| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for moving these amendments, which give us the opportunity to spell out even further
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC142
and more fully our enforcement proposals, although I am in great danger of reiterating the arguments that I presented on the previous group of amendments.
The noble Lord will recognise that the root of the problem is how one would enforce a minimum that was within bounds to the very small heritage railway regarding any infringement that might occur there, but which would not, however, make an iota of difference to one of our great railway companies that run our major lines. That is the problem with the concept of minimum, and the reason why I indicated earlier that I am not enamoured of the concept.
We need to ensure that penalties are effective. However, I do not think that these amendments address the question of whether the offence is not the physical nature of the vehicle that is being used but an operational breach. That raises interesting questions about what the minimum should be for an operational breach of the regulations. Again, I sought to illustrate that in our earlier discussion on these matters.
We are clear that we want an enforcement regime, and prescribed in the regulations is a maximum penalty. We have provided for the penalty to be capped because of the reasons that I identified. What we cannot accept is that the concept of a minimum is valid within this context. I make the obvious point that somewhere a railway such as the Cairngorm Funicular Railway has two vehicles. The Midland Metro runs only 16 tram cars. It is difficult to set the context of minimum within the framework of such small scale exercises with small operating levels and annual turnovers against what we are largely concerned with in this Bill—the travelling public in relation to major operators who provide our rail services up and down the land. Therefore, we do not see that there is a case for specifying a minimum.
Setting a penalty at a level that is never less than the cost of modifying the vehicle may seem to make reasonable sense. I can see the attraction of, and intelligent thought behind, the proposal. However, the Committee should consider what happens if the dual cost of bringing the vehicle into compliance and paying the fine means that the operator goes out of business. Have we gained from that position? We have certainly ensured that the travelling public are safeguarded against a breach of regulations, but we are trying to affect the operator's behaviour so that he runs the system without any breach of regulations. We are not seeking to make him unviable so that the service is withdrawn, because we cannot see how the travelling public would benefit from that.
I say to the noble Lord that I understand entirely the sentiment behind his amendment. As my noble friend Lord Ashley indicated, we all want to make the enforcement procedures effective against a background where we have been obliged to be content for almost a decade now with an Act that has no enforcement procedures at all that work in relation to transport. We are making considerable progress with this Bill. However, there are limits on the extent to which we can carry out enforcement measures without destroying the
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC143
very objective that we seek to achieve—the safety and welfare of the travelling public, especially those with disabilities.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has misunderstood the point that we were making. There would be no question of a dual cost of refurbishment and a fine. As I understand it, either the operator refurbishes or there is a fine—one or the other. There would be no dual cost.
Lord Tebbit: It grieves me to say this, but I have some sympathy with the Minister. He mentioned the business that has 16 tram cars. Suppose the cost of bringing those tram cars up to standard is greater than the business can stand. Suppose that the Minister has no option but to fine the company that full amount. The company will go out of business. The disabled would-be passenger will not be able to travel on it because it is not there; neither can the passengers who have been using it travel on it any longer. In such an extreme case, who gains? We must give a large measure of discretion in these cases to those who will enforce the law. Of course, sometimes things will go wrong and they will not get it right. I am sure that there are several people in this building, at both ends of the Corridor, who are well capable of attacking those responsible for not having done what they could have done in a reasonable world.
We must be careful at times with legislation such as this. The more complex it is, the more it goes into detail and the more onerous the requirements are, the more likely it is that, somewhere along the line, we have got it wrong or that the enforcement will be wrong. The more rigid we make these requirements and the less discretion we give to those whose job it is to enforce it, the more likely it is that we will find ourselves stuck with the consequences of legislation that is entirely binding and which offers no discretion, but that we can all see in some particular case has become an ass. I hope that, as this legislation goes through, we will be very aware of that.
I hope that one day, in I do not know how many years' time, this legislation will have fallen into abeyance simply because attitudes will have changed. By virtue of the existence of this law for long enough, people will not dream of going against its spirit and requirements, but I have some sympathy with the Minister.
Lord Addington: I am always slightly wary when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, gets to his feet. He wields the stiletto very artistically. However, the basic point and the history behind this amendment still hold good. The railway industry has proved itself to be a master at getting round regulation. The most attractive of the amendments, Amendment No. 48, states that the fine must not be less than the cost of doing the work. That is the spirit that should be envisaged. If my amendment is crude, my reaction is to go away and think of something that is slightly more flexible but has the same spirit.
On the issue of heritage railways; if they do not have an exemption, they should be treated the same as everyone else, although most of them should have an
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC144
exemption. The general consensus is that if a person in a wheelchair wants the genuine 1930s experience of sitting in the guard's van on a non commercial route, by all means they should have it. All sorts of things go on in people's personal lives that we would not normally recommend and they are welcome to that form of masochism. It is when railways are used for transport to work and so forth that the provision counts, so the argument does not hold water.
The case of the very small operator has some validity, but unless the Government are more forthcoming about the criteria under which they will enforce this legislation we will have to return to this matter. We must have more information. If the Government have not thought about the matter, please could they do so and provide the information because at the moment the door is still open for a good lawyer with a good series of precedents to come forward and say, "You let us have it last time". That has been the experience.
I hope that the Minister has taken away from the last three groups of amendments, which all touch on the same thing, that the industry as a whole does not fill those of us who are interested in the matter with any confidence. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that he hoped that the legislation would not be necessary.
The fact that this is the second Bill introduced in 10 years to deal with this matter probably indicates that the will is not there. For that reason, we must push the Minister a little further. A code of implementation would address the concerns raised in almost all the amendments to the clause. I hope that the Minister will consider them. I am happy to meet him between now and Report to discuss what steps can be taken. The more I have listened, the more I have become convinced that we need more guidance and information on the criteria that are being used. We can even build in review of the criteria, but we must have more information and authority. If someone is put in charge who does not regard this as a priority, nothing may be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: I am a little puzzled. I believe that we have covered all aspects but I am a little puzzled by the wording at line 17 on page 22. I am not clear what it seeks to catch. It refers to "public transport: offences", and states,
which is concerned with the inspection of vehicles—
"is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale".
I am not clear why the Government think it likely that people will be rushing around impersonating inspectors. This seems to be a case of using a hammer
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC145
to crack a nut. Is there a widespread history of people doing such a thing? If so, were they caught and what happened to them? Perhaps they ended up in the Clock Tower. It seems to be a strange situation and the relevant sanction would more appropriately be in terms of the Mental Health Act than anything else.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |