Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief intervention. I declare an interest as an adviser to the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK. This is a serious matter. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, have done the House a favour in bringing it to the attention of the Government.
I recently attended an exhibition of buses and coaches at the National Exhibition Centre which was organised by the CPT UK. At that event I was asked to chair a number of seminars on the problems facing the industry, and the issue that recurred and recurredit was raised by coach operators in the mainwas that of stretch limousines.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is absolutely correct: these vehicles are of indeterminate length; we are not certain about the quality of their construction; and we are not satisfied about whether the skills of those who drive these vehicles are suitable for driving what is essentially a public service vehicle. There is also the serious question of the safety of passengers, particularly children. Apparently it is quite a thing to give a ride in a stretch limo as a present at a birthday party and so on. The whole question of the safety of these young passengers should exercise us.
I wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr Alistair Darling, and got back a personal reply very quickly, assuring me that the Government would look into this important matter. I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said. I am grateful that he will not test the opinion of the House on this matter because of the assurance I have received from the Secretary of State that it is under active consideration. I hope that when the Minister replies to this brief debate, he will reinforce what we know to be the Government's position.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, there are two issues, among others, that interest me. The first is whether these vehicles are properly regulated because they often have more than eight occupants. The second is whether they have adequate insurance and, indeed, whether it is possible to get adequate insurance for that type of vehicle.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Personally, I would not be seen dead in one of these vehicles, but I am worried about their
29 Nov 2005 : Column 124
construction. Some of them may have been modified, so they will not have been built in that way by the original vehicle manufacturer, and inadequate attention may have been paid to their strength. They are rather like a very long bridge; they are terribly long, and I doubt whether the chassis is strong enough to support the load, especially if there are a lot of people inside, getting up to all sorts of mischief, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, pointed out.
What approval requirements are applicable to such vehicles? Is it the single vehicle approval scheme or are we merely relying upon a North American-type approval? Is the approval related to the vehicle's original design or its design when it is stretched?
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the points raised by the noble Earl are very real. We should be aware, as I am sure we all are, that these vehicles are mostly out of Detroit, they are made to American standards and they are running on our roads which are generally less wide and have different conditions. But if we pass an amendment to this effect, it might be seen by some in the United States to be directed at a particular American artefact, and they might think we were doing it to annoy them, which I am sure is not the intention. Let us make it clear that such an amendment would be made on the basis of security, not for any other reason.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this issue, and I say this with my customary genuine approval. This issue did not come up in Committee and it is causing the Government concern. It is clear that we have work to do in the licensing of stretch limos.
I recognise fully the concerns that have been outlined. We do not believe that a new category of licensing is required. What is necessary is that those who operate these vehicles know what the licensing regime is and are compliant with it. As has been said in this debate, the vehicles are meant to carry eight persons within the framework of the existing licence and it is known that more persons than that are carried in some of them.
Virtually any motor vehicle used in Great Britain to carry passengers for hire or reward on a commercial basis needs a licence of some kind. The type of licence required depends upon the capacity of the vehicle and the type of hire or reward operation undertaken rather than the type of vehicle used. Operating without the requisite licence is a criminal offence. Hire or reward includes indirect forms of payment in cash or in kind. For vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than eight vehicles, the licence required is the public service vehicle operators' licence issued by the traffic commissioner. For vehicles which are adapted to carry eight vehicles or fewer
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister has twice said, "For vehicles adapted to carry eight vehicles or more". He perhaps means, "Eight passengers or more".
29 Nov 2005 : Column 125
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise; I meant "eight passengers" or more. I am grateful to the noble Countess for clarifying that. I was seeking to identify that if the vehicle carries more than eight passengers, a public service vehicle licence is required. If the vehicle is to carry eight passengers or fewer, the private hire vehicle licence is the appropriate one. That is the one that applies to taxis and other private hire vehicles that can take only pre-booked hirings. Those licences are administered by the relevant local authority, which has discretion on which vehicles they will licence. It is therefore at present a matter for local decision. I think that the noble Lord is indicating that these local licensing authorities have some difficulty with regard to stretch limousines, which is why we need to address the issue.
A vehicle can also carry these numbers of passengers if they are separate fares and are being carried,
In that case, however, a public service vehicle operator's licence would be issued by the traffic commissioner. So we are clear on the two categories of licence that are issued.
As noble Lords will recognise, some stretch limousines arguably are constructed to carry more than eight passengers. However, because of the nature of their current construction, they are allowed to be registered for use on UK roads only if they carry no more than eight passengers. That is the restriction. To carry more than eight, they would need to comply with Schedule 6, on minibuses, of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Vehicles of the stretched limousine type currently do not comply. In particular, they do not comply with the minibus requirement because minibuses have emergency exits. One of the obvious problems that we have with stretch limousines is that they do not have any form of emergency exit.
Schedule 6 could not be modified unilaterally so as to authorise non-conforming stretch limousines as a separate class without the absence of objections from right across the European Community. We think that that would be unlikely given the arrival shortly of a new European-type approval regime for large passenger vehicles which does not specifically provide for stretch limousines to the numbers that would be required. If constructed to meet the required standards, there is absolutely nothing to stop a limousine from operating as a public service vehicle. But it would need to meet the required standards. Some manufacturers are looking at how they can adapt their stretch limousines to meet the public service vehicle requirements, which would need to include some element of emergency exit.
Because of the construction requirements I have just outlined, limousines on our roads today can in practice operate only as a vehicle constructed or adapted to carry eight passengers or fewer. They are not constructed to carry more. As I have already explained, vehicles adapted to carry eight passengers or fewer which are used for carrying passengers for
29 Nov 2005 : Column 126
hire or reward can be licensed by either the local authority or the traffic commissioner, depending on the type of operation undertaken. The type of operation envisaged by the noble Lords in the amendmentthat is, a vehicle provided with a driver and arrangements for payment of fares made before the journeyis already provided for under the private hire vehicle licensing system. Creating two types of licence for the same type of operation would be far from ideal and create significant confusion and difficulties for both the licensing and the enforcement authorities. So we do not want two types of licence. We want to get the stretch limousines within the existing framework of licensing arrangements.
We recognise that proper enforcement is an important issue on a number of safety grounds, not just in relation to the type of vehicle but also in terms of the type of driver. After all, the driver is responsible for a significant number of people in his charge.
I should just say that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency takes to court those operators found to be carrying nine or more passengers and thus operating illegally, and those cases are resulting in successful prosecutions. So we are concerned enough about the situation to seek to monitor the successful prosecution when these vehicles are being used illegally.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |