Mr.
Goodwill: I am aware of the issues concerning motorcycle
tests on the Isle of Wight, but I was not aware, until my hon. Friend
mentioned it, that vehicle testing is in a similar situation. The price
of a ferry journey will add substantially to the cost of buying an MOT
test for a goods vehicle, putting the savings from the reduced cost of
other licensing into
perspective. When
will the first authorised testing facilities be opened? Are they in the
areas where VOSA test stations are being shut? Will the Minister
confirm that none of the test centres that were refurbished, at a total
cost of £47 million, will be among those
closed? In
a reply to my question of July 2008, the Minister said that the net
value asset of the VOSA estate was £98 million. Is
that still the case, given the fall in property prices? Is this not the
worst possible time to be making disposal of properties and has the
Minister considered the poor value for money being achieved for the
taxpayer? I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurances on these
important questions, some of which were raised during the consultation.
The transport industry and bus operators are facing the same economic
hardship as everyone else as the recession deepens. They expect no less
rigour to be applied to quality of service and value for money from
agencies such as VOSA and the VCA than they are themselves undergoing
to secure the survival of their businesses. I hope that the Minister
will offer the reassurance that we need to obviate the need to divide
the Committee.
4.51
pm Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr.
Russell. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Scarborough and
Whitby. He seemed to be saying that he supported the order, but then he
raised a number of concerns, so I am not 100 per cent. clear whether
the official Opposition intend to support the order. However, I put on
record right at the beginning that the Liberal Democrats support
it. I
thank the Minister for laying out the order in significant detail. He
must be pleased that he remembered to bring his notes with him, because
I doubt whether he
would have been able to remember all that detail otherwise. He ably laid
out the three amendments contained in the statutory
instrument. Plans to merge
some operator licensing and vehicle testing fees to reduce the
administrative burden on businesses by reducing the number of times
businesses need to make payments to VOSA are clearly welcome and we
strongly support that. We also support the enabling of past deficits
within a particular fee area to be taken into account when setting
future fee levels. However, will the Minister say what guarantees can
be made to businesses that those fees from previous years that have got
to be taken into consideration will be introduced on a gradual basis?
The explanatory memorandum suggests that that will be done over a
number of years, but what guarantees will businesses have that the
increased fees will be affordable over a period of time? The order
outlines the factors that must be taken into account when setting fees
not covered by the 1988 statutory instrument. That should clarify the
scope of those fees and allow for enforcement costs to be taken into
consideration. That also sounds like a sensible measure, and we support
it.
I have a
couple of questions for the Minister, one of which has already been put
by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Will the money raised
through fines be taken into consideration in settling the new fees? My
other question relates to the consultation on the order. There appears
to have been a limited response to the consultation, and the hon.
Member for Scarborough and Whitby has mentioned representations from
individual HGV owners. However, I am concerned about the reduced time
that people had to respond to the consultation and the question whether
that had an impact on the consultation. Have the Government received
any representations from businesses saying that they did not have
enough time to respond? Can the Minister justify the reduced
consultation period, given that the order has not come before the House
until almost five months after the consultation period ended?
Finally, will the
Minister clarify whether future fee-setting orders will be subject to
the affirmative resolution
procedure? 4.55
pm
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I was not sure if the hon. Member for
Scarborough and Whitby, knowing my background in the fire service, was
trying to be provocative by starting his comments with mentions of
bonfires and campfires, even though he said that he was not provoked to
oppose the order and simply wanted clarification. On the hiring and
leasing costs, we estimate—I am sure that he, with his
knowledge, can tell us whether this is accurate—that the hiring
of an HGV could cost up to £500 a week, and that the cost of the
fees would be an extra 73p, so we do not think that that would be a
major issue. Any fines generally go into the Consolidated
Fund. The
hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington asked how
extensive the consultation was. Every consultation is posted on the
website, and the four organisations that were formally consulted in
this consultation were the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, the
Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the
British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. However, I repeat that
the consultation was posted on the website for anyone who was
interested. Mr.
Goodwill: May I press the Minister about fines? I
understand that a formula is worked out so that the cost of enforcement
is recouped from the fees charged to the industry. What I wanted to
know is whether, when that equation is worked out, the fines are
knocked off, are added to the contribution from the industry, or are
simply put into the Consolidated Fund and not taken into account. It
would make sense for fines to be seen as a contribution from the
industry to the costs of
enforcement.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My information was that any fines go into the
Consolidated Fund, and I have no reason to doubt whether that is still
accurate. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, they would
not be taken into account in terms of calculation. On the hon. Member
for Manchester, Withington’s question about phasing in the new
arrangements, I understand that it will be over a three-year period, so
there will be that time
element. The
hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby asked about the closure of test
stations now and the cost of new stations. I cannot guarantee that new
and refurbished stations will not be closed, simply because we are
going through a process of recruiting testing stations, other than
those on our own premises, that are more convenient for the road
haulage industry. Clearly, if a company is running large fleets and can
test its vehicles on its premises and close to other companies, that
makes much more sense than people travelling up to 36 miles, which is
the recommended distance for the placement of test stations. I cannot
guarantee that no new stations, or stations that have been refurbished
in the past few years, will be on the closure list, but that closure
list runs into the future.
The stations
that are being closed at the moment—and there are a small
number—are those in respect of which consideration and
assessment has shown that there is adequate alternative provision
within the present arrangements and testing stations. That means we can
close them without any impact on the reasonable recommended travel
distance for companies. We are also looking at alternative arrangements
under which we can send out our examiners to test fleets at
companies’ premises. That makes it much easier for them because
testing can be undertaken when routine maintenance is being done and
when the vehicle will be at the garage. So, instead of having to take
the vehicle off the road sometimes for a whole day to get it examined,
it can be done as part of a much more sensible arrangement. These
matters have to be organised and arranged on a common-sense basis with
the industry, and that is the ongoing
position. The
hon. Member for Manchester, Withington asked how the fee increases will
be introduced, and I can tell him that they will be coming forward in
due course in the normal way, which is by negative resolution. If there
is anything that I have not answered, obviously I will write to the
hon. Gentleman—although off the top of my head, I do not have
the answer to the question about the number of HGVs running within the
UK. I have discussed that figure, compared with the number coming in
from foreign lands and temporarily using our roads,
with the hon. Member for Kettering in the Transport Committee. I will
get those figures and send them to all members of the
Committee. Mr.
Goodwill: The fundamental question I asked was whether we
are compounding inefficiency within the Vehicle and Operator Services
Agency if we allow it to estimate its costs and set its fees when, if
it overruns those costs, we give it the power retrospectively to recoup
them from the industry. The industry itself is not in that situation as
far as its customers are
concerned.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point.
Certainly, the Department for Transport has ultimate responsibility for
signing off the increases applied for by VOSA in respect of the annual
business accounts that it submits to the Department. The Department is
also accountable to the House and to the Transport Committee.
Ultimately, we have oversight—as has the National Audit
Office—and all the normal arrangements in respect of Government
business and finances apply. Although VOSA is making many of the
calculations, it is not being allowed to do so in isolation and it is
accountable to us, as we are accountable to Parliament and other
organisations. That means that there is some certainty and assurance
for the taxpayer that VOSA cannot just write a blank cheque and fill it
in itself. The matter has to be scrutinised by all sides of the House
and the National Audit
Office. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Department for Transport (Fees)
Order
2009. 5.3
pm Committee
rose.
| 
