Supplementary memorandum from the Road
Haulage Association (FT 15A)
ENFORCEMENT OF
FOREIGN VEHICLES
1. Thank you for the opportunity to give
oral evidence to the committee's freight inquiry. You asked if
we could provide more evidence in regard to enforcement of foreign
trucks and the role of the graduated fixed penalty and deposit
scheme and I have expanded on the subject.
2. The Graduated Fixed Penalty and Deposit
Scheme, which would allow VOSA officers to issue fixed penalties
and widen the scope of fixed penalties to include drivers' hour's
offences, went to public consultation in July 2004: The Regulatory
Impact Assessment stated that in 2003-04, VOSA prosecuted 8,000
cases containing 18,000 offences. "Of these, just seven cases
with 10 offences involved foreign drivers. Foreign drivers are
at least as likely to offend as their UK counterparts. However,
in all but very rare cases where they provide a UK agent for the
service of a summons, they cannot, in effect be prosecuted."
(Annex A 10).
3. The RIA stated that the scheme would
have no net costs for law-abiding operators or the government
(Annex A 15). We assume, in the absence of a contrary assessment,
that this remains the case. However, should extra funds be required,
the RHA's view is that they should nonetheless be made available,
both to level the enforcement playing field and to improve road
safety.
4. The scheme would apply equally to UK
and foreign operators and is seen as strengthening enforcement
in relation to the domestic fleet, which is of course much more
numerous, as well as the foreign visitors. However, British drivers
and their operators for which they are driving can and are prosecuted
now. Drivers and operators can also have their vocational driving
and operating licences revoked—ie be thrown out of the industry.
Those options are not available, for the most part, in respect
of foreign trucks.
5. One of the main selling points of the
scheme was indeed to level the enforcement playing field. This
was clear in consultation between the trade associations and government
officials; and in announcing the scheme, then-transport minister
David Jamieson, launching the consultation, said: "The Government
is keen to clear up the unfair situation where foreign hauliers
can avoid paying a penalty by leaving the country. It is only
right that foreign hauliers are treated the same as UK ones, particularly
as UK drivers in Europe cannot escape penalties. I am aware that
UK hauliers feel strongly on this matter and I want to make these
changes as soon as possible" (our itals) (28 July 2004, Source
DeHavilland).
Introduction of the scheme was originally hoped
for by VOSA in early summer 2007—that is, one year after
the enabling Road Safety Bill was substantially through Parliament
and six months after it gained Royal Assent (in November 2006).
In retrospect, it is clear that this was an optimistic timetable.
However, 12 months from Royal Assent was a reasonable expectation.
The publicly-disclosed timescale for delivering the scheme has
repeatedly slipped and now stands at March 2009 at the earliest.
This was confirmed to the RHA after a report appeared on ROADTRANSPORT.com
on 15 January 2008. "Department for Transport lawyers have
confirmed it won't be before March 2009," the website report
stated and VOSA confirmed that the report was accurate.
We note the parliamentary answer of logistics
minister Jim Fitzpatrick on the subject on Monday 18 February
(in reply to Jim Cunningham, (Coventry South). Mr Fitzpatrick
said that: "The Department is aiming to make all the necessary
secondary legislation to implement these provisions as soon as
possible". We welcome the indication of urgency and priority
but we are concerned that no date has been given. Will introduction
of the scheme be possible in 2009 . . . or will it be 2010 . .
.?
6. The RHA is aware that there are complexities
in bringing forward the scheme. However, transport companies cannot
understand why it will take almost five years from public consultation
to delivering the scheme, perhaps more.
7. The announcement of the Chancellor, now
Prime Minister, in the 2007 Budget that there would be 50,000
checks on foreign trucks during 2007 was welcome. But, as we mentioned
in oral evidence, the sanctions available to VOSA in these checks
are comparatively toothless, not least in relation to sanctions
currently available in respect of UK operators. This fact is widely
known within the industry.
8. A further parliamentary answer last week,
Lord Bassam said that VOSA had detected more than 16,000 offences
by foreign trucks (overloading, vehicle condition and drivers
hours) in the past 12 months but that "There were very few
prosecutions for these specific offences because it is not possible-either
for VOSA or the police-to require non-UK residents to return to
the UK to attend court on such matters. The introduction of graduated
fixed penalties and deposits will, however, ensure that they do
pay the relevant penalty." This reply echoes the 2004 consultation
paper as highlighted in paragraph 2 of this evidence.
9. Impounding powers against foreign trucks
are extremely limited. They relate only to the regular undertaking
of domestic haulage work for which a UK O-licence would be required.
VOSA can impound any truck—UK or non-UK—which does
such work without an O-licence. Normally, the foreign operator
is warned and the truck confiscated if he persists. Examples are
extremely rare.
10. The main sanction available to enforcers
is to require drivers to take statutory rest breaks when they
are due or to require them to reduce the weight when overloaded
or to rectify serious mechanical faults before continuing on their
journey. No penalty sanction is normally imposed beyond these
measures.
11. Offences, including serious offences,
have been reported for many years to the National Regulatory Authority
of the visiting haulier, but there is little or no evidence of
significant action having been taken by the foreign authority.
The UK is the only EU Member State that revokes "O"
Licences, the International Road Union (IRU) has confirmed this
to the RHA.
12. Police action against foreign operators
remains at best patchy, with relatively few forces committed to
significant policing of road haulage laws. The police are also
reliant on the courts and our understanding is that they face
very similar problems to those of VOSA.
13. Since giving our oral evidence, we have
clarified the position of the police through ACPO. We are aware
of strong, targeted action by particular police forces that has
led to the jailing of a small number of foreign drivers and increased
pressure specific foreign firms that have a record of frequent
offending. The RHA welcomes and commends these actions by the
police. However, these actions are localised and far from widespread
and enforcement against foreign operators remains fundamentally
weak.
February 2008
| 
