more than the minimum has been met — you are taking us in the direction of a more frequent MOT or PSV. We have all put vehicles through MOT and PSV tests and the likes, and we know the scrutiny under which they are placed. The basis of the argument that I am hearing is that we should move to having more frequent MOT or PSV, as opposed to six-week inspections.

960. Mrs Bell: But would that not be an unacceptable burden on the industry?

961. The Chairperson: Of course it would.

962. Mr T Clarke: Sorry, Chairman, a visual inspection will not tell a person whether the trailer is roadworthy — how can a visual inspection determine whether the brakes are up to an adequate standard?

963. The Chairperson: Can you clarify that point? I am not expecting you to answer as a mechanic —

964. Mrs Bell: Well, thank God for that, because I do not have the mechanic’s detailed knowledge, and I would not profess to — unlike Mr Clarke.

965. The Chairperson: Can you talk us through how that approach has worked, based on your own experience?

966. Mrs Bell: It has worked because the vehicles are now in a much safer condition than they were previously.

967. The Chairperson: I appreciate that — as a result of the inspection.

968. Mrs Bell: Yes, they are in a much safer condition as a result of the regular safety inspections and the driver daily walk-round check. As far as I am concerned, the two are the foundation stones of operating licensing. The driver daily walk-round check is a good way of ensuring that a wheel will not come off. The point of the safety inspection is that, for example, the braking system might need some work or parts replaced because of wear and tear. I am interested that a Committee member does not agree that regular safety inspections — which I have always regarded as accepted policy — improve the safety of a vehicle. I am just worried that the rest of the Committee —

969. Mr T Clarke: You are making a big difference between —

970. The Chairperson: Just a minute, Trevor.

971. Mr T Clarke: Chair, let me clarify this —

972. The Chairperson: Hold on a minute.

973. Mr T Clarke: This point is directed to me.

974. The Chairperson: I know the point that you are making, Trevor, because I was about to pick up on it. The point is that there is a difference between the type of inspection that Mrs Bell has just described and the type of inspection that a mechanic would undertake, for example, to check if the brakes are defective. Such an inspection involves taking off the wheels and cylinders, and so on. Is that the sort of the inspection that those people carry out?

975. Mrs Bell: Yes. Perhaps Mr Clarke and I are at odds on the difference between the driver daily walk-round check and the regular safety inspection.

976. The Chairperson: Yes; could you expand on that point, please?

977. Mrs Bell: Let me explain what we expect in Great Britain. Every day, in an attempt to win drivers’ hearts and minds, I ask them “Have you checked your nuts this morning?” They all laugh at me, but it gets the message across. [Laughter.] I am a woman working in man’s world; I have to win their hearts and minds.

978. The driver daily walk-round check is a vital part of operating licensing, and it involves the driver physically walking around the vehicle. To return to the example that we were talking about earlier, Mr Clarke: the driver will check that the wheel nuts are tight and in the right place, and that the windscreen wipers and lights are working, and so on. We expect that check to be done every day, and, as I say, we ensure that training is provided, and so on.

979. The other issue I talked about was a proper safety inspection where the vehicle goes into the garage, and the mechanics — the spanner men — look at the vehicle and conduct a full safety inspection. They have a sheet with all the IM numbers, which are the different parts, to ensure that the braking system works, that the tachograph is sealed, and so on, and that inspection is carried out every six weeks. Perhaps we were at cross-purposes. That is what I referred to when I talked about the six-week difference.

980. The confusion may have arisen when I was talking about the mechanics being employed at the docks. Mechanics can only do so much at the roadside; they cannot possibly do as much as they can with the proper safety inspection over a pit.

981. There you are: we sorted it.

982. Mr T Clarke: I have a follow-on question about the so-called safety inspections. Why do the nuts come loose and the wheels still fall off, if people have been bought into the system on the mainland?

983. Mrs Bell: Generally, because the drivers have not done their daily walk round their vehicles to check them, which is why our job is proactive and tries to get them to check their vehicles in the first place.

984. The Chairperson: That is the training that you referred to earlier. If an incident were to happen and, as a consequence, it came before you, would that be the sort of instruction that you would ensure goes through the process?

985. Mrs Bell: Yes. We could talk for hours about wheel loss, but I do not want to get hung up on that subject.

986. The Chairperson: God, no.

987. Mrs Bell: It was a bad example. We will use a defective braking system, which is much more likely to happen.

988. Mr Boylan: Over here, vehicles go through a test centre and the driver has a PSV certificate that lasts for a year, which is what Mr Clarke referred to. There is a big difference between checking for defective tyres, defective lights, etc, and a proper check. That point has been clarified. Is that the main issue of the commissioner? The vehicle is sound only on the day that it is tested. Do we need a PSV certificate every six months or after so many thousand miles?

989. Mrs Bell: It is not for me to say what you should do. In Great Britain, we have an undertaking from the operator that says that the vehicles will be subjected to regular safety inspections at a specified interval. We have a graph, and inspections will depend on the size of the vehicle, the type of journey it does, and the number of miles it travels. A 38-ton articulated lorry trundling up and down the motorway every day may need checking every six weeks, whereas a farmer carrying his goods to market may need checking only four times a year. We tailor inspections to the size and weight of the vehicle and the type of journey.

990. The Chairperson: A big issue that has arisen in the evidence gathered so far has been how exemptions have been made for agricultural vehicles and vehicles involved in horticultural activity. What are those exemptions and how do they work?

991. Mrs Bell: In Great Britain, we have several exemptions that are related mainly to the use of the vehicle, rather than the type of vehicle: in other words, the type of operation. Those vehicles tend to be used for emergency provisions, such as fire brigades and ambulances. We have a general exemption for agricultural tractors used in certain circumstances. You may, or may not, be aware that the Department for Transport is reviewing exemptions. We have found — and you may have found it here — that once a piece of legislation comes into force, operators try to find a way to circumvent it.

992. Some agricultural vehicles are being developed in such a way as to fall between two stools, and the use of a fast-track is a good example. A vehicle that we see as a tractor — with big tyres and a farmer driving it — is a fast-track, which is also used as a commercial-goods vehicle.

993. We have real difficulties with a fast-track vehicle that tows a trailer in which goods for commercial gain are carried. That must be licensed.

994. The Chairperson: Therefore, the exemptions should be based on the how the vehicle is used?

995. Mrs Bell: The exemptions should be based on use. However, from my experience, care must be taken to ensure that it can be tied up tightly, so that the operators and the lawyers cannot find a loophole to avoid compliance.

996. Mr Gallagher: Thank you for your presentation. You described the criminal side of the issue as significant.

997. It was not clear whether you were implying that vehicles from Northern Ireland are used by gangs involved in criminal activity. If that is the case, will you provide some examples?

998. My second question deals with the third component, the Republic of Ireland — Britain being the first and Northern Ireland being the second. Are vehicles based there also used by criminal gangs?

999. Do you co-operate with the regulators in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that vehicles used in the trade are safe when vehicles that are based there come to your attention?

1000. Mrs Bell: First, the problems that the north west traffic area faces in tackling criminal activity, such as fuel laundering and fuel duty evasion, probably mirror those that you face. For obvious reasons, I cannot deal with specific cases by name; however, the information that we received from the enforcement authorities is similar to that included in the representations from the Freight Transport Association about criminal activity and illegal fuel. That is a big issue in the north west traffic area, especially in the metropolitan areas of Liverpool and Manchester. I can say that because I am from Liverpool. There are big issues surrounding the laundering and trafficking of fuel to the north west traffic area. Given that our licensing regime is based on principles of repute or fitness of own-account operators we are able to take more action. We see that as a big problem; we also see it as a big security issue.

1001. With regard to the Republic of Ireland, the north west traffic area and other traffic areas experience similar problems to you. Although we have the co-operation of the enforcement agency, we are concerned that the regulatory regime is not on a level playing field. Who is the regulator? How does he or she regulate? Does he or she regulate in the same way?

1002. Perhaps this is not as relevant for own-account operators, but my concern as a commissioner is that many operators work in Europe and it is therefore important that the regulators throughout Europe adopt a common approach. That is probably a few years down the line. We have the co-operation of the regulators in the Republic of Ireland; however, we differ in how we regulate.

1003. Mr Boylan: Obviously operating centres will be affected by own-account operators. Although Northern Ireland comprises large rural areas, I am concerned about the people who operate from home and choose to park their vehicles on the footpath outside their homes in residential areas. Will you provide some examples of how to address the issue of people operating from their homes in residential areas? How did you address the issue of planning for operating centres in the north west traffic area? There will be difficulties there with road safety and such.

1004. The Chairperson: I will expand on that. Last week, one of the major issues concerned operators who would be defined under the legislation as operating — for want of a better word — from their own homes, for example, self-employed lorry operators parking outside their residential property. There was some concern about the Bill’s definition of an operating centre that could have planning implications for the person so defined. Therefore, we are trying to get a handle on whether, in your experience, there have been planning implications.

1005. Mrs Bell: First, we do not have to consider the planning position and necessarily be bound by it. We are mutually exclusive, so if I define somewhere as being an operating centre, the planners do not have to accept it as an operating centre. They can do what they like, so we are not necessarily going to dovetail. That is because the tests are, quite rightly, different. Our definition of an operating centre is a place where a vehicle or vehicles are kept when they are not in use. Therefore, the centre is basically a place where vehicles go for a rest. Were I to have brought props today, I would have brought a pair of scales, because we have to balance the competing needs of the operator to go lawfully about its business with the competing needs of residents to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their properties. That is why I continually talk about discretion. Operators and residents must peacefully co-exist, and, in many cases, they have done so, even though someone is parking his or her commercial vehicle on a road. However, in other cases, they have not peacefully co-existed, and that is where we come in as the licensing authority to try to resolve the issue. It goes back to my regulation with a light touch but not necessarily with a soft touch.

1006. We have those competing needs; furthermore, we have the overarching aspect of road safety, therefore, when we examine an operating centre, we always look at the impact on road safety if a vehicle were parked there. We try to find or designate a safe place for the operator; for example, a truck stop. In rural areas, we allow farms to park a vehicle if there is space, provided that the vehicle can enter and exit in forward gear. In urban areas, we try to find a regional distribution centre, a truck stop, or a lorry park, where vehicles can be kept when they are not in use.

1007. Mr Boylan: I understand what you are saying, but it still does not explain the matter, because there are complaints here about existing operating centres. For example, what would happen in the north west of England if someone were to operate a truck for 10 years and then buy a house in a residential area and park it on the footpath, as it was the only place that they could operate from?

1008. Mrs Bell: We would not allow that.

1009. The Chairperson: Perhaps parking on the footpath would be the issue there, but what would happen if that vehicle were parked in the designated space associated with the dwelling?

1010. Mrs Bell: If someone were to operate a seven-and-a-half-ton truck, we would look at the parking area and decide whether the operator could enter and exit the space in forward gear.

1011. Mr Boylan: There is not a chance of that happening in a residential area. I do not see a problem with that, but those people will need planning permission. Are they directed to the nearest industrial estate?

1012. Mrs Bell: We would have a look at the surrounding areas. I want you to understand why we do that.

1013. We prefer not to do that, to avoid putting an unnecessary burden on operators, especially when — as in Northern Ireland — those own-account operators have been in business for years, during which time they have, perhaps, parked their trucks on a road or a pavement. Other than for environmental reasons, such as ensuring that people are not awoken at 3 am by the noise of reverse-gear buzzers, the only reason that that is specified is because in urban areas the issues appear to involve large operators. An example would be an operator with a 24-hour regional distribution centre next to a row of houses. The issues around several thousand own-account operators are not the same.

1014. Mr Boylan: Yes — but twin-axle Transit vans that may not fit on a drive in an average residential estate have been discussed.

1015. To return to the rural issue; permission is not generally granted here for businesses in rural areas. The problem is that parking a vehicle may be facilitated, but how is the issue addressed of changing the designation of a garage in order to enable it to be used to store and distribute goods?

1016. Mrs Bell: We are not bothered about the planning laws. We are simply bothered. I am speaking to two members at the same time —

1017. Mr Boylan: Yes, but if we do that over here there is a bother for planning.

1018. Mr T Clarke: I think that may be unfair —

1019. Mrs Bell: I am sorry, Mr Clarke, your accent is delightful but please speak a little more slowly? [Laughter.]

1020. Mr Weir: I am from North Down, which sometimes sees itself as being half-way between England and —

1021. Mr T Clarke: It is unfair in the sense that the Committee is not getting both perspectives. Last week members heard from a planning perspective; today the viewpoint is totally different. Therefore, Mrs Bell, you cannot give the Committee the answer it seeks.

1022. Mr Boylan: I totally understand that.

1023. Mrs Bell: I am sorry. I tried.

1024. Mr Clarke: That is the problem that members will face, Chairperson.

1025. Mrs Bell: It is an important point.

1026. The Chairperson: For clarification; the real point made last week was in relation to operating centres, about which Mrs Bell may inform the Committee through her wider experience with local authorities. The nub was whether there was a correlation between the definition of an operating centre and a local authority’s interpretation of an operating centre as an accepted business.

1027. Mrs Bell: When I said that they were not mutually exclusive, I meant that whatever Traffic Commissioners do does not in any way fetter the discretion of the planning authority. I believe that is how it should be.

1028. The Chairperson: Absolutely.

1029. Mr T Clarke: That is what worries members.

1030. Mr Boylan: That is the problem.

1031. Mrs Bell: Why is that a problem?

1032. Mr T Clarke: It is a problem because the Committee accepts and is happy that someone will be granted permission to set up an operator’s centre, but the Planning Service will refuse permission because it deems that same operation a business. Therefore, a small operator in Northern Ireland is burdened with an additional expense.

1033. Mrs Bell: Do you mean the expense of having to apply for planning permission?

1034. Mr T Clarke: No — the operator will not be granted planning permission.

1035. The Chairperson: That is the problem.

1036. Mrs Bell: I do not know Northern Ireland’s planning laws. However, in the north west traffic area of Great Britain operators need not apply for planning permission. Therefore, I do not know what the situation might be in Northern Ireland.

1037. Mr T Clarke: That must be clarified.

1038. The Chairperson: What I am trying to elicit is how you, Mrs Bell, define an operating centre. I want to know whether any local authority, upon designation of an operating centre, decided that that operating centre required planning permission as a business. Has that not happened?

1039. Mrs Bell: No it has not.

1040. The Chairperson: That is very good. Thank you for that.

1041. Mrs Bell: And similarly, if an operating centre has planning permission for commercial use, we must accept it as an operating centre.

1042. May I just do the hearts and minds thing? The overarching issue of road safety is the only reason that there is an environmental aspect to deal with, because the legislation is drafted in a way that strikes a balance between residents and operators, which is right. However, it also deals with that road safety risk. I have a reputation in the north western traffic area for being strict. I do not know why, but it does not bother me, so long as I am known for being fair.

1043. I am haunted by the case of 12-year-old Gerald Byrne. One day, he was walking home from school and bent down to tie his shoelaces. As he did, a 38-ton truck reversed out of a depot and reversed over him; then it drove forward and killed him. That happened nine years ago, and the case is still outstanding. It haunts me, because it was avoidable; there is no way that anybody should have allowed a 38-ton truck to go in and out at that particular location. Perhaps, a 2·2-ton or 3·5-ton van would be permitted to use the location, because they carry a more manageable and acceptable risk.

1044. In our capacity as commissioners, we are asking what size and weight the vehicles are and what areas are required for them to turn. The requirements for a 38-ton truck are entirely different from those for a 3·5-ton truck. The Committee must be aware of that when they scrutinise the Bill: look at the area and consider whether there is a risk. If there is a minimal risk, there is no difficulty, but you will have to look at it again if there is a bigger risk.

1045. The Chairperson: Thank you for attending this morning’s Committee meeting. It has been a lively and informative exchange, and you have answered a lot of our questions.

1046. Mrs Bell: Was it helpful?

1047. The Chairperson: It was helpful, and very good of you.

1048. Mr Boylan: Have you done your checks?

1049. Mr T Clarke: [Inaudible.]

1050. Mrs Bell: I am glad that we clarified that, because it would have been awful if we had been speaking under a misapprehension. Thank you very much.

16 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Donald Armstrong Mr John Brogan Mrs Gillian McIntyre

Department of the Environment

1051. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): The Committee has concluded its evidence sessions on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill and will soon begin its clause-by-clause scrutiny.

1052. Witnesses appearing before the Committee today are Donald Armstrong, head of the driver, vehicle and operator policy branch, and John Brogan and Gillian McIntyre, both of whom are members of the Department of the Environment’s (DOE) Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill team. They are very welcome again.

1053. Mr Donald Armstrong (Department of the Environment): Thank you for your welcome. I am sure that you have noticed that we have aged quite a bit over the past few months.

1054. The Chairperson: Have you? Not a bit of it.

1055. Mr D Armstrong: It feels that way.

1056. I will give a brief overview on which we will take questions. Our departmental Assembly liaison officer, Una Downey, has provided the Committee with the Department’s response to its query about the particular regulation-raising clauses in the Bill. There are quite a few such clauses, which I will summarise.

1057. First, the Bill allows for commencement Orders to commence, repeal, amend or modify the Bill — once enacted — through affirmative resolution as contained in clause 56. Secondly, one regulation will be made under affirmative resolution. For example, clause 27(3) deals with the period between reviews. That has been set in the Bill at five years, but there is provision to change that by affirmative resolution.

1058. All the other regulations in the clauses are subject to negative resolution and are subject to consultation as set out in clause 57(11). They would also be subject to SL1 proposals being brought to the Committee.

1059. In general, the regulation-making powers correspond with those that have been created by the GB Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, of which members have a copy. Those powers are also in the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, and they generally replicate what is already in place in other legislation.

1060. However, there are some cases in which, following recommendations from GB and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) when the Bill was being drafted, we have moved powers from primary into subordinate legislation. I will give the Committee one example of that.

1061. The particulars that a person must supply when they apply for a licence are listed in section 8 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Details that pertain to the information that must be supplied under section 8 are contained in schedule 2 of that Act. We have replicated section 8 of the GB Act in clause 7 of our Bill. However, we have moved the detail from the schedule into regulations. That is a slight change. The reason for that is that it makes it easier to update and amend legislation as appropriate. That approach has been adopted with OLC agreement, and it relates generally to the administration of the licensing process and function.

1062. When the former Minister gave approval for the Bill, three options were considered. The first was to do nothing and to leave Northern Ireland’s system as it is. The second was to replicate exactly what happens in GB. The third — the one that the Minister chose and with which we have proceeded — is to replicate what happens in GB but to allow for local variations because of differences that occur in Northern Ireland due to its rural environment, and the number of small businesses and so on.

1063. That approach is facilitated by the fact that the Bill contains regulation-making powers. During the two years after the Bill has been enacted, the Department will be able to take on board representations, such as those that we have already heard — on exemptions, operating centres, and so on — when it makes regulations. Therefore, the Department’s response to the industry is that, through those regulations, it will have greater freedom to tailor the final outcome into something that pleases and helps everybody, rather than having to stick to something rigid.

1064. Much of the work on goods-vehicle licensing — and on public-transport licensing, for that matter — is set out in EU directives. In order to transpose those directives into Northern Ireland law, legislation must be changed. There are severe difficulties in processing and timing in achieving transposition dates. EU directives are much easier to transpose if regulations exist already. I accept that there are many regulation-making clauses in the Bill that will provide the flexibility that is needed to respond to the industry and to the directives, and they will, hopefully, create a Bill that is easier to work with and is as up to date as possible.

1065. The Chairperson: Do members have any queries on that aspect of the process? Do you want to ask a question, Trevor?

1066. Mr T Clarke: I will wait until the next Stage to say no to the Bill.

1067. The Chairperson: I have several questions and points on which I would like clarification. Clause 20 sets out the conditions for the issue of licences. Is there any particular reason why those conditions are so broad? Clause 20(1)(d) uses the words:

“for any other prescribed purpose.”

1068. Mrs Gillian McIntyre (Department of the Environment): There are specific occasions when conditions can be attached, for example, to improve road safety or to ensure that every operation when a vehicle leaves an operating centre and joins a public road is safe, and when there are environmental issues or declarations of convictions. The Department wants to include that generality in order to enable it to respond to the wide range of industries that exist and the situations that can occur. The aim of operator licensing is to try to bring as many people as possible into the regime, and the Department intends to achieve that by attaching conditions for certain circumstances, for example, for general road-safety purposes. It also enables conditions to be attached for small operators that differ from those that are attached for larger operators.

1069. The Chairperson: Am I right in saying that any additions or amendments to the legislation would be subject to negative resolution?

1070. Mr John Brogan (Department of the Environment): Those are subject to negative resolution at the moment; as Donald said, most of the regulations will be subject to negative resolution.

1071. The Chairperson: Is there any other way of doing it?

1072. Mr D Armstrong: Affirmative resolution could be used. However, that process is much slower and would tie up the Assembly for what is a relatively administrative piece of work. Nevertheless, I would be happy if the Committee wished to make some of the regulations subject to affirmative resolution.

1073. Mr Beggs: I assume that there would be a relatively short delay only in changing from negative resolution to affirmative resolution. Would that, therefore, not be a more appropriate method of dealing with the situation, in case some unforeseen difficulties arise with negative resolution, given that such wide powers would exist under the primary legislation?

1074. Mr Brogan: Across Departments, the convention is that most regulations are subject to negative resolution. However, there are occasions when regulations must be subject to affirmative resolution; for example, regulations under clause 27(3) may be made by affirmative resolution. The Office of the Legislative Counsel advised that any regulations that are made under clause 27(3) will be subject to affirmative resolution because they will amend existing primary legislation by substituting five years with three years, six years, or whatever.

1075. It has been the convention to leave other regulations to negative resolution. However, the Department is easy about it, and if the Committee is anxious about clause 20(1)(d), by all means the subordinate legislation that it, or any other clause can make, can be passed by affirmative resolution.

1076. The Chairperson: I have a query about clause 57(8), where a contravention of a provision is declared to be an offence. Will you clarify why the Department needs — or feels that it needs — those additional offences? How would the Department exercise that power?

1077. Mr D Armstrong: Clause 57(8) refers to the level of fine.

1078. The Chairperson: It refers to the contravention of the provision of regulations.

1079. Mr Brogan: That will apply only to those regulations that list an offence. It is in the Bill that the punishment or penalty for that offence would, in this case, be on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3. It is a case of setting the actual offence and the penalty in primary legislation. It makes it consistent throughout the Bill that all penalties for offences are contained on the face of the Bill. However, the description of that offence may be contained in the regulation.

1080. The Chairperson: Would it not be appropriate to make that subject to affirmative resolution?

1081. Mr Brogan: Generally, the OLC looks towards negative resolution to ensure that the Assembly is not clogged up with —

1082. The Chairperson: I am sorry, what is the OLC?

1083. Mr Brogan: The OLC is the Office of the Legislative Counsel — the agency that drafted the Bill. I wish that I could draft the Bill, but no, such work is left to the Office of the Legislative Counsel. That body comprises barristers, so we rely heavily on its legal advice. We do not ask for certain conditions; we rely on the advice of the OLC, and such reliance ensures that there is consistency across Departments.

1084. Mr D Armstrong: Clause 57(8) is not, in itself, a regulation-making power: it is a statement of an offence. It would not be subject to resolution.

1085. The Chairperson: Would it not?

1086. Mr D Armstrong: No; clause 57(8) is a statement that there is an offence under the regulations resulting in a fine not exceeding level 3. It is not a regulation-making power in itself.

1087. Mr Beggs: What is level 3?

1088. Mr Brogan: Level 3 is a fine up to £1,000.

1089. Mr Ford: The point is that clause 57(8) creates criminal offences on the back of regulations that may themselves only be subject to negative resolution, rather than offences being created on the face of the Bill. That is where the issue of an affirmative resolution is more significant.

1090. Mr D Armstrong: I understand that. Are you suggesting that all the regulations be subject to affirmative resolution? If so, that would create a business issue.

1091. Mr Ford: No. Clause 20(1)(d) allows the Department to attach conditions to a licence:

“for any other prescribed purpose”.

1092. However, when that is read in conjunction with clause 57(8), it seems to be a fairly open-ended deal for the Department. If criminal offences are then created on the back of those regulations, the legislature should do something about it.

1093. Mr D Armstrong: Are you suggesting that clause 57(8) reinforces the case for the regulations under clause 20(1)(d) to be subject to affirmative resolution? There are other regulating powers in the Bill that are not as open.

1094. Mr Ford: I am not suggesting that anything in the regulations that is clearly spelled out in the Bill and the schedules should be subject to affirmative resolution. However, where things are open ended, we have to guard our end of the process, regardless of what OLC tells the Department.

1095. The Chairperson: The Committee will communicate its views directly with the Department on broad points and await its response. We can then deliberate on them.

1096. Mr D Armstrong: I accept that there are some broad issues to be considered.

1097. The Chairperson: OK, the Committee can communicate its views with the Department instead of going through them today.

1098. Mr Boylan: I have some questions about the operating centres, which is an issue on which Donald loves to answer questions. From a road-safety perspective, one would not want an operator to reverse his or her vehicle out of a driveway. What does the legislation say about that? I will not ask about the planning issue; that is a separate matter.

1099. Mr D Armstrong: Are you asking for the definition of an operating centre?

1100. Mr Boylan: Yes, and about how to overcome the issue of driving into and out of an operating centre that is someone’s home.

1101. Mr D Armstrong: The legislation requires that an operating centre is listed on an operator’s licence. By definition, the operating centre is the place where a vehicle is normally kept when it is not in use. To be fair, the term “operating centre” is a slight misnomer, because it implies that it is a centre from which people are operating. Instead, it refers to the place where vehicles are stored or kept when they are not in use. That could refer to a quarry, for example, which is an operating centre in the literal sense of the term, but it could also refer to — as Mr Boylan suggested — the side of a house where someone parks their vehicle at night.

1102. There is no proposal in the legislation to specify the standard of an operating centre — that will be at the discretion of the person who makes the decisions. In GB for example, one of the Traffic Commissioners, Mrs Beverly Bell, who gave evidence to the Committee last week, spoke of a guideline where a vehicle must enter and exit an operating centre in forward gear — that is not in either primary or subordinate legislation, but it is a guideline that would be applied in a discretionary manner. For example, it may be easy to drive a 4-ton transit van in and out of an operating centre in forward gear or to reverse it out, but a 40-ton or a 44-ton vehicle is a completely different proposition. Therefore, discretion is exercised, but there will be no specification in legislation stating, for example, that someone must enter and exit an operating centre in forward gear.

1103. Mr Boylan: I am trying to get a definition of what type of vehicle is over the 3·5-ton limit. Perhaps the Department could provide some information on what types of vehicles are over the limit, for example, a Luton van. I ask that because the issue will affect 75% of the industry, who are all own-account operators, which is a substantial number.

1104. Mr D Armstrong: Would it be helpful if we provided the Committee with photographs of vehicles that are in ruled in and out of scope because of their weight?

1105. The Chairperson: Yes, that would be useful. How can we get around the misnomer of the term “operating centre”? The term “operate” is a derivative of the verb “to work”. The problems with the Planning Service and other difficulties are created by that misnomer.

1106. Mr D Armstrong: The operating centres of the majority of businesses will be the place from which they operate and carry out their loading and unloading. Haulage companies and big companies, such as the Henderson Group, will operate from such a centre. “Operating centre” becomes a misnomer when an individual drives a vehicle home and parks it at the side of his or her house at night. In such cases, the house is not an operating centre, because there is no storage at home, and that may have planning implications. The home is merely a place where they park their vehicle, and that is when the misnomer begins to have an effect.

1107. That is why we have provided a definition, so far as the Bill is concerned. If the Committee wants to think of another way of describing the place where a vehicle is kept when it is not in use, we will consider that. Thus far, we have been comfortable with the term “operating centre”, which is also used for the hire-for-reward sector.

1108. The Chairperson: Perhaps you could come up with a few ideas from the thesaurus.

1109. Mr Boylan: I do not know whether a clearer definition or an alternative to “operating centre” is required.

1110. Mr D Armstrong: Do you want a clearer definition or a different title?

1111. Mr Boylan: Perhaps a different terminology is required.

1112. Mr T Clarke: I did not intend to comment on this today, because the Committee knows my view on the issue, and it has not changed, and nor will it. One of your earlier submissions to the Committee stated that you would review what you deemed as a suitable operating centre, and you referred to such a review. It was suggested that if someone made a complaint about an environmental issue, for instance, a review would be instigated sooner. I am concerned about that and about what it will mean for someone who parks their 3·5-ton vehicle at the side of their home.

1113. Mr D Armstrong: That is a difficulty, and it was highlighted by the presentation that was made last week by one of the Traffic Commissioners. It is safer to park a 3·6-ton vehicle at the side of a house than it is to park a 40-ton vehicle. Those are two different situations. That is a huge range of vehicles for which to tie down into legislation. That is why it is left to the discretion of the Traffic Commissioners in GB and why we feel that discretionary powers are necessary.

1114. Mr T Clarke: That leads to another good point. Are we looking at another job-creation service in Northern Ireland? Will there be another commissioner in Northern Ireland to legislate for that in the future?

1115. Mr D Armstrong: We are not talking about legislation for that role. As the Committee has heard, there are independent traffic commissioners in GB. While preparing the proposals with the OLC, we sought to have the legislation provide the facility to provide for a traffic commissioner in Northern Ireland. That was refused to us, and, at that time, the Minister said that the issue of a traffic commissioner for Northern Ireland should be left to a different forum. We have freight, buses and taxis. The issue of an independent regulator to look over all those areas should be considered in the round, and not merely in relation to goods vehicles.

1116. That leaves us with two options. First, we can let the existing Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA), which currently regulates the hire-for-reward sector, take on board the function and leave it within the agency. Secondly, we can separate the function and have a regulator appointed in the Department, but separate from the agency, to have the same the powers and carry out the same functions of the Traffic Commissioners in GB. The Bill allows us to do that.

1117. There are pros and cons for each option. For instance, DVA is already up and running with the system for hire or reward bolted on. The disadvantage of that is that the administration — the prosecutor, judge and jury — are all in the same organisation, and that could be viewed as being unsatisfactory and not sufficiently independent. Alternatively, the traffic commissioner role could be carried out separately, and, should the Government decide to introduce an independent traffic commissioner in the future, it would be easier to transfer that function.

1118. We have to work through that. We have taken views from industry and considered what the best process would be, but we do not have a final solution. An independent traffic commissioner is not envisaged in the legislation, and we have not been allowed to do that.

1119. The Chairperson: Do you want to leave that for another day, Trevor?

1120. Mr T Clarke: Yes.

1121. Mr Ford: I was interested by Donald’s phrase:

“we have not been allowed to do that”

1122. in relation to an independent traffic commissioner. I presume that he means that the previous Environment Minister instructed the Department not to do that.

1123. Mr D Armstrong: The previous Minister instructed us to proceed with the legislation without including a traffic commissioner. However, when discussing the drafting of the legislation with OLC, we asked whether they would allow the legislation to provide for a traffic commissioner should any future Minister decide that one was required. The OLC was unhappy to include that provision in the legislation, and it stated that it was cleaner to keep it as it was.

1124. The Minister decided that the traffic commissioner should be considered in the round over freight, taxis and buses. The OLC was happy to work with that decision.

1125. Mr Ford: The Committee has made no formal decision on the evidence that Mrs Bell gave last week, but some of us were impressed by what she said. It could be argued that instituting a traffic commissioner for freight — who could subsequently assume other responsibilities — would provide a good indication of what would be the appropriate course of action to take.

1126. Mr D Armstrong: That is a valid argument. Including the own-account sector in Northern Ireland’s freight industry makes that industry significantly bigger than was initially envisaged. Indeed, the freight industry could become even bigger, depending on the number of exemptions that are granted. It could also be argued strongly that the freight industry in Northern Ireland is of a sufficient size to warrant a traffic commissioner. Scotland has a traffic commissioner, and the freight industry in Northern Ireland is bigger than that in Scotland. Your argument is valid, but that provision is not contained in this legislation.

1127. Mr Ford: I presume that that provision would not be beyond the Long Title of the Bill, because it concerns the licensing of operators. I assume that if the Committee were minded to propose amendments, and the Assembly accepted them, they would be competent.

1128. Mr Brogan: We enquired about that possibility, but we were advised by the Office of the Legislative Counsel that the constitution of traffic commissioner would warrant completely separate legislation.

1129. Mr Ford: With respect, I am not asking for your advice about what is convenient for the OLC and the Department. We need to establish the ambit of the Bill as it currently stands.

1130. Mr D Armstrong: All the powers of the GB Traffic Commissioners are replicated exactly in the Bill. The discussion now is about where those powers should be exercised: in the agency; separate from the agency but within the Department; or outside the Department. The Bill provides the opportunity to adopt either of the first two approaches, but not the third.

1131. Mr Ford: It is the Bill as it currently stands that does not make provision for the third approach.

1132. Mr D Armstrong: That is correct.

1133. Mr Weir: You have received advice about the approach that should be adopted, but you have not been advised that it would be legally impossible to make provision for the implementation of a traffic commissioner for freight, for example. Is that a fair comment?

1134. Mr D Armstrong: Yes.

1135. Mr Weir: As Mr Ford and Mr Clarke said, the Committee may suggest amendments to the Bill to allow for a traffic commissioner. You have not been advised that that could not be done. You have merely been advised that that would be legally incompetent and that separate legislation would be necessary if there is to be a traffic regulator. You made that point in response to David Ford, but I want that to be clarified.

1136. Mr Beggs: Why can the Bill not make that provision? I am not necessarily suggesting that it should be made now, but the Bill should provide ability for that provision to be made in secondary legislation. Has the judgement been based on the fact that the Minister is not minded to go down that route?

1137. Mr D Armstrong: I cannot comment on whether the OLC took the Minister’s view into account when advising us not to include that provision in the Bill.

1138. Mr Beggs: In general, does the OLC take the Minister’s view into account?

1139. Mr Brogan: The judgement was made on the basis that the Bill would have to make provision for the traffic commissioner’s terms of employment — that is, the hiring and firing. In GB, the traffic commissioner system is contained outside of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. From a purely legislative point of view, it would be more appropriate for a traffic commissioner to be instituted under stand-alone primary legislation. It should not be attached to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, which purely concerns licensing and does not — in any shape or form — involve the powers of an individual traffic commissioner.

1140. Mr Beggs: I understand what you say about wanting to use separate legislation to institute such a commissioner. However, would any provisions be required in the Bill to make that mesh in more easily, should that be the route that is taken?

1141. Mr Brogan: If a decision were made to institute a traffic commissioner, it would be a simple matter of amending the Bill to allow the powers that are invested in the Department to be invested in a traffic commissioner, and he or she would take over that role. It would not be impossible. It would be a straightforward procedure, but another Bill would be required.

1142. Mr Beggs: Could that provision not be added now, so that the Department would not have to amend the primary legislation, should a traffic commissioner be required in the future?

1143. Mr Brogan: We could consider that, and I will certainly seek advice on it.

1144. Mr I McCrea: We are talking about the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. However, you are referring to buses and other types of transport. Surely a separate Bill would be needed to incorporate the other two types of transport.

1145. Mr Beggs: My point is that where possible, we ought to avoid having to come back and initiate, or amend, primary legislation. We are spending a great deal of time discussing the matter now, and a subsequent amendment could follow a similar line. If that provision were in the Bill, it would be a matter of an amendment, which would be much easier.

1146. Mr Brogan: The Bill has the power to create an Order and propose a draft Order that would amend the Bill. That can be done. That power is not used often, but we can seek advice as to whether it could be used in such a situation.

1147. Mr Beggs: I look forward to hearing your advice.

1148. The Chairperson: The Committee will write to the Department to seek agreement to having some of the powers in the Bill changed from being subject to negative resolution to being subject to affirmative resolution in accordance with the comments that have been made by the Examiner of Statutory Rules.

1149. Thank you for your time.

23 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithí McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

1150. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): We will now move to the Committee’s consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. We have completed taking evidence on the Bill, and will proceed with clause-by-clause scrutiny after recess. If extra meetings are necessary, we will use them. Members have been provided with a paper that outlines the various issues that were raised during the evidence sessions, by organisations through written submissions and by members through deliberations on the Bill.

1151. Members should note that the issues paper produced by the Committee staff lists the issues raised against the relevant clauses of the Bill. The departmental Bill team has provided assistance in identifying the relevant clauses, and has provided a departmental response to each issue in the paper provided. A copy of the Department’s response of 16 October 2008 to the Committee’s request for details of enforcement actions taken over the past five years has been provided for information.

1152. I will run quickly through some of the issues that we will be considering. Members should take time between now and the next meeting in order to be satisfied that all the issues that they have raised have been included; there will be an opportunity to make additional points where appropriate.

1153. Mr T Clarke: Before we start, were we not still to receive an update from the Planning Service on those matters?

1154. The Chairperson: We are still waiting for that. We have not had any communication back yet. We have moved to our consideration of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. The Assistant Clerk tells me that a response has received, and will be included in the papers for our next meeting.

1155. Mr Ford: The general issues that are outlined at the front of the table of responses include matters that are of concern to me. We had some discussion about the traffic commissioner. When will we have the opportunity to further engage the Department on issues such as that? They are not covered in any of the clauses of the Bill as currently drafted.

1156. The Chairperson: We will have to raise that issue with the Department.

1157. The Committee Clerk: They will be present at the next meeting, and will have something to say about those general comments.

1158. Mr Ford: Will they make comments on the general issues?

1159. The Committee Clerk: They have led me to believe that they will.

1160. Mr Ford: Will you lead them to believe that we expect them to do that?

1161. The Committee Clerk: Yes.

1162. Mr T Clarke: Could you go slightly further? We do not necessarily want to hear comments. We have heard this fluffy talk before about guidance. I would like to see some sort of policy that backs up the guidance that we have been given in the past.

1163. The Chairperson: OK. I will run through the issues briefly. Clause 1 deals with the types of vehicles that will be subject to operator licensing. It includes the 3·5 ton weight threshold and provides for exemptions. Members may wish to consider the possibility of requiring secondary legislation-raising powers in the clause to be subject to draft affirmative procedure.

1164. Clause 6 deals with the definition and use of operating centres. Clause 11 is concerned with objections to operating centres during the application process. Clause 12 relates to the determination of applications for operators’ licences, including the power to prescribe a date when stricter professional competence requirements could be attached to restricted licences.

1165. Clause 20 allows for the Department to add further conditions to licences over time. The Examiner of Statutory Rules recommends that the Committee consider requiring the broad secondary legislation-raising power at clause 12 (1)(d) to be subject to draft affirmative procedure.

1166. Clause 27 deals with the frequency of review of operating centres. Members should note that secondary legislation-raising powers under clause 27 (3) are subject to draft affirmative procedure.

1167. Clause 56 provides for powers to amend, repeal or modify statutory provision. With agreement from the Committee last week, the Department has been asked for more information on how it envisages exercising those powers, but members should note that any Orders under this clause will be subject to draft affirmative procedure.

1168. Clause 57 creates additional offences relating to the Bill. At last week’s meeting, the Committee asked the Department to provide details on the level 3 fine, confirm that the additional offences created were necessary and indicate how they will exercise those powers. The Examiner of Statutory Rules recommends that the Committee requires clause 57(8) to be subject to affirmative procedure.

1169. Clause 60 provides for commencement dates for bringing certain clauses into operation. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has drawn the Committee’s attention to the degree of overlap between clause 60 and clause 56 and notes that orders raised under this clause appear not to be subject to any Assembly proceedings.

1170. It would be useful to have this synopsis emailed to members, because it will add some focus to their consideration.

1171. Mr I McCrea: Some of the pages are running into each other.

1172. The Chairperson: I noticed that.

1173. Mr I McCrea: For instance, page 10 runs on to page 11, and some words are missing.

1174. The Chairperson: We will try to get another copy emailed to members.

1175. Mr Beggs: I want to return to how we finished the last discussion. I accept that there was a lack of transparency, but I think that most members would accept also that there was considerable evidence of special scientific interest in the area. If we say that the whole process is flawed, it may well be disregarded and put to bed.

1176. The Chairperson: We did not say that the whole process was flawed; the consultation element based on the complete information provided to the local residents was flawed.

1177. Mr Beggs: We moved over that quickly, and there was not much opportunity to comment. It struck me that the Department could park the whole area and say that it does not want to do anything in this area, because it has been negated by the Committee. It is right to state that there were flaws in the process, and a lack of transparency, but we need to say that there were significant areas of scientific interest in the area.

1178. Mr T Clarke: How did you find that without the information?

1179. Mr Beggs: There is a whole series of reports there. We will be belittling ourselves if we rubbish everything and leave it parked.

1180. The Chairperson: We did not rubbish everything. We rubbished the consultation element of the process and the lack of information that was provided.

1181. Mr Beggs: We made no comment on anything else.

1182. The Chairperson: We did not need to. We are working on the presumption that everything else is correct, and it is hoped that it is.

1183. Mr T Clarke: I would not work on that presumption. I believe that the opposite is true. I believe that it should not be designated until they make a proper case and go through the correct process. What is the point of going through a consultation process that is flawed? How can one support such a process? We should not support the designation until — [Interruption.]

1184. Mr Beggs: I am not saying that we should be supporting it; we should not leave it as if we believe there were no areas of interest there.

1185. The Chairperson: We can get the scientific evidence, and, if needs be, we can follow it up with further briefings from officials.

1186. Mr T Clarke: I could not support the designation as it stands until all those issues are ironed out.

1187. Mr Beggs: I am comfortable that there was a lack of transparency, but there are significant areas of interest in the area.

1188. The Chairperson: There probably are, as there are everywhere else. Trevor is saying that the whole process is inadequate, because the consultation element was incomplete.

1189. Mr T Clarke: In fairness to the landowners, they have asked for that document on more than one occasion — to enable them to make their presentation.

1190. The Chairperson: We have bounced over some items of business. We will return to that issue under any other business.

1191. A synopsis document on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill is being passed round the Committee.

6 November 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Donald Armstrong Mr John Brogan Mr Simon Kirk Mrs Gillian McIntyre

Department of the Environment

1192. The Chairperson (Mr McGlone): Present today are Donald Armstrong, John Brogan and Gillian McIntyre from the Department of the Environment. I ask them to join us at the table. There are about 10 minutes before we must suspend proceedings for the Remembrance service. That should allow enough time for an overview.

1193. Mr Donald Armstrong (Department of the Environment): I suggest that we handle the discussion by, first, examining some of the papers that were provided to the Committee: the planning paper, the parking paper, and the paper on in-scope and out-of-scope vehicles. Afterwards, we can move to the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill and deal with issues as they arise. I am conscious of what Mr Ford said about general issues. Simon Kirk is here to observe the discussion with regard to planning issues. It seems prudent that rather than have Simon return to the meeting after it is suspended, we deal with planning matters first. Therefore, the paper that you were sent on planning —

1194. The Chairperson: So, you expect the planning issue to be sorted out in 10 minutes, Donald?

1195. Mr D Armstrong: Well, we can try.

1196. The Chairperson: Simon, I invite you to come forward and sit at the table.

1197. Mr D Armstrong: I want to make a comment about planning. At our previous meeting, there was confusion about what the term “operating centre” means. We have considered the matter, and because it will be difficult to change the term from “operating centre”, it appears that we are stuck with it. However, we can redefine “operating centre” so that it is abundantly clear to people what the term means. Therefore, an operating centre would be a place from which a vehicle works and is kept overnight, or simply where a vehicle is kept overnight. An operating centre can, therefore, be a depot where vehicles come in and out and are kept. Equally, an operating centre can be a place where a vehicle is parked off-road and where nothing else happens, for example, at someone’s house. We must keep in mind that an operating centre can be either of those places, which are distinctly different in character. That affects how planning is dealt with.

1198. The Chairperson: I know that Mr Clarke will want to comment on that issue. I have considered that definition, and although it is a bit more expansive than the previous definition, I do not believe that it deals with the planning issue. In essence, the place from which a vehicle works can be instantly equated to a business, which brings us back to the definition of “operating”, and the definition of “operate” is “work”. I am, therefore, a wee bit concerned. Although you have clarified the term for the Department, in doing so it may make the term more expansive and, therefore, more difficult to define for planning purposes.

1199. Mr D Armstrong: I hope not.

1200. Mr Simon Kirk (Department of the Environment): I do not think so, to be honest. We clarified our position, which, in summary, is that there are no operational planning issues about drivers who simply park their vehicles at their properties overnight. Although a number of my colleagues in the enforcement sections have cases in relation to unauthorised haulage depots, none has cases in relation to single vehicles, and none of them expects any enforcement action.

1201. The Chairperson: Are there any cases concerning multiple vehicles?

1202. Mr Kirk: Although I have no details, a number of cases involve the investigation of unauthorised haulage depots from which more than one vehicle operates and in which more is going on than drivers simply parking their vehicles at their properties at night.

1203. Mr T Clarke: We are as clear now as we were a few weeks ago. It is as black as closing one’s eyes. My experience of the Planning Service is that unless it is in black and white for everybody to understand, the woolly conversation that we have just had is as useless as a lot of the other conversations that we had with the Planning Service in the past. I am not content with that description. At its last meeting, the Committee asked for a paper from the Planning Service to outline the position exactly.

1204. The Chairperson: We received a response, but it raises further issues.

1205. Mr Beggs: There are existing Planning Service regulations that clarify where businesses can operate. What, if anything, does this proposal change about the single-owner operator?

1206. Mr Kirk: From a planning point of view, it does not change anything. People parked commercial vehicles overnight at their properties before this Bill existed. Enforcement action has not been taken against a single vehicle being parked. We may have taken enforcement action against unauthorised haulage depots that operate more than one vehicle —

1207. The Chairperson: Can a haulage depot be defined as a location that operates more than one vehicle? Does a single location that operates two vehicles qualify as a depot?

1208. Mr Kirk: It becomes less clear cut, because the specific nature of the site would have to be considered. I presume that a number of cases involve owner-drivers who operate from rural locations. If a part-time farmer has a part-time haulage business, he might be able to park two vehicles inside a large farm complex without a material change of use taking place. However, in a residential area, it is unlikely that somebody would be able to park two vehicles within their curtilage without, for example, hard-coring part of the garden or changing the use of part of the site.

1209. The Chairperson: I am sure that everyone in this room can think of a family enterprise in which a father and a couple of his sons are engaged. If that involves more than one vehicle, we know what that means, and that gives me cause for concern.

1210. Mr Beggs: I presume that that is a relevant issue before any new legislation is implemented. The discussion is, therefore, about the effectiveness of existing regulations rather than what is being discussed in this Bill. Is that correct?

