VOSA - Parliament (publications) - Parliament UK

0 downloads 1004 Views 1MB Size Report
Jul 19, 2013 - Jack Semple from the Road Haulage Association said, “The gateway reviews ...... entrances and indeed at
House of Commons Transport Committee

The work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) Third Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 8 July 2013

HC 583 Incorporating HC 1005-i & ii, Session 2012-13 Published on 19 July 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50

The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies.

Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)7 Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Karen Lumley (Conservative, Redditch) Jason McCartney (Conservative, Colne Valley) Karl McCartney (Conservative, Lincoln) Lucy Powell (Labour/Co-operative, Manchester Central) Mr Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Martin Vickers (Conservative, Cleethorpes) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe), Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton), Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South), Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South), Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West), Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North), Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne), Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard, (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys), Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South), Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge), Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer)

Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Farrah Bhatti (Second Clerk), Richard Jeremy (Committee Specialist), Helen Agnew (Senior Committee Assistant), Adrian Hitchins (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer)

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

1

Contents Report

Page

Summary





Introduction





Authorised Testing Facilities

6  7  9 

VOSA testing staff VOSA’s deficit and fees



Enforcement Operator Compliance Risk Score and other technology Roadworthiness and drivers’ hours offences



VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners Service levels Monitoring bus services ICT Branding and independence



HGV Road User Levy Act Enforcing the HGV Road User Levy



10  10  11  13  13  14  14  16  18  18 

Conclusion

20 

Conclusions and recommendations

21 

Formal Minutes

24 

Witnesses

25 

List of printed written evidence

25 

List of additional written evidence

25 

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

26 

3

Summary The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) is responsible for enforcing standards of roadworthiness for heavy goods vehicles (HGV) and public service vehicles (PSV). It does this primarily through licensing and testing. Our report examines how well VOSA is meeting its testing responsibilities; the effectiveness of its enforcement methodology; its relationship with the Traffic Commissioners; and how it will implement the new HGV Road User Levy Act. Since 2010 VOSA has sought gradually to replace its own testing sites with Authorised Testing Facilities (ATFs) which are run by private sector owners but rely on VOSA’s staff to carry out tests. We have broadly welcomed VOSA’s approach to this transition but have concerns over the pace of change, in particular VOSA’s ability to provide testing staff to new ATFs and how it can ensure smaller operators have access to ATFs, especially in remote areas. We are not persuaded that testing staff should be employed directly by ATFs. We believe that VOSA’s testing staff are performing well in maintaining high standards of roadworthiness and would not like to see this jeopardised. However we recommend that VOSA works with its trade unions to achieve more flexibility in terms of when testing slots can be provided, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. VOSA has done well to tackle non-compliance with roadworthiness standards, particularly with regards to non-GB registered vehicles. However we heard evidence that VOSA may be targeting smaller operators who are less frequently on the road instead of larger, more established operators. We recommend that VOSA enhance its targeting methods to ensure it takes a more industry-wide approach to enforcement. The Department for Transport and VOSA have made efforts to lead on improving road safety standards at European Union level. One of the results of these efforts has been the creation of an EU-wide database of operators’ safety records. In recent months, VOSA has been able to access this information which it can use for enforcement purposes at the roadside. This is particularly useful against offences relating to drivers’ hours which are increasingly of concern. We support these measures and other efforts to strengthen ways to prosecute offenders and see potential for more effective working relationships with the police and other agencies. We are particularly concerned by VOSA’s relationship with the Traffic Commissioners, despite recent efforts to improve this. The Traffic Commissioners are responsible for regulating bus services but rely on VOSA staff to monitor vehicle maintenance standards and punctuality. In 2011, VOSA changed its approach to this work by moving away from actively monitoring punctuality towards working with bus operators and local transport authorities on improving policy and processes. The Senior Traffic Commissioner expressed concerns about this change. We also heard that outside London, the only source of reliable data on bus punctuality is held by bus operators but there is often a reluctance to make this available to the Traffic Commissioners. We recommend that, if necessary, the Government should step in to

4

ensure the Traffic Commissioners’ have access to this information. We identified worrying communication problems between the VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners which must be resolved urgently. There has also been slow progress in improving the Traffic Commissioner’s ICT licensing system which both the Traffic Commissioners and industry has found frustrating. In broader terms we have questioned whether the Traffic Commissioners’ reliance on VOSA staff is undermining the Commissioners’ independence. We recommend that the Government consult on the Traffic Commissioners having their own staff independent of VOSA. The HGV Road User Levy Act provides for the introduction of an HGV road user levy from April 2014. We expect the Government to implement the levy with wider enforcement concerns in mind, for example using it to help better monitor overseas vehicles using UK roads. We have concerns that enforcing the levy will have an impact on VOSA’s other enforcement activities and have asked the Government to examine whether part of the proceeds of the levy could be used to fund its enforcement and provide adequate staff.

5

1 Introduction 1. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). It was established in 2003 to enforce legislation and standards for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs)1 and public service vehicles (PSVs).2 Its aims are to improve road safety and environmental standards and to ensure fair competition in the road haulage and passenger transport industries. VOSA is responsible for: 

the annual testing of HGVs and PSVs;



enforcing compliance with roadworthiness standards, drivers hours, the Working Time Directive and operator licensing conditions;



managing the MOT scheme for testing cars and other light or private vehicles;



provision of guidance and information to support customer compliance; and



investigating accidents, monitoring of vehicle recalls and defects investigations. 2. VOSA also provides administrative support to the seven Traffic Commissioners (TCs). TCs are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport but are statutorily independent of VOSA and the Department for Transport. TCs have responsibility for licensing HGV and PSV operators, determining whether licence-holders are fit to hold such licences and hearing appeals against the impounding by VOSA of illegally operated HGVs. TCs also have a key role in registering and monitoring the punctuality of local bus services. 3. The Agency operates as a trading fund. In 2011/12 total income was, in round terms, £189m. The majority of this income - £175m - came from statutory fees (e.g. for testing and licensing); the remainder came from areas such as voluntary testing and grant funding. VOSA employs over 2,000 full time equivalent staff located at its headquarters in Bristol, at offices in Swansea and Leeds and at around 100 operational locations across Great Britain. 4. The Committee last looked specifically at VOSA in 20093 although our recent report into Competition in the local bus market4 touched on the work of VOSA and TCs. Since the 2009 report VOSA has continued its programme of transferring testing sites into the private sector; has implemented new enforcement methods like the Graduated Fixed Term Penalty Notices; and has sought to strengthen and clarify its relationship with the TCs. Our inquiry followed up our predecessor’s work by looking at these issues. In addition we looked at plans for implementing the HGV Road User Levy Act which was passed into law in February.

1

Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), also known as large goods vehicles (LGVs), are goods vehicles weighing in excess of 3.5 tonnes.

2

A public Service Vehicle (PSV) is a vehicle that is used to carry passengers in return for a fee. Busses and other vehicles with room for more than eight passengers are defined as large PSVs. Taxis, small minibuses or hackney carriages able to carry less than eight passengers are small PSVs.

3

Transport Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, The enforcement activities of the Vehicle and Operators Services Agency (VOSA),HC 1059

4

Transport Committee, Third Report of Session 2012-13, Competition in the local bus market, HC 10

6

5. We wish to thank everyone who has given us evidence, both in writing and in person, and the VOSA staff who helped with the Committee’s visit to VOSA’s enforcement facilities in Dartford in February. We would also like to thank the staff at the Ford Motor Company in Dartford for showing us their testing site.

2

Authorised Testing Facilities

6. In 2010 VOSA launched its Testing Transformation Programme (TTP). The Programme’s objective is to make HGV and PSV testing more convenient for operators by bringing testing closer to the customer. VOSA believes that it has improved arrangements for annual vehicle testing over the last three years through the use of Authorised Testing Facilities (ATFs). 7. HGVs and PSVs are required to be tested annually for roadworthiness. They may require other tests, for example if an operator wishes to increase the maximum permitted weight that their vehicles can carry. Tests are carried out at Goods Vehicle Testing Stations (GVTS) which are sites owned by VOSA or at ATFs which are non-VOSA testing sites run by private sector operators of HGVs or PSVs using VOSA testing staff.5 ATFs have a contract with VOSA which sets out obligations for both VOSA and the owners of ATFs. For example, ATFs must guarantee a minimum income to encourage efficient use of VOSA testing staff while VOSA must pay compensation if it fails to provide testing staff at agreed times.6 8. VOSA is encouraging more ATFs in those parts of the country where early take-up has been slow – particularly in rural areas. There are now over 300 ATFs and the Government predicts 85% of tests will take place in non-VOSA sites by April 2014.7 9. Our predecessor’s 2009 report into VOSA raised concerns that larger operators might not open their ATFs to smaller competitors. It noted that the vast majority of operators have fewer than five vehicles in their fleet which meant that a significant number of operators might not be able to upgrade their own sites and would have to rely on larger competitors to secure tests. The Committee recommended that VOSA retain a significant network of its own sites to maintain even coverage across the country.8 10. VOSA’s testing site strategy aims to ensure that at least 90% of operators can access ATFs within 30 miles, or 60 minutes drive.9 VOSA’s Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples, explained the alternative arrangements available when these targets cannot be met: In those rural areas where there may not be particular take-up in ATFs, we still have our own test sites. We have an opportunity to keep those, or, as we do in some of the 5

There is also an older model of private sector testing site called Designated Premises (DPs) which were introduced in the 1980s. Unlike ATFs, DPs have an informal relationship with VOSA in that VOSA gives no guarantees about service provision or how it should provide staff.

6

Ev 61

7

Q 92

8

Transport Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, The enforcement activities of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), HC 39, para 12

9

Q 47

7

rural sites in Scotland, we can enter into agreements with operators. There is one in Fort William where we rent a lane one day a week from them. There is another one where we own a site in Portree. We use it one day a week and we rent it out to one of the major bus companies four days a week. There are lots of different opportunities where there is not particular take-up in ATF to ensure that there is provision of service as close as we can make it.10 11. However VOSA has said, “given the success of our ATF strategy to date our long term target is a network of ATFs that removes the need for any GVTSs.”11At the moment it is entirely voluntary whether ATFs operate on an ‘open access’ basis, whereby they will test the vehicles of third party operators rather than just their own vehicles. If ATFs wish to stop offering an open access service they must give VOSA notice.12 The Government’s response to our predecessor’s report stated that as VOSA transfers testing sites into the private sector, VOSA expects to use leases that oblige the lessee to continue to host testing on an open access basis.13 12. We welcome VOSA’s pragmatic approach to maintaining a national network of testing sites and believe that a sensible mix of VOSA sites and ATFs is the best way to maintain even coverage across the country. We recommend that VOSA provide us with further information about how it is working with operators to ensure even coverage of testing sites across the country. We would also like to know how VOSA will ensure that a sufficient number of testing sites remain open to third party operators, particularly in remote areas.

VOSA testing staff 13. Road hauliers have broadly welcomed the transfer of testing facilities to the private sector although a persistent concern is that VOSA is not staffed adequately to meet demand at existing and future ATFs. James Firth of the Freight Transport Association said he had heard of hauliers making 150-mile-round-trips to find a testing facility with available testing slots14 and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) commented that there can be a delay of up to six weeks before a VOSA inspector can attend a site.15 14. VOSA has a Service Level Agreement with industry which, for test availability at VOSA sites, states: VOSA is committed to providing test appointments as close as possible to the requested date, and has a target to offer 85% of tests, booked at least 10 days in

10

Q 101

11

Ev 40

12

VOSA ATF contract- explanatory notes http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/repository/atf%20explanatory%20notes%20.pdf, p5

