House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Clive Betts
Bain, Mr. William (Glasgow, North-East) (Lab)
Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Cawsey, Mr. Ian (Brigg and Goole) (Lab)
Clark, Paul (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)
Clarke, Mr. Charles (Norwich, South) (Lab)
Goodwill, Mr. Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Howell, John (Henley) (Con)
Hunter, Mark (Cheadle) (LD)
Knight, Mr. Greg (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Leech, Mr. John (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Main, Anne (St. Albans) (Con)
Slaughter, Mr. Andy (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab)
Smith, Mr. Andrew (Oxford, East) (Lab)
Stoate, Dr. Howard (Dartford) (Lab)
Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Wilson, Mr. Rob (Reading, East) (Con)
Ben Williams, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Raynsford, Mr. Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 26 January 2010

[Mr. Clive Betts in the Chair]

Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2010
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2010.
May I say at the outset what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr. Betts? I am delighted to see you in the Chair.
On 21 October 2009, the European Union adopted a group of three community regulations known as the road transport package. The order makes consequential amendments to article 5 of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 to update references to community legislation, particularly on account of two of the regulations in the package—European Community regulations 1072/2009 and 1073/2009.
Regulation 1072/2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market sets out new rules governing hauliers transporting goods by road for hire or reward in the EU. The regulation also introduces clearer rules and evidence requirements regarding when cabotage is allowed. Cabotage, of course, is domestic goods operations by operators registered in another EU state. The regulation also repeals and replaces existing EU rules governing the carriage of goods by road.
Regulation 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services sets out new rules for operators engaging in international journeys in the EU using vehicles designed to carry 10 or more persons including the driver, either on their own account or to carry passengers for hire and reward. The regulation amends existing EC rules governing such journeys, and European Community regulations are directly applicable.
Article 5 of the 1975 order exempts from vehicle excise duty certain categories of vehicles engaged in international operations that are regulated by EC rules, including cabotage, and brought temporarily into the UK. The amendments being made to the 1975 order serve simply to update references to EC legislation, particularly that being replaced by regulations 1072/09 and 1073/09. They do not make any changes to policy position. The order applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Vehicle excise duty is an exempted matter and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Regulations 1072/09 and 1073/09 were negotiated over a two-year period. Overall, the Government regard the outcome of those EU negotiations as a positive one. We believe that the deal achieved was a good one because it balances the need to maintain and improve road safety standards with those of the industry and consumers. It should also help to improve the environmental performance of the international road haulage industry by reducing the number of empty runs.
The Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK have welcomed the new regulations. Indeed, industry representatives participated actively in their development, and close contact was maintained with industry bodies throughout the decision-making process, which led to the adoption of the regulations.
4.34 pm
Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. The general principle that the Opposition always wish to maintain in such matters is to support the single market. As long as competition is fair, and as long as measures increase its fairness, we will support it. I will talk more about that later.
Having met a number of road haulage companies around the country, I know that the standards maintained by our domestic road haulage industry are second to none and are in marked contrast to those of some of the foreign operators that ply their trade in the United Kingdom under the cabotage rules.
We are also against the gold-plating of EU legislation, which, sadly, happens all too often in the United Kingdom, coupled with the flip side of that where other countries are not so assiduous and zealous in implementing legislation and directives in their own countries. We must be ever mindful of the cost of any new measures, particularly in the light of the economic situation both in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the European Union. Although we had the good news this morning that we have edged out of recession, we still face world oil prices that are unstable, potentially rising, with the obvious effect that that has on road haulage companies that use oil as their primary input.
The pressure that has been placed on the British road haulage industry was most markedly brought to me when, 18 months ago, I went to the truck show and was told that there was a nine-month wait for a new Scania truck. Now, if someone has the money—or if a bank is prepared to lend them the money—they can buy one off the shelf. With that pressure being placed on all sectors of the road haulage industry, there is always that risk of increased cost-cutting, which I know the traffic commissioners are keen to avoid despite the economic circumstances.
The issue of cabotage is of great concern to British haulage companies, which feel that they are not operating on a level playing field. Often, when they see foreign trucks plying their trade in the United Kingdom, they wonder what rates they are charging, particularly for these return loads, or the three journeys that can now be undertaken in seven days under the new, tighter cabotage rules. Although the rules are being portrayed as tighter, when trucks come in from the continent, they rarely stay more than a week and, therefore, three journeys during a period is not such a tightening of the rules as some would suggest. Although the rules now no longer allow empty trucks to come into the country to ply their trade, given the cost of a cross-channel journey I suspect that that is not as big an issue as it may be in other EU countries that do not have the additional cost of a ferry journey.
The number of foreign-registered vehicles being driven on UK roads continues to rise. The proxy often used to measure the volume of foreign-registered heavy goods traffic on Britain’s roads is the number of foreign-registered vehicles leaving the country. In 2008, 1.67 million foreign-registered vehicles left the UK, the figure having fallen back slightly from an all-time high of 1.72 million in 2007. Foreign-registered vehicles account for more than 80 per cent. of the heavy goods traffic leaving the UK, and the proportion of vehicles that are registered in the newest EU member states has increased rapidly in recent years.
In 2008, 35 per cent. of all powered goods vehicles leaving the UK were registered in the 12 newest EU member states. The number of foreign-registered trucks leaving the UK has more than doubled in 10 years—during part 2 of the relaxed cabotage rules. Foreign vehicles are statistically more likely to be non-compliant than UK vehicles. Since 2006-07, prohibition rates for foreign-registered vehicles have consistently been significantly higher than those for UK-registered vehicles for all offences. Foreign-registered HGVs are also reportedly involved in more accidents than UK-registered vehicles.
Anne Main (St. Albans) (Con): I am sure that my hon. Friend is as aware as I am of the long campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) has been leading to ensure that foreign trucks have mirrors so that the drivers can see properly on our roads and avoid the blind spots that often contribute to such accidents. We have not been terribly successful in ensuring that that happens.
Mr. Goodwill rose—
The Chairman: Order. I caution the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we are beginning to stray a little far from the narrow remit of this order. Perhaps he will bear that mind as he responds and continues his comments.
Mr. Goodwill: Thank you, Mr. Betts. I know that you are always keen to keep us on track.
This measure will have an effect on the number of foreign-registered vehicles on the road in this country. The figures that I am about to relate regarding the road worthiness of vehicles and the number of drivers who are breaking drivers’ hours have a direct impact on road safety in the UK. I know that the Minister and his Department are aware of that and have stepped up checks and, of course, have handed out Fresnel lenses in Calais. They admit that the issue is a problem and, despite the fact that they have been targeting—if that is the right word—or paying particular attention to foreign trucks, levels of failure of roadside tests are worryingly high. For example, the prohibition rate for vehicles and trailers tested for roadworthiness for UK-registered vehicles by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency was 35.5 per cent., and for foreign-registered vehicles it was 46.5 per cent., as stated in the Transport Committee report. The prohibition rate for vehicles tested for drivers’ hours and tachograph offences was 15.8 per cent. for UK-registered vehicles, and 23.9 per cent. for foreign-registered vehicles. For overloading vehicles, the figure was 28.6 per cent. for UK-registered vehicles and 33.1 per cent. for foreign-registered vehicles.
Therefore, in all three cases—defective vehicles, drivers’ hours regulation breaches and overloading—the figures for foreign-registered vehicles are higher than those of our own. In fact, in 2007-08, the prohibition rate for Czech HGVs subjected to roadworthiness tests was more than 60 per cent., with Polish and Hungarian vehicles also exceeding 50 per cent. Belgian, German and Italian vehicles all had prohibition rates of more than 40 per cent. of those tested. Those figures are all the more worrying when one takes into account the fact that the sophisticated targeting techniques used to select UK vehicles for testing cannot be used for foreign-registered vehicles. VOSA is able to target known and likely UK-registered offenders through information garnered by the traffic commissioners and by VOSA itself, through the operator compliance risk score, but examiners have to rely on weigh-in motion censors and automatic number plate recognition systems alone for foreign-registered vehicles. Given that the UK vehicles are subjected a targeted approach and the approach to foreign vehicles is less targeted, the actual figures could well be worse. Will the Minister relax or change cabotage rules that result in more defective vehicles and tired drivers on our roads?
I welcome the change, in May 2009, to the new graduated fixed financial penalty deposit and immobilisation schemes. What are the early indications on whether those schemes have been effective in reducing non-compliance? I do not think that we have the figures yet for 2009, but the Minister may have some early indication as to whether those very welcome new measures have had an impact. Of course, other penalties, such as speed camera fines, congestion charges and other fixed penalty notices, still often go unpaid by foreign vehicles using our roads. Since last October, there has been the potential for a European-wide scheme for the collection of those fines. As I understand it—and I am sure the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—the UK is yet to sign up to a scheme whereby if a Romanian driver breaks the speed limit and is caught by a camera in this country, he can be contacted by his postal address through the database, which I think the Netherlands Government are maintaining. If he pays that fine when he gets the notice that goes to the UK, and if he appeals that fine in the Romanian court, then he still pays a fine but the Romanian court collects the fine. Of course, as it is a two-way scheme, the opposite would apply for a Romanian driver in the UK.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray quite a long way off the fairly narrow remit of this regulation. The regulation is about changing some of the specifics of the existing regulations on cabotage, not about the general issue of penalties and the broader nature of the scheme that he is beginning to get into now.
Mr. Goodwill: I stand chastised. However, I must put on the record the fact that if a British driver is caught by a camera he will have to pay his fine in the UK. Under the current situation, if an eastern European driver is in the same circumstances it is unlikely that he will have to pay that fine before he leaves the country.
Nearly one in 10 lorries in accidents in the UK are foreign. I welcome the introduction of the Fresnel lenses and the initiatives taken by the Government on that. I worry that if we have more cabotage, we will have more accidents. In evidence to the Transport Committee, Mr. Philip Brown, the senior traffic commissioner, said that Britain is
“the safest and best regulated within the European Union and that is down to...VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners”
Will the measures bring the rest of the EU up to our standards or merely further gold-plate the best system in Europe, as the traffic commissioner said, with no guarantees that other member states will raise their game to comply fully? One fundamental problem, which I am sure the Minister has heard from road haulage companies up and down the country, is the unfairness in the way fuel duty and tolls are levied across the EU.
 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 27 January 2010