1211. Mr Kirk: That is correct.

1212. Mr T Clarke: Are we saying that people who are already involved in such operations are fine, but anyone who wants to start a new operation cannot?

1213. The Chairperson: He is not saying that. The issue concerns those operations that have not been drawn to the attention of the Planning Service.

1214. Mr Boylan: We are still faffing about with the issue. The issue is whether a business is operating from home, whether Planning Service perceives that, and whether a van or other vehicle is used. That is where clarification is needed. The Department is making the mistake of thinking that someone is just getting into a vehicle and driving to work. There could be a perception that someone is operating a business from home — for which planning permission is required.

1215. Mr Kirk: Planning permission is not always needed in order to operate a business from home.

1216. Mr Boylan: That is why the Committee needs clarification on this matter, so that Planning Service will not misconstrue the issue. The question is whether a business is being operated from home, and, in rural areas, that does not happen; it is not allowed. Existing business are established, but any new businesses — and there will be a lot of them — will need licences.

1217. Mr Kirk: The key issue in Planning Service is whether there is a material change of use if a business is being run from home. If there is no material change of use then no development has taken place and, therefore, planning permission is not required. That is set out in the report. When trying to assess whether someone is running a business from home, the Department will find out whether planning permission is needed in order to run that business from home.

1218. The Chairperson: Yes. Those are the questions.

1219. Mr Boylan: The fact that they will require a licence under which to operate.

1220. Mr Kirk: That is a separate consent. There are a whole range of consents; for example, one might require planning permission or building control. A licence may be required under one statutory regime, but that does not necessarily mean that planning permission will have to be applied for automatically.

1221. The Chairperson: We know that; we all come from areas where such situations exist. However, the issue is whether an operator’s licence will directly result in a read-across to Planning Service. You have already drawn us into the territory into which we knew that we would probably be drawn. One single vehicle operating from an operating centre is not really a problem. However, problems emerge once it goes beyond one vehicle when, potentially, operators could face the situation of enforcement and such issues that cross our desks every day. That is the issue.

1222. Mr Armstrong: Planning rules for land use already exist and thousands of people are already complying. The legislation that we are bringing in should not make any material difference to that process.

1223. The Chairperson: I beg to differ. The Department will have formally designated operating centres. There is, potentially, a read-across of names and addresses to DOE Planning Service for formal designation — and I would be surprised if there were not. That draws us into other issues and difficulties that some members would potentially see as being a problem in rural areas.

1224. Mr Armstrong: Is Planning Service’s contention not that its decisions on land use are made irrespective of what designation is on the land? The fact that there is none on it now, and that there will be one on it in the future, does not make any difference as to how it designates the land.

1225. The Chairperson: No.

1226. Mr Armstrong: Are you looking for Planning Service to say simply that because a place is designated, an operating centre will not, in itself, make any change in relation to planning?

1227. The Chairperson: No.

1228. Mr Weir: Leaving aside the operators, all of us will, at some stage, have had various complaints from constituents about so-and-so operating a business from home or whatever, and for which they clearly do not have planning permission. Will there not be confusion when Planning Service points out that it is perfectly OK for so-and-so to operate, when the person who is complaining says that that person has an operating centre, so how does that not constitute a business that needs planning permission? That person will also be able to point out that someone else has an operating centre — albeit in different circumstances — that requires planning permission. The situation will, potentially, cause a lot of confusion for operators and for those who complain. People will have difficulty explaining the difference.

1229. The Chairperson: I knew that this issue would take us into another area, and it is one that we will have to revisit.

1230. I am aware of the fact that members will be leaving the meeting at 10.35 am to attend the service. A break of three quarters of an hour will allow people to concentrate their minds, as that issue will prove to be quite a sticking point. The Committee will reconvene at 11.30 am.

Committee suspended.

On resuming —

1231. The Chairperson: I almost said that we should start where we finished; however, we were not finished. We shall return to the issue that was being discussed. Have you had a chance to give it any further thought?

1232. Mr D Armstrong: Yes, for an entire hour.

1233. The Chairperson: Have you come to any definite conclusions?

1234. Mr D Armstrong: The issue that you want to resolve is whether designating a place as an operating centre will have a planning impact, or is a planning concern. Simon can respond to that factual query. The designation of operating centre is already in place for the hire-for-reward sector in Northern Ireland, and has been for many years. As Simon mentioned earlier, it has not had any impact on planning. It is already established and working in legislation. Therefore, in fact, the proposal is not new; it is simply an extension of that definition to the own-account sector. The current definition is in place and works well. We propose that we explain more clearly the definition of an operating centre. Simon can comment on that point in order to satisfy the Committee on the designation’s impact on planning.

1235. Mr Kirk: Perhaps, if you seek specific details, we should provide a written answer. Are you saying that because premises are designated as an operating centre, you feel that, automatically, we will take enforcement action?

1236. The Chairperson: It is not that that will happen automatically, but that there would be read-across that could have implications or consequences for planning, albeit not in every case. You touched upon that when you mentioned moving from single to multiple vehicles, which would flag up issues with Planning Service straight away. I read your letter and considered the circumstances to which it refers. It outlines questions, rather than potential solutions. I understand that every individual case must be considered on its merits or demerits. Our concern is that a form of read-across exists.

1237. Mr Kirk: If someone did something that was unauthorised or about which we had concern, it would not matter whether that person had an operating licence. We would still investigate the matter. Every year, we receive many thousands of complaints that must be investigated. Therefore, if someone did something that was potentially unlawful under planning legislation, we would investigate the matter, regardless of what is contained in the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

1238. Mr T Clarke: When Donald defined an operating centre earlier, he used the words “working from”. Many people “work from” premises, but it is not defined as an operating centre. At the minute, they are only parking at the residence. However, once that building is defined as an operating centre, they would be deemed to be working from it. The Planning Service may want to look at some drivers who park at their homes, but, at the moment, there is very little that it can do. However, once we use Donald’s term “working from” and define the premises as an operating centre, it becomes, in effect, a place of business. I have serious concerns about that.

1239. Mr D Armstrong: Let me clarify the matter: my suggestion was that we amend the definition of operating centre to mean the base or centre from which a vehicle normally operates and/or is normally parked when not in use. Therefore, it would not necessarily mean that the vehicle is operating from the premises — it may be operating from there, or it may simply be parked there when not in use.

1240. The Chairperson: Did you say “and/or”?

1241. Mr D Armstrong: Yes. The vehicle is operating from the centre and it is parking there, or it is just parking there. So, there are two meanings within that one definition.

1242. Mr T Clarke: That makes it worse.

1243. Mr D Armstrong: It should not make it worse in the sense that it is an operating centre, and a person can park there but not be working from it. Would the Committee be satisfied if the Planning Service were to say that because a place is designated as an operating centre, that in itself would have no planning impact, nor would it influence planning as regards land use?

1244. Mr Weir: I am trying to bridge the gap. I appreciate your comment about what the Planning Service could say, but what is to stop wording of that nature, however it is phrased, on the face of the Bill?

1245. Mr D Armstrong: As far as planning is concerned?

1246. Mr Weir: Whatever way you want to phrase it, a line could be included in the Bill to say that that the granting of an operator’s licence will not have any implication for the Planning Service.

1247. Mr D Armstrong: I am not sure that we could do that within the competence of a goods licensing Bill.

1248. Mr Weir: I do not know whether there is a form of words that could be used. Given some of the concerns that have been raised about this issue, I do not believe that people would feel that a letter of comfort — for want of a better expression — from the Planning Service would be sufficient. Something much more explicit is needed.

1249. The Chairperson: We will have to park the issue. We will not resolve the planning matter today. Could the Department try to find a more satisfactory form of wording that would resolve the problem? My feeling is that we will not get past the matter today.

1250. Mr Weir: Whatever the solution, it must be legislative. With the best will in the world, the head of the Planning Service can say such and such, but in a year’s time somebody different could be in charge and could decide that the service no longer holds that view. Therefore a statement from the Planning Service does not carry much weight or offer much reassurance in this case. Whatever is done by whatever formula must be reflected in an amendment to the Bill. There should be some written assurance on the matter.

1251. Mr Ford: It would be ideal if the matter could be dealt with in the Bill. Given the nature of the Bill, I can see where problems might arise, but the Minister should make the matter explicit in a statement when introducing the Bill. As I understand it, statements that are made in the Assembly when legislation is being considered have more force than a circular from the Planning Service. That might be a solution to the problem.

1252. Mr Beggs: I support that idea. It would be particularly pertinent, given that the Minister has responsibility for planning as well as road safety and vehicles.

1253. The Chairperson: It would be helpful if, between yourselves, you could come back to the Committee with some sort of resolution to the problem, or options for a resolution. Simon, I know that you have to leave now; thank you for attending.

1254. Let us move on to the document on general issues, unless there is anything else?

1255. Mr D Armstrong: We were to deal with two further papers before that: the first on the parking issue and the second on vehicles that are out of scope or in scope of the legislation.

1256. The second paper aims to give the Committee an idea of which vehicles are covered by the legislation and which are not. There are several issues to consider, such as what is the gross weight of a vehicle that has an unladen plated weight, and so forth. We examined the Bill, which matches the current legislation in GB and contains the guidance principles currently used in Northern Ireland for the hire-for-reward sector.

1257. Any vehicle weighing over than 3·5 tons is in scope of the legislation. When a trailer is attached to a vehicle, it becomes a combination. If that trailer’s unladen weight is under 1020 kgs, that weight does not count towards the overall weight of the combination. Therefore, a trailer of up to 3·5 tonnes could pull a trailer that has an unladen weight of under 1020 kgs. If that is not the case, the combined weight of trailer and vehicle come into the scope of the legislation. On that basis, we provided for the Committee a series of photographs of vehicles that are either in scope or out of scope to give members an idea of what the legislation covers.

1258. However, it is complex, as members will probably agree. We have been trying to simplify that, and one of the amendments that we are considering would facilitate much simpler regulation. To put something simpler on the face of the Bill would be a huge risk. Therefore, we propose to amend the Bill by removing schedule 1 and replacing it with something much simpler.

1259. Another issue that has arisen is that the current GB legislation does not comply with EU directives on trailers under 1020 kgs. I spoke with officials in GB yesterday, and they propose to amend that legislation, but not until further EU regulations have been introduced. It would probably not be prudent for us to go ahead, knowing that a change is due and that the figure of 1020 kgs is not up to EU standards for the hire-for-reward sector.

1260. Mr Beggs: You said that you are not satisfied with the current definition of a small goods vehicle, but you said that the effect of changing it might be that a considerable number of additional vehicles that do not come under the legislation in other parts of Great Britain would do so here.

1261. Mr D Armstrong: That is currently the case here.

1262. Mr Beggs: You seem to be dissatisfied with the fact that, according to the GB definition, many escape the legislation and that has led you to propose amendment No 1 in the provided document. Is that correct?

1263. Mr D Armstrong: The legislation is very woolly, and it is difficult to interpret it on the roadside. One has to run to check whether a trailer is plated or unplated and whether the weight on any plate is a laden weight or a gross weight. There is much complexity involved.

1264. Mr Beggs: You stated that a considerable number of vehicles will be out of scope of the GB definition. Is Northern Ireland, therefore, to be used as a guinea pig for adjusting that definition? The regulations must be widened, but there is a danger of widening the net too far and creating too much bureaucracy. There is a balance to everything, so I am trying to gather further information on how much wider this proposed amendment is compared with the legislation in England.

1265. Mr D Armstrong: We want to ensure that people are clear on whether they are in scope or out of scope. At present in Northern Ireland, it does not matter whether the combination is under 1020kgs. Any combination over 3·5 tons is in scope, and that is much more restrictive. However, enforcement officers have been applying that standard because the other one is so restrictive. We must consider something that enables us to allow the small cars that pull trailers, and so forth, to be out of scope, because we do not want everyone to be caught up in the legislation.

1266. The Chairperson: That would be very difficult. How can the weight of a vehicle, travelling on a road with a trailer behind it, be determined? That vehicle would have to be stopped and weighed, and that is unrealistic.

1267. Mr D Armstrong: It is a very difficult and unwieldy thing to handle. Currently, the GB standard is being used, even though it does not apply here. Therefore, the Department wants to introduce a simpler mechanism.

1268. Mr Beggs: If I am reading this correctly, the Department is proposing to remove it from schedule 1 in order to create greater flexibility. Do you propose that any subsequent amendments or changes to that definition be enacted through affirmative resolution? I am conscious that greater flexibility gives more power to the Department, and I feel that it should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution.

1269. Mr D Armstrong: I have no problem with it being affirmative. That is not a big issue for the Department. The issue is that if it remains in the schedule, when the Bill is subsequently passed, it will tie us down.

1270. The Department needs more time to examine what is the best solution for Northern Ireland. Furthermore, we need to examine what Europe requires in relation to the hire-for-reward sector, and then apply that. The Department’s view is that it is inappropriate for it to remain in its present form in schedule 1. We require more time to work on it. It is possible to understand what that is saying, who it includes and who it excludes, but it is very hard to work with. Indeed, we have been working with it for a number of years, and it is still hard to grapple with. We need to simplify it a lot.

1271. Mr Weir: In relation to the European changes, presumably you will have a rough idea of those changes even if you do not know their precise nature. Perhaps that provides another argument for ensuring that there is some flexibility, so that when those changes are made that they can be more easily incorporated into the legislation.

1272. Mr D Armstrong: The provision currently contravenes a European directive. That is one change that should be made. Furthermore, Europe is currently introducing a regulation that will tighten things up in this area, and it hopes, through that EU regulation, to remove a vast number of exemptions from the hire-for-reward sector. We must see what is to be introduced and, as you say, move on and allow ourselves the flexibility to respond to that.

1273. Mr T Clarke: Clause 1 states that if a vehicle is used for hire or reward in connection with a trade or business an operator’s licence may be required. I am aware that the whole idea of this is road safety, but are you saying that it is unsafe for vehicles that are 3·5 tons or more?

1274. Mr D Armstrong: No. I was not making a road-safety comment. In fact, I have not made a pro or —

1275. Mr T Clarke: I thought that it was the nature of the whole —

1276. Mrs Gillian McIntyre (Department of the Environment): Why is it set at that threshold?

1277. Mr D Armstrong: Why is the 3·5 ton threshold set?

1278. Mr T Clarke: No. Are you saying those vehicles that are 3·5 tons and above have more serious implications for road safety?

1279. Mr D Armstrong: No, I was not saying that. The 3·5 ton threshold is set in different ways. That threshold applies to tachographs and other legislation relating to the carrying of goods, and 3·5 tons is the appropriate weight at which to set it.

1280. Mr T Clarke: Transit vans do not have tachographs.

1281. Mr D Armstrong: Those under 3·5 tons do not.

1282. Mr T Clarke: Or those at 3·5 tons.

1283. Mr D Armstrong: A 3·5 tons transit van does not require a tachograph. However, vehicles over 3·5 tons do require one.

1284. Mr T Clarke: My problem is that I do not believe that this is being introduced for the right reasons; I think that the Department is trying to catch all those smaller vehicles, for the wrong reasons. By doing so, it is leaving a complete industry that does not have to be licensed. Therefore, are we saying that it is safe if you are not doing it for hire and reward, but unsafe if you are?

1285. Mr D Armstrong: The EU legislation deals only with the hire-for-reward sector; it does not deal with the own- account sector. However, it is a fact that heavier goods vehicles have a worse safety record than other vehicles.

1286. The letter of 24 October 2008 is a response to the question about parking goods vehicles in residential areas. There is no legislation about parking goods vehicles that is specific to residential areas. In the letter, we set out what we could find in relation to parking goods vehicles and other vehicles on the road, including parking at night.

1287. Under the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, it is an offence — with certain exceptions — to park a heavy goods vehicle on a road verge, a central reserve or a footway. A heavy goods vehicle is defined as one that is over 7·5 tons. There is no general offence that prevents non-heavy goods vehicles from parking on footways, except where there are clearways.

1288. Over and above all of that, as far as parking on the road is concerned, it is an offence to cause a vehicle to wait on a public road, except in a lay-by or a designated parking area within 15m of its junction with any other road. Unfortunately, I once came foul of that law — I did not realise that it is an offence to park within 15m of a road junction.

1289. The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 state that a vehicle’s lights must be on if the vehicle is parked on a road between sunset and sunrise —the exception for goods vehicles is if the vehicle is parked in an area in which the speed limit is 30 mph or less. Those are all of the roadside-parking restrictions that we found.

1290. The Chairperson: We now move to the overview document. The cover letter is dated 31 October 2008. There are a few issues, some of which we touched on earlier. Mr Ford and Mr Trevor Clarke raised issues, and I also have a few. Let us deal with paragraphs G1 to G4 in the table of general issues raised in relation to the Bill.

1291. The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) raised the issue about extra-regulatory impact. That is covered in G1, which states:

“The use of agricultural vehicles will be examined in the context of determining vehicles or functions that will be exempt from the requirements”.

1292. I realise that this issue will come up later, but at what point will we have the list of vehicles that are exempt and, more importantly, the activities from which they are exempted?

1293. Mr D Armstrong: We have already started work with various stakeholders, including the UFU, to identify cases or justifications for exemptions. They will obviously have to be provided before the regulation stage is reached, because the Bill only provides the power to exempt. Currently, we do not have a timetable for producing proposals that detail what will be exempt and what will not. Obviously, that must be done before the regulation stage is reached, but we do not have a timetable. It is one of the things that we have already started work on.

1294. The Chairperson: That is important. Members recognised that that is a major issue.

1295. Mr D Armstrong: I accept that, Chairman.

1296. The Chairperson: G2 states that: “Road freight licensing is not a tax measure”.

1297. Where did that come from?

1298. Mr D Armstrong: It came from a point that was made by some people who attended the briefing sessions. They said that road-freight licensing was just a way for the Government to drag in more stealth taxes. The phrase “stealth tax” was used at a number of those briefing sessions. Regulation and tax are two different things. Road-freight licensing is not a tax because no revenue goes to the Government. All the moneys that are lifted through fees are used in the administration of regulation, because the administration and the cost must balance out.

1299. The Chairperson: We knew that it would not be, because it cannot be.

1300. Mr D Armstrong: That was where it was raised by people who asked whether this was a stealth tax by Gordon Brown.

1301. The Chairperson: Does any member have an issue with page 4 of the summary of general issues? If not, are there any issues related to page 5? If not, we move to page 6. Do members have any issues in respect of page 6?

1302. Mr Ford: Yes, I have issues in relation to G15 and G16 on page 6. I am fairly sure that the Department’s representatives heard me say a fortnight ago that the Committee expected to hear from he Department on the issue of a traffic commissioner. I am upset that the Committee has heard nothing other than a fairly dismissive response that fails to address widespread concern in the Committee, particularly since we heard from Mrs Bell. I want to hear a bit more detail from Donald or whoever as to what the Department’s current position is, particularly as they no doubt listened intently to what the Committee said on previous occasions.

1303. Mr John Brogan (Department of the Environment): I was not aware that the Department was expected to respond in writing.

1304. Mr Ford: I will happily accept a verbal response.

1305. Mr Brogan: If the Department receives a request, it will respond in writing within a few days. However, I will try to answer the concerns.

1306. The Bill itself is exclusively a licensing Bill that contains all the powers that a traffic commissioner in GB would exercise. The appointment of a traffic commissioner conventionally lies in a separate, dedicated legislation. The Department is considering the possible impact of the appointment of a traffic commissioner in order to deal with not only the licensing of goods vehicles but with taxis and bus operators. It remains to be seen whether those deliberations will lead to a separate piece of legislation on the appointment of a traffic commissioner.

1307. The Department considers that it would be inappropriate to legislate for the appointment, the constitution and other requirements for the post of a traffic commissioner within the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

1308. Mr Ford: Will John explain why he uses the term “inappropriate”? Is he saying legally inappropriate, or departmentally and conveniently inappropriate? Bear in mind that the long title of the Bill is: “A Bill to make provision concerning the licensing of operators of certain goods vehicles.”

1309. Therefore, a traffic commissioner is entirely within the competence of the Bill. A traffic commissioner might have a role in relation to buses, taxis and other operators, but the key problem is goods vehicles, and that is the area in which the traffic commissioner is most needed.

1310. The Chairperson: As a follow-up to Mr Ford’s question, has the Department been given particular direction on the issue of a traffic commissioner?

1311. Mr D Armstrong: Before the Bill was drafted, the Department had set in train a programme to investigate how to manage the operator licensing of taxis, buses and freight. An independent traffic commissioner is only one option that might be considered. It may well be that the course proposed in this Bill is appropriate. Therefore, without prejudicing the outcome, the Department considers the role of an independent traffic commissioner as just one possible consideration. We have not progressed that far.

1312. The concentration has been on getting this Bill completed. The Taxis Bill is finished, and we are working on bus regulation in conjunction with the Department for Regional Development. In terms of competing for resources, the traffic commissioner is a programme of work that has not progressed that far. There was not a pressure on the Department to appoint a traffic commissioner. The Department removed the measure from this Bill in order to move the Bill forward, after which all the issues will be considered in the round. It may be — and we will come back to the Committee on this — that an independent traffic commissioner is not the best way forward for Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Department cannot presume to put that measure in the Bill.

1313. Mr Beggs: Should the Department come to the conclusion that a commissioner is the way forward, will the Bill have to be amended? Is there sufficient flexibility, in your opinion, to enable that to happen without having to re-legislate?

1314. Mr Brogan: The Department consulted the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) at the outset of the drafting of the Bill. As far as I know, the Bill could simply be amended to the effect that any reference to “the Department” is changed to “traffic commissioner”. The Bill gives traffic commissioners the necessary powers to deal with operator licensing.

1315. Mr D Armstrong: During the drafting of the Bill, the Department suggested the inclusion of a clause that would apply if a traffic commissioner were appointed. However, it was recommended that we omit that.

1316. Mr Boylan: I have concerns about independent challenges to operators and how the Department will implement the legislation. Donald mentioned the possibility of examining that issue in case there is ever an independent challenge. I am concerned that the Department is regulating all of this; there must be scope for another body — which may or may not be a traffic commissioner — to handle some of the regulation. That matter must be considered.

1317. Mr D Armstrong: The Department’s biggest concern was that those in charge of the enforcement and prosecution would be too close to those taking the decisions. As I outlined at the previous meeting, the Bill offers two options. The agency, in its current form, can deal with that entire area or we can separate those functions. If we do the latter and it is subsequently decided that an independent traffic commissioner is the best option, it will be much easier to transfer. However, if the agency assumes sole responsibility now, the administrative transfer will be much larger. Although the Department and the agency are, in a sense, legally one entity, there is some separation. We would prefer to separate the Department and the agency’s roles.

1318. Mr Boylan: During your discussions with operators, did they raise concerns about the need for an independent challenge? I am concerned that the same people are implementing, operating and legislating.

1319. Mr D Armstrong: The agency will be responsible for enforcing legislation on the ground. The Department — rather than the agency — will make decisions about the traffic commissioner. During the briefing and consultation process, much of the industry was happy with the Driver and Vehicle Agency, subject to that body having more resources for enforcement. The general tenor was that the roles should be separated; there was not so much emphasis placed on independence. However, the Bill outlines the provision for appeals to the upper tribunal, which is a distinct UK-wide body that reviews the decisions of traffic commissioners and will review the Department’s decisions. We hope that the Department’s structure allows for management of the regulation to be separate from the agency.

1320. Mr Ford: John and Donald have made reasonable responses that suggest the legislation could be amended relatively easily. However, the blunt reality is that the timescale for getting legislation, especially new legislation, through any legislature can be extremely extended.

1321. Mr Gallagher: Especially if we do not have one.

1322. Mr Ford: I was going to resist making cheap points about the lack of a functioning Executive.

1323. Can Donald tell me what the current timescale is for consultation on the possibility of appointing a traffic commissioner? Can you consult your crystal ball and tell me that if the consultation process concluded that a traffic commissioner was a good idea, how long would it take to legislate for that?

1324. Mr D Armstrong: Given that we are examining resources, that is a tough question.

1325. Mr Ford: At least I was smiling when I asked.

1326. Mr D Armstrong: It has taken two or three years to reach this stage with this Bill. Therefore, it will take another two to three years to introduce more primary legislation. A fair bit of work must be done to examine the possibilities and options.

1327. Mr Ford: Although the departmental team is constrained by a number of factors in what it can say here, the Committee could take an entirely other view, namely that doing something about a traffic commissioner is sufficiently important that it should be done now, rather than wait for a minimum – and I think that you are an optimist – of three years.

1328. Mr D Armstrong: The Department would be very happy to hear such a recommendation from the Committee.

1329. The Chairperson: David, are you formalising that into a proposal?

1330. Mr Ford: It remains my belief, based on evidence given to the Committee, that a traffic commissioner could exercise positive functions, starting with the freight industry and, potentially, adding buses and taxis later. That is within the scope of this Bill, and the Committee should consider its own amendments to that effect; even if officials — who are being as helpful as they can — are unable to agree with us this morning.

1331. The Chairperson: Mr Beggs and Mr Ross wish to comment. Is your point about this issue, Roy, because Alastair has indicated that his point is?

1332. Mr Beggs: My point is not about this issue – it is slightly ajar from it.

1333. The Chairperson: I want to tease out this matter first of all, if that is ok, so I will take Alastair’s point first.

1334. Mr Ross: We need to be cautious about going down this route. Beverly Bell, Traffic Commissioner for the north western traffic area, was impressive when she gave evidence to the Committee on 9 October, 2008. However, for years we have said that we want devolution in order that we could take control of matters and have power in local hands. Some people now seem to want to give that power away to quangos and independent commissioners. We need to be cautious, and ask whether we really want to do that.

1335. At least if the Department retains control, it is more accountable to the Committee and the Minister. We need to be very cautious about moving to a stage where we want suddenly to give power away to independent bodies or quangos, whether on environmental governance or the issue of a traffic commissioner.

1336. Mr Gallagher: That is especially true if four or five traffic commissioners are needed.

1337. Mr Boylan: I certainly agree with what Mr Ross said.

1338. The Chairperson: Mr Beggs indicated that he wanted to speak. I am getting conflicting messages.

1339. Mr Boylan: My point is about the same issue. I have no objection to what Mr Ross is saying, but there must be an independent body within the Department in order to ensure that the operators have an opportunity to challenge decisions. I am not saying that, down the road, a traffic commissioner is the person to do that job; I am just saying that operators must have the opportunity to challenge if necessary. Donald alluded to such a body, and there is scope there for consideration. However, I am not advocating a traffic commissioner.

1340. Mr Beggs: I could say something about a traffic commissioner but I do not know enough about the subject. Detailed work needs to be done on the matter. However, with regard to the legislation before us: will the Department not need extra time in order to amend the primary legislation when that separate piece of work is completed?

1341. Mr Brogan: The inclusion of even a reference to a traffic commissioner would require the Bill to define the commissioner. If a commissioner does not exist, the role cannot be defined.

1342. The Chairperson: The Committee needs more information and detail about the rolling function of a traffic commissioner and any process that would be needed if it were to be incorporated into the legislation.

1343. Mr Ford: I wanted to try to be helpful by avoiding discussing this matter. In fairness – and following from what the Chairperson said – if the Committee did not give formal notice that it wanted a formal response last time, the Department’s response here refers to the consultation. If we had papers that provided the full detail of that consultation, which could be considered alongside the evidence that we received from Mrs Bell, the Committee would be in the position to consider that in detail.

1344. The Chairperson: And better informed, anyway.

1345. Mr Ford: Perhaps somewhere between Alastair Ross’s view and mine, the Committee could decide whether a traffic commissioner is appropriate.

1346. The Chairperson: If we may move to page 7 of the general issues document.

1347. Mr Beggs: Issue G21 states that bringing all vehicles over 3?5 tonnes into the system would lead to a more equitable cost base for licensing because, at present, only the “hire and reward” sector pays. I would like further information about the second sentence of G21, which states: “As this accounts for about 20% of the vehicles, the economies of scale of bringing the other 80% into the scope would ensure a fairer distribution of the costs.”

1348. What accounts for that 20%?

1349. Mr D Armstrong: If one looks at the size of the indus