13

Ev 40

14

Q4

15

Ev w1, para 4

8

advance, an appointment at the test station of choice within 1 working day of the requested date.16 VOSA retains records for its own testing sites but not for ATFs. These records show that VOSA is easily meeting its targets for providing test appointments.17 However as ATFs now dominate the testing market these figures are not representative. As testing is booked directly between operators and ATFs, VOSA does not have records of how many operators seeking tests from ATFs are being kept waiting or for how long. 15. If VOSA staff cannot meet demand for testing at ATFs then both the policy and business cases for ATFs are undermined. We heard evidence that the shortage of VOSA staff was a disincentive for operators to invest capital to open ATFs if there is not a significant increase in VOSA staff. Opening new ATFs will only exacerbate this problem. Jack Semple from the Road Haulage Association said, “The gateway reviews envisioned between 500 and 1,500 ATFs. How is VOSA going to get round 500 to 1,500 ATFs without a significant increase in resource”.18 The National Franchised Dealers Association said that its members were generally pleased with the ATF concept, but would prefer full privatisation, allowing the site owners to directly employ testing staff, as is done for other motor vehicle MOT categories.19 16. The aspiration to use non-VOSA staff to test at ATFs was frequently raised by trade associations but the comparison with the MOT system is not exact. The business model for MOT testers is not based on MOT testers examining their own vehicles. In addition, VOSA’s figures show that around 15% of MOTs each year are found to be incorrect.20 VOSA’s record on road safety was widely praised during the inquiry and we heard no complaints about the quality of VOSA’s testing staff. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport, Stephen Hammond MP, said “I want to ensure that the quality of testing is maintained and is as rigorous as it has been—and it is because we know the VOSA staff are there.”21 17. The trade associations’ main argument for ATFs employing their own staff is that it would allow testing to take place at times convenient to the freight sector and avoid the expense of taking vehicles off the road for tests. Jack Semple of the Road Haulage Association expressed frustration that VOSA had failed to increase the flexibility of its testing staff, We have failed to see the half-day slots that were indicated by VOSA. We have failed to see the night-time working in some busy service that was highlighted as a potential from VOSA.22

16

VOSA: Service Level Agreement between VOSA and Operators and Providers of goods vehicles, trailers and passenger carrying vehicles in respect of vehicle testing: http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/SLA%20TESTING.pdf

17

VOSA: Effectiveness Report 2010-11

18

Q6

19

Ev 31

20

This does not necessarily mean that a vehicle passed that should have failed – an incorrect test may mean that a failed vehicle should have passed.

21

Q 99

22

Q6

9

VOSA’s trade union side expressed a willingness to discuss greater flexibility in testing staff shift patterns and said that such arrangements have been considered in the past but failed to progress.23 VOSA’s Chief Executive similarly acknowledged businesses’ preference for VOSA to move to greater 24/7 working patterns and expressed a desire to match “resource with demand, whatever time of day it is”.24 18. While we acknowledge a fully privatised model might be of benefit to some operators, we are not convinced that the case has been made for testing staff to be employed directly by ATFs. The UK’s HGVs and PSV road safety record is testament to the high standards of VOSA’s testing staff and we would not like to see this undermined in any way. This places an obligation on VOSA to provide staff at the right places at the right times for the industry. 19. VOSA is committed to allowing more ATFs to open but the impact on VOSA’s resources need greater consideration to ensure that confidence in ATFs is maintained. 20. VOSA should conduct market research to investigate claims that operators are suffering long time delays or long distances when booking tests. The results should be fed into deciding the pace at which ATFs may be opened. 21. VOSA should be more flexible in when it can offer testing slots. It should work with hauliers to assess the demand for more night-time and weekend working and explore with its unions how to achieve this.

VOSA’s deficit and fees 22. As a trading fund, VOSA is required to fund its activities from its income. The period of recession and slow growth in recent years has meant less demand for the services that pay for VOSA’s enforcement and testing activities. By April 2010 VOSA had built up a deficit on its fund of £46.6 million. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Stephen Hammond MP, told us that this had been reduced to just £4 million as of March 2013.25 It is particularly commendable that this major improvement in VOSA’s financial position has been achieved without raising fees, which have remained stable since Spring 2009. 23. VOSA is currently consulting on a general fee increase of 1% to ensure that services are maintained as its costs increase, without its deficit increasing again.26 VOSA also aims to: 

remove the remaining cross subsidy of VOSA test facility costs from users of ATFs



meet additional running costs of interconnection throughout the EU of national registers of operators and their transport managers and more active monitoring of those committing most serious infringements as required by EU regulations; and

23

Q 33

24

Q 110

25

Q 92

26

VOSA: Consultation on fees: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193205/consultation-document.pdf

10



ensure the financial sustainability of VOSA.27 24. VOSA has done well to reduce its deficit in recent years without placing additional burdens on operators. While we acknowledge the case for a fee increase intended to at least maintain current service levels, during a period of slow growth VOSA should be mindful of the impact of its fees on operators.

3

Enforcement

25. VOSA enforces regulations covering the maintenance and standards of HGVs and other commercial vehicles registered in Great Britain and from overseas using UK roads. VOSA’s primary focus is on road safety but it says that it also has a role in “protecting the environment, ensuring fair competition, protecting employees, protecting government revenue and, in a very limited way, reducing vehicle crime.”28 26. VOSA’s enforcement strategy focuses on the highest risk operators. It conducts checks on vehicles at the roadside to examine their roadworthiness, drivers’ hours and aspects of licensing. VOSA has a range of tools available to do this, including Graduated Fixed Penalty Notices (or deposits if drivers do not have a UK address) of between £60 and £200.29 27. VOSA uses the data it holds on operators to conduct follow-up investigations into the systems used by operators to manage compliance. These can lead to referral of information to the Traffic Commissioners for regulatory action. 28. VOSA’s enforcement work includes efforts to prevent non-compliance through education. VOSA works with trade groups to provide information on legal requirements in plain English. This is now done primarily online, with specific guides for certain niche sectors - such as operators of horseboxes and limousines - with particularly poor compliance records.30

Operator Compliance Risk Score and other technology 29. VOSA uses a range of technology for enforcement purposes. This includes Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), weigh-in-motion sensors and the Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS), which is the principal targeting tool. It grades operators from 0-10 along with a traffic light colour coding of red, yellow or green. The score is derived from data VOSA has gathered during the operator’s annual tests, fleet inspections, roadside inspections and legal records.

27

Ibid, paragraph 5.5.1

28

Ev 64

29

VOSA has published a guide to Graduated Fixed Penalty Notices and Deposits, http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/Transport_files/8001_VOSA_fixed_penalties_and_financial_deposits_0.pdf

30

Ev 65

11

30. Alastair Peoples described OCRS as “a benchmark throughout Europe” 31 and it has been praised by trade groups. However, the Senior Traffic Commissioner, Beverley Bell, suggested that VOSA’s targeting methodology may lead it to target specific types of operators, for example holders of ‘restricted’ HGV licenses (companies who use HGVs only in support of a separate, primary business). Although VOSA’s data indicates these operators are more likely to be non-compliant, they are also likely to use their HGVs infrequently. By targeting these businesses VOSA’s hit rate for finding non-compliant vehicles may improve but non-compliant operators which are more frequently on the road might be overlooked. As Beverley Bell put it, It is easy for VOSA to target the soft underbelly of the nice but incompetent small operators. It is much more difficult to target and enforce the tough hard core of the highly non-compliant operators who show a total disregard for road safety.32 31. VOSA has said that it has enhanced its OCRS system in recent years and is continuing to improve the range of data that the system draws upon, including from non-VOSA sources. VOSA says that it is concentrating on improving the limited data it holds on drivers’ hours and overloading offences. We recognise the value of the Operators Compliance Risk Score for targeting dangerous vehicles while minimising the burden on the compliant. However we are concerned that undue reliance on the OCRS could have a distorting effect whereby larger operators are not being monitored effectively. This could encourage complacency or poor practice. VOSA should enhance OCRS to remove this distortion.

Roadworthiness and drivers’ hours offences 32. There was a broad consensus amongst witnesses that since the Transport Committee’s 2009 Report, and the introduction of Graduated Fixed Penalty Notices, there has been a change in the type of offences detected by VOSA’s enforcement staff. The mechanical condition of the foreign fleet is causing less concern, partly because of VOSA’s efforts to target non-GB vehicles and also because the age profile of foreign vehicles has improved. Table 1 shows how prohibition rates for GB and non-GB vehicles converged in 2010 and 2011. Table 1: GB and Non-GB prohibition rates for roadworthiness and drivers’ hours offences Roadworthiness Drivers Hours & Tachograph Checks GB Non-GB GB Non-GB 2010

10.4%

21.8%

12.4%

14.4%

2011

10.3%

14.2%

12.9%

11.5%

Source: VOSA 02A

33. By contrast we were told that compliance with drivers’ hours, licensing and documentation has been getting worse in recent years. Jack Semple of the Road Haulage

31

Q 129

32

Q 54

12

Association argued that VOSA was not dealing sufficiently with devices aimed at falsifying drivers’ hours: There is a real problem there and to some extent a hidden problem. We have evidence from colleagues in Europe that the use of magnets and similar devices is becoming more common rather than less common. It is a good two years now that the Central Motorway Police Group found that one in three trucks stopped in a three-month period were using magnets to falsify the drivers’ hours record. That is a hugely serious offence. It basically means that it is almost impossible for the enforcers to know how many hours you have been driving.33 34. VOSA is confident that it has sufficient resources to combat offences relating to drivers’ hours. EU Member States have begun to connect their national registers of operators to a single EU database which records data on operators compliance records. VOSA has access to this database at the roadside and we were told this database includes information on the use of magnets for tachograph manipulation. Enforcement officers also use endoscopes to search vehicles for magnetic devices; and new non-ferrous tachographs are being introduced to mitigate the problem of magnetic tampering. However, Fixed Penalty Notices are designed to punish offences that drivers are committing at the point of detection. It is not possible to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for offences detected as having been committed in the past. VOSA has said that it would like the legislation on Graduated Fixed Penalties amended so that it can be used more effectively when there is evidence that drivers have committed a tachograph offence in the past. The Department for Transport is planning to consult on the necessary legislative changes to achieve this.34 We support legislative changes that will enable drivers to be prosecuted when they have committed tachograph offences whenever they are discovered. 35. VOSA has extended its links with other enforcement agencies. In particular it has worked with the police on a number of high profile investigations. It has also used the Highways Agency’s data on incidents involving HGVs to look for evidence of systemic failures which it has then followed-up.35 In addition VOSA is beginning to link its systems with its EU counterparts to co-ordinate its enforcement efforts with other Member States. However, the Senior Traffic Commissioner queried why so few referrals have been sent to her and her colleagues.36 Jack Semple of the Road Haulage Association suggested that VOSA should develop a more consistent working relationship with the police to ensure drivers and operators are properly prosecuted, “At the moment, as I understand it, because of the lack of coordination, somebody who uses a magnet very often gets a £200 fixed penalty for not having a functioning tachograph.”37 VOSA agreed that serious offences involving the manipulation of tachographs by non-GB drivers should not be dealt with using Fixed Penalty Deposits, as is often the case. Instead greater

33

Q 19

34

Ev 46

35

ibid

36

Q 54

37

Q 20

13

police support was required so offenders could be arrested and prosecuted through the courts. 38 36. VOSA has begun to improve its links with other agencies. However, we believe that there is scope for it to take a more consistent approach to working with the police and the Traffic Commissioners to ensure offenders are prosecuted appropriately. We recommend that VOSA publish and consult on a new strategy for improving its links with other agencies in order to ensure that a consistent line is taken by VOSA, the police and other relevant bodies on the prosecution of HGV drivers and operators.

4 VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners Service levels 37. TCs no longer have a say in the setting of VOSA’s operational targets. Formerly TCs were able to provide input to a Memorandum of Agreement between the DfT and VOSA. This arrangement came to an end as a consequence of pooling VOSA’s various enforcement funding budgets into what is known as the Single Enforcement Budget.39 TCs argue that in “simplifying financial arrangements, an important control structure was lost”.40 TCs now have less influence over the types of operator that VOSA targets. 38. VOSA’s Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples, told us that he did not see the TC’s inability to participate in the setting of strategic and volume targets as a problem: there are a number of opportunities for the Senior Traffic Commissioner, for my staff and the Department to get together to look at what we are doing strategically. We also agree with the Department on what our enforcement strategy for the next year is in the agency’s business plan.41 In her evidence the Senior Traffic Commissioner acknowledged that there were opportunities for her to raise concerns relating to VOSA’s enforcement strategy. In particular she mentioned the ‘Compliance Forum’ which includes VOSA, the Senior Traffic Commissioner and the main trade associations and which is chaired by the Department for Transport. 39. If properly used, the Compliance Forum could be an excellent opportunity to strengthen relationships. However, the Forum’s effectiveness remains unclear. The Department for Transport must ensure that VOSA is supporting the crucial work of the Traffic Commissioners in prioritising its own work. We recommend that DfT explain more fully how the Compliance Forum is used to determine VOSA’s enforcement strategy and demonstrate how the Traffic Commissioners are able to influence that strategy.

38

Ev 46

39

The Single Enforcement Budget is administered by the Department for Transport

40

Ev 37, paragraph 7

41

Q 125

14

Monitoring bus services 40. The Traffic Commissioners regulate PSV safety and can impose a range of sanctions on bus operators for failing to meet safety or punctuality standards. Recently, the Senior Traffic Commissioner, who is the Traffic Commissioner for the North West, ordered bus operator Arriva to give passengers on two routes in Derby free evening travel for a year to penalise the company for failing to give correct legal notice of changes to routes.42 TCs also have powers to revoke an operator licence, or curtail the number of vehicles which an operator is allowed to run under that licence. 41. TCs rely on VOSA staff to monitor maintenance standards and the punctuality of bus services. The approach to this work changed in 2011. VOSA has now replaced performance monitoring officers, who actively checked buses were running on time, with staff whose role is to work with bus operators and local transport authorities on policy, process and practice to improve punctuality.43 In effect VOSA has moved from an enforcement to an educational role. The Senior Traffic Commissioner believes this change has been a failure and in practice has resulted in Vehicle Examination Officers simply advising the bus industry on how to improve services.44 42. pteg said that outside London it is difficult to get reliable and consistent performance data for bus services. What is available is often recorded inconsistently and in different ways, making comparisons difficult. According to pteg, bus operators have access to realtime performance data recorded via satellite tracking. However it is usually subject to confidentiality agreements.45 If this data were made available to the TCs it could be part of a practical solution to fill the gap left by the change in the role of performance monitoring officers. Wherever possible, performance related data held by bus operators should be made available to the Traffic Commissioners. If necessary the Department for Transport should consider legislation to facilitate this.

ICT 43. The IT system that supports the processing of operator licences is out of date and due for replacement. Furthermore, the Freight Transport Association has expressed frustration that the Traffic Commissioners’ licence managing systems are separate from VOSA’s systems which include test history and encounters with Vehicle Examiners. Operators often despair that the system for managing their operator licence is separate from the systems for accessing VOSA services such as their encounter and test history reports and test booking services at VOSA test stations. It is understood that this is due to restrictions imposed by data protection regulation but that a project is underway with VOSA, OTC and the Cabinet Office to overcome these

42

Local Transport Today, Issue 616, 22 February-07 March

43

Ev w8, para 5.1

44

Qq 73 &75

45

Ev w9, paras 5.4 & 5.5

15

problems and hopefully provide industry with a "one-stop-shop" for managing all aspects of operator licensing.46 44. VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners are negotiating a data-sharing agreement but the Senior Traffic Commissioner expressed regret that negotiations which began two years ago have not yet concluded.47 An agreement between the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) and VOSA should make processing licence applications considerably easier for both business and the TCs and it is disappointing that a system is still not in place. 45. VOSA has said that it intends to provide further support to TCs through enhanced ICT provision. In particular, there is significant scope to use ICT to make the licensing system more efficient and effective. Currently the process relies on paper documentation but it should be possible for operators to complete licence applications wholly online. VOSA said that not only would holding this information electronically make the licensing process slicker, it would also dramatically improve the administration of public inquiries. In addition VOSA believes holding more data electronically would benefit its enforcement and education teams.48 VOSA also wants access to data held by other organisations – such as Companies House - so that operators need only provide information to Government once. If implemented successfully this would reduce the administrative burden on business. 46. VOSA also propose creating single customer accounts. In practice this means that each customer would have a personal digital portal through which to conduct business with VOSA. This would make it easier for operators to update licence details as well as allowing them to access guidance and training instantly.49 47. These projects are very much works in progress. VOSA said “There is still work to be done on identifying the feasibility of some of the ideas being considered and discussed and detailed cost benefits have not been completed”.50 All the same, these ideas have strong potential. 48. We see real value in the proposals to improve VOSA’s and the Traffic Commissioner’s ICT systems. We also acknowledge the difficulties involved in any radical overhaul in ICT – particularly in a time of shrinking budgets. Nevertheless ICT improvements have the potential to save money in the long term and so should be seen as an investment. The business case for these improvements should be assessed in light of customer expectations. It is now the norm for administrative functions of this kind to be online, easily accessible and instant. 49. The Traffic Commissioners should not be using an outdated IT system to process operator licences and a data sharing agreement between VOSA and the Office of the

46

Ev 29, paragraph 13

47

Q 70

48

Ev 59

49

ibid

50

ibid

16

Traffic Commissioners is long overdue. The Minister needs to use his influence to speed up negotiations so that progress can be made in these areas within the next year.

Branding and independence 50. In July 2012 Mike Penning MP, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, and Beverley Bell, the Senior Traffic Commissioner, agreed and published a framework document that set out the relationships between the Department for Transport, its executive agencies and the TCs.51 The Department for Transport argues that this has resolved a number of the TCs’ key concerns over their relationship with VOSA but is aware that there are a number of outstanding issues such as finalising a revised Memorandum of Agreement between VOSA and the TCs. This was planned for completion before the end of the last financial year but is still under discussion.52 51. Although the framework document goes a long way in clarifying the relationship between the respective parties, there is still a great deal of confusion around institutional responsibilities, both within the OTC and amongst operators. This arises from the overlap of enforcement (VOSA) and judicial functions (TCs) and has the potential to compromise the independence of TCs. Transport for London said: The use of VOSA as the secretariat for the Traffic Commissioners is unhelpful. It gives the impression to the industry that the judiciary and enforcement are somehow as one. [...] the [TC’s] secretariat should be independent of VOSA, echoing the relationship between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service.53 The TCs themselves acknowledged that confusion over who does what remains. The operator who applies for a licence makes his cheque payable to VOSA. The caseworker allocated will have a VOSA email address. It can therefore be of little surprise when operators believe that VOSA is the issuing authority for an operator’s licence when, in fact, it is staff employed by VOSA but working within individually delegated authority from TCs and under Statutory Guidance from the Senior Traffic Commissioner who actually perform that function.54 52. Chris Heaps, a retired TC, supported the view that TC staff should be entirely separate from VOSA. Mr Heaps suggested that the centralisation of VOSA and TCs undermines not just the perception of independence but, to some extent, the reality of it. He argued that VOSA is usurping some of the functions that should be carried out exclusively by TCs. For example, VOSA staff working for the OTC are delegated authority, by TCs, to carry out certain tasks on behalf of the TCs.55

51

VOSA: Consultation on fees: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3573/framework-document-trafficcommissioners.pdf

52

Q 120

53

Ev w11 & Ev w12, para 4.1

54

Ev 38, para 17

55

Ev w15, para 8

17

53. The Department for Transport has just concluded a consultation on the motoring services agencies. 56 It is unfortunate that this consultation did not take the opportunity to look again at the perception of the TCs’ independence and whether boundaries between VOSA and TCs should be clarified. James Firth of the Freight Transport Association said that it might be appropriate for the Government to “investigate whether the Traffic Commissioners should have staff that can be identified as separate from VOSA.”57 54. VOSA’s Chief Executive was adamant that VOSA does everything it can to preserve the independence of TCs in both “perception and reality”.58 We were told that the OTC’s offices have their own branding and signage.59 Furthermore VOSA staff working for TCs are under the delegated authority of TCs and their work is ring fenced.60 According to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, TC work delegated to VOSA staff is “at a very low level”.61 55. Nonetheless the fact remains that many people, including the Senior Traffic Commissioner, are dissatisfied with the demarcation between VOSA and TCs. When asked about the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s concerns about the independence of her office we were pleased that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that he would “look tomorrow at what might be done”.62 The Minister should tell us about the results of his investigation in the Government’s response to this report. 56. During this inquiry, there was a worrying conflict between evidence from the Senior Traffic Commissioner and that from VOSA’s Chief Executive and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. On a number of occasions the Senior Traffic Commissioner said she had raised issues with VOSA and the Department for Transport only for them to say they had not heard the concerns before.63 There are clearly significant communication problems which urgently need resolving. 57. The Traffic Commissioner’s reliance on VOSA staff is problematic. We accept that the July 2012 Framework Document has done much to clarify the relationship between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners in recent years but it is apparent that more needs to be done. VOSA’s Chief Executive said the relationship between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners “has not always been a marriage made in heaven”64 while the Senior Traffic Commissioner said “We are trying very hard to make it work”.65 We believe these problems are not going to go away by themselves. The 56

Department for Transport: Consultation on Motoring Services Strategy: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/36528/consultation-document.pdf

57

Q 27

58

Qq 123 & 127

59

Qq 121 & 123

60

Q 123

61

Q 118

62

Q 128

63

Qq 94, 95, 98 & 126

64

Q 96

65

Q 52

18

Department for Transport should consult on whether now is the time for the Traffic Commissioners to have their own staff independent of VOSA.

5

HGV Road User Levy Act

58. The HGV Road User Levy Act provides for the introduction of an HGV road user levy from April 2014. The rationale for the levy is that HGV operators registered in the UK suffer a competitive disadvantage compared to non-GB operators. Whereas UK vehicles pay road user charges in Europe, non-GB vehicles pay nothing when they come to the UK. The levy works in the following way: 

the levy would apply to both foreign and UK-registered hauliers with vehicles weighing more than 12 tonnes;



the maximum daily charge would be the equivalent to £10 a day (subject to change) and would be set in accordance with Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) bands;



UK hauliers would receive an offset in their VED so that they would be, by and large, no better or worse off from the implementation of the levy;



it would be an offence not to pay the levy, for which the maximum fine would be £5,000. 59. The levy is expected to raise in the region of £80 million in total between 2013/14 and 2017/18. All monies raised would go into the Consolidated Fund. VOSA's main tool for enforcement would be the use of a £200 fixed penalty notice (or deposit).66

Enforcing the HGV Road User Levy 60. The Government has said that it will target vehicles using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) to perform live checks against a database that lists vehicles that have paid the levy.67 Transport for London believes that if the Act is implemented without an operational ANPR system VOSA will face severe difficulties in enforcing the legislation.68 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport is confident the ANPR system and database will be operational by April 2014.69 There will also be a website that will enable drivers to check the levy has been paid for the vehicle they are driving. 61. The Government has provided VOSA with £500,000 to invest in the ANPR and database system along with a further £500,000 to invest in the equivalent of eight full-time staff. VOSA will add the enforcement of the Levy to its existing roadside check processes. Contracts for implementing the system are in the process of being let. The Government has said it hopes to announce the results before the summer recess. 66

HGV Levy Bill, House of Commons Library Research Paper 12/62, 29 October 2012

67

Department for Transport: Delivering charging for heavy goods vehicles: the Government’s plans following consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2827/deliveringcharging-report.pdf

68

Ev w12, paragraph 5.4

69

Q 136

19

62. While serial non-compliance can be punished with a maximum £5,000 fine if taken to court, there is a danger that some non-GB operators will think it makes commercial sense to ignore the Levy. VOSA has said that it is sufficiently resourced to enforce the levy. Yet the fact remains that it is an extra responsibility for staff and requires a new ICT system to be enforceable. It is difficult to see, without extra resources, how it will not have an impact on VOSA’s other activities. A number of witnesses said that there should be ring fenced funding for enforcement to ensure that the levy is successful in the long term. The levy’s impact on VOSA’s resources could make its enforcement more difficult. The Government should consider redirecting some of the levy’s proceeds from the Consolidated Fund into the Single Enforcement Budget. We would like to hear the Government’s assessment of this and whether more revenue would be raised from stronger enforcement. 63. We heard that a significant obstacle when targeting non-GB vehicles is that little is known about how many there are in the country, how long they stay and how often they visit.70 The database that logs the payment of the levy should provide accurate information on which vehicles are in the country. This information should be exploited for enforcement purposes and fed directly to Vehicle Examiners at the roadside. The Freight Transport Association pointed out that the European Commission plans to remove restrictions on cabotage71 from 2014.72 These plans have since been shelved due to opposition from trade groups in other Member States. The HGV Road User Levy database could therefore be used to help monitor cabotage. 64. The HGV Road User Levy database should be implemented with wider enforcement issues in mind. VOSA has said that it has been involved in setting up the levy scheme. VOSA should be encouraging the system’s design to complement its other enforcement responsibilities, specifically relating to non-GB vehicles.

70

Ev 28, paragraph 6

71

Cabotage refers to the number of journeys that non-UK vehicles can legally undertake after goods carried into the UK have been delivered. The UK is subject to EU rules on cabotage.

72

Ev 28, paragraph 7

20

6

Conclusion

65. VOSA continues to be highly regarded by operators as an effective enforcement agency and should be proud of its record in a number of areas - especially with regards to the UK’s high road safety standards. 66. The Testing Transformation Scheme is largely delivering the flexibility that operators need and ATFs are achieving their stated aims of bringing testing closer to the customer while saving fee payers the expense of refurbishing VOSA’s declining estate. The Testing Transformation Programme has, so far, progressed pragmatically and VOSA should continue in this vein. There are warning signs, however that VOSA needs to consider the pace of change and its resources more carefully if it is not to undermine the ATF model. VOSA should also bear in mind that a testing market that rests exclusively on ATFs may not be in the best interests of business generally and the small operator in particular. 67. This aside, VOSA has managed its resources well in a difficult economic climate. It is testament to good planning that VOSA has been able to maintain its front line services and continue to recruit enforcement staff. The Department for Transport should also be recognized for providing VOSA with some additional funding, particularly for the implementation of the HGV Road User Levy Act. There is good scope for the levy to improve the intelligence at VOSA’s fingertips for enforcement purposes. 68. VOSA needs to improve its ICT, particularly where it can use technology to share information with other organisations. If they come to fruition, VOSA’s ideas for improving its ICT will benefit business. But there does seem to be some drift in progressing with these ideas and it is disappointing that they remain at such an early stage in development. The fact that negotiations on a data sharing agreement with the Traffic Commissioners have not concluded is one area of concern and should be resolved quickly. 69. More worrying is the relationship between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners. At times the disparities between the evidence from the Senior Traffic Commissioner, Beverley Bell, and VOSA’s Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples, were startling. This points to communications problems which should not exist if the right structures are put in place. The 2012 Framework Document and the Compliance Forum are good foundations to build upon. In the longer term, for the sake of the Traffic Commissioners’ independence and clear working relationships for operators, we question whether the current model is best. 70. On 20 June, the Government announced that the Driving Standards Agency and VOSA are to merge. From July this year the services of both agencies will be delivered under a single transitional board. The board will be headed by VOSA’s current Chief Executive. The Committee will look at issues arising from this merger in its future inquiry on the motoring agencies and the consumer perspective, which is expected to begin in the Autumn.

21

Conclusions and recommendations HGV and PSV testing sites 1.

We welcome VOSA’s pragmatic approach to maintaining a national network of testing sites and believe that a sensible mix of VOSA sites and ATFs is the best way to maintain even coverage across the country. We recommend that VOSA provide us with further information about how it is working with operators to ensure even coverage of testing sites across the country. We would also like to know how VOSA will ensure that a sufficient number of testing sites remain open to third party operators, particularly in remote areas. (Paragraph 12)

Testing staff and slot availability 2.

While we acknowledge a fully privatised model might be of benefit to some operators, we are not convinced that the case has been made for testing staff to be employed directly by ATFs. The UK’s HGVs and PSV road safety record is testament to the high standards of VOSA’s testing staff and we would not like to see this undermined in any way. This places an obligation on VOSA to provide staff at the right places at the right times for the industry. (Paragraph 18)

3.

VOSA is committed to allowing more ATFs to open but the impact on VOSA’s resources need greater consideration to ensure that confidence in ATFs is maintained. (Paragraph 19)

4.

VOSA should conduct market research to investigate claims that operators are suffering long time delays or long distances when booking tests. The results should be fed into deciding the pace at which ATFs may be opened. (Paragraph 20)

5.

VOSA should be more flexible in when it can offer testing slots. It should work with hauliers to assess the demand for more night-time and weekend working and explore with its unions how to achieve this. (Paragraph 21)

Testing fees 6.

VOSA has done well to reduce its deficit in recent years without placing additional burdens on operators. While we acknowledge the case for a fee increase intended to at least maintain current service levels, during a period of slow growth VOSA should be mindful of the impact of its fees on operators. (Paragraph 24)

Enforcement methods and powers 7.

We recognise the value of the Operators Compliance Risk Score for targeting dangerous vehicles while minimising the burden on the compliant. However we are concerned that undue reliance on the OCRS could have a distorting effect whereby larger operators are not being monitored effectively. This could encourage complacency or poor practice. VOSA should enhance OCRS to remove this distortion. (Paragraph 31)

22

8.

We support legislative changes that will enable drivers to be prosecuted when they have committed tachograph offences whenever they are discovered. (Paragraph 34)

9.

VOSA has begun to improve its links with other agencies. However, we believe that there is scope for it to take a more consistent approach to working with the police and the Traffic Commissioners to ensure offenders are prosecuted appropriately. We recommend that VOSA publish and consult on a new strategy for improving its links with other agencies in order to ensure that a consistent line is taken by VOSA, the police and other relevant bodies on the prosecution of HGV drivers and operators. (Paragraph 36)

The Traffic Commissioners 10.

The Department for Transport must ensure that VOSA is supporting the crucial work of the Traffic Commissioners in prioritising its own work. We recommend that DfT explain more fully how the Compliance Forum is used to determine VOSA’s enforcement strategy and demonstrate how the Traffic Commissioners are able to influence that strategy. (Paragraph 39)

Bus punctuality monitoring 11.

Wherever possible, performance related data held by bus operators should be made available to the Traffic Commissioners. If necessary the Department for Transport should consider legislation to facilitate this. (Paragraph 42)

Licensing and technology 12.

We see real value in the proposals to improve VOSA’s and the Traffic Commissioner’s ICT systems. We also acknowledge the difficulties involved in any radical overhaul in ICT – particularly in a time of shrinking budgets. Nevertheless ICT improvements have the potential to save money in the long term and so should be seen as an investment. The business case for these improvements should be assessed in light of customer expectations. It is now the norm for administrative functions of this kind to be online, easily accessible and instant. (Paragraph 48)

13.

The Traffic Commissioners should not be using an outdated IT system to process operator licences and a data sharing agreement between VOSA and the Office of the Traffic Commissioners is long overdue. The Minister needs to use his influence to speed up negotiations so that progress can be made in these areas within the next year. (Paragraph 49)

The independence of the Traffic Commissioners 14.

When asked about the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s concerns about the independence of her office we were pleased that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that he would “look tomorrow at what might be done”. The Minister should tell us about the results of his investigation in the Government’s response to this report. (Paragraph 55)

23

Operational effectiveness between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners 15.

During this inquiry, there was a worrying conflict between evidence from the Senior Traffic Commissioner and that from VOSA’s Chief Executive and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. On a number of occasions the Senior Traffic Commissioner said she had raised issues with VOSA and the Department for Transport only for them to say they had not heard the concerns before. There are clearly significant communication problems which urgently need resolving. (Paragraph 56)

16.

The Traffic Commissioner’s reliance on VOSA staff is problematic. We accept that the July 2012 Framework Document has done much to clarify the relationship between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners in recent years but it is apparent that more needs to be done. VOSA’s Chief Executive said the relationship between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners “has not always been a marriage made in heaven” while the Senior Traffic Commissioner said “We are trying very hard to make it work”. We believe these problems are not going to go away by themselves. The Department for Transport should consult on whether now is the time for the Traffic Commissioners to have their own staff independent of VOSA. (Paragraph 57)

HGV Road User Levy 17.

The levy’s impact on VOSA’s resources could make its enforcement more difficult. The Government should consider redirecting some of the levy’s proceeds from the Consolidated Fund into the Single Enforcement Budget. We would like to hear the Government’s assessment of this and whether more revenue would be raised from stronger enforcement. (Paragraph 62)

18.

The HGV Road User Levy database should be implemented with wider enforcement issues in mind. VOSA has said that it has been involved in setting up the levy scheme. VOSA should be encouraging the system’s design to complement its other enforcement responsibilities, specifically relating to non-GB vehicles. (Paragraph 64)

24

Formal Minutes Monday 8 July 2013 Members present: Mrs Louise Ellman, in the Chair Sarah Champion Karen Lumley Karl McCartney

Adrian Sanders Iain Stewart Martin Vickers

Draft Report (The Work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read. Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 70 read and agreed to. Summary agreed to. Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House. Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House. Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134. [Adjourned till Monday 15 July at 4.00 pm

25

Witnesses Monday 25 February 2013

Page

Jay Parmar, Legal and Policy Director, British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, Jack Semple, Director of Policy, Road Haulage Association, James Firth, Head of Road Freight and Enforcement Policy, Freight Transport Association, and Steven Latham, Senior Operations Manager, National Franchised Dealers Association

Ev 1

Kevin Warden, VOSA TUS Secretary, and Gary Washer, VOSA TUS Assistant Secretary

Ev 7

Monday 22 April 2013 Beverley Bell, Senior Traffic Commissioner

Ev 12

Alastair Peoples, CEO, VOSA, and Stephen Hammond MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport

Ev 17

List of printed written evidence 1

British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association

Ev 24

2

Road Haulage Association

Ev 26

3

Freight Transport Association

Ev 27

4

National Franchised Dealers Association

Ev 31

5

VOSA Trade Union Side

Ev 32

6

Traffic Commissioners

7

VOSA

Ev 37: Ev 39 Ev 40: Ev 57: Ev 67

List of additional written evidence (published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/treascom) 1

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

Ev w1

2

RMT

3

Bus Users UK

Ev w4

4

Brake

Ev w6

5

pteg

Ev w8

6

Transport for London

Ev w10

7

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport

Ev w13

8

Chris Heaps

Ev w14

9

Association of Chief Police Officers

Ev w17

Ev w2: Ev w4

26

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number. Session 2013–14 Third Report

The work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

HC 583

Second Report

Future Programme 2013–14

HC 438

First Report

Aviation strategy

Session 2012–13 Twelfth Report

The European Commission’s 4th Railway Package

HC 78

HC 1001

Eleventh Report

Land transport security – scope for further EU involvement?

Ninth Special Report

Rail 2020: Government and Office of Rail Regulation Responses to the Committee’s Seventh Report of 2012–13

HC 1059

Tenth Report

The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group: follow up: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of 2012–13

HC 1018

Ninth Report

Marine Pilotage

HC 840

Eighth Report

Cancellation of the InterCity West Coast franchise competition

HC 537

Eighth Special Report

Plug-in vehicles, plugged in policy?: Government Response to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2012-13

HC 884

Seventh Report

Rail 2020

HC 329

Sixth Report

The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group: follow up

HC 647

Fifth Report

Future programme: autumn and winter 2012–13

HC 591

Fourth Report

Plug-in vehicles, plugged in policy?

HC 239

Third Report

Competition in the local bus market

HC 875

HC 10 (HC 761) (Incorporating HC 1861–i–iii)

Fifth Special Report

Flight Time Limitations: Government Response To The Committee's First Report Of Session 2012–13

Fourth Special Report Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (Atol) Reform: Government Response To The Committee's Seventeenth Report Of Session 2010–12 Second Report

Road safety

HC 558 HC 557

HC 506 (HC 648) Incorporating HC 1738

First Report

Flight time limitations

HC 164 Incorporating HC 1838

27

Third Special Report

Sulphur emissions by ships: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixteenth Report of Session 2010–12

HC 87

Second Special Report Counting the cost: financial scrutiny of the Department for Transport 2011–12: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifteenth Report of Session 2010–12

HC 15

First Special Report

HC 11

Draft Civil Aviation Bill: Pre-Legislative Scrutiny: Government Response to the Committee’s Thirteenth Report of Session 2010–12

Session 2010–12 Seventeenth Report

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) reform

HC 1798

Sixteenth Report

Sulphur emissions by ships

HC 1561

Fifteenth Report

Counting the cost: financial scrutiny of the Department for Transport 2011–12

HC 1560

Fourteenth Report

Cable theft on the Railway

Thirteenth Report

Draft Civil Aviation Bill: Pre-Legislative Scrutiny

Twelfth Report

Cost of motor insurance: follow up

HC 1451 (HC 1934)

Eleventh Report

Thameslink rolling stock procurement

HC 1453 (HC 1935)

Tenth Report

High Speed Rail

Ninth Report

Out of the jam: reducing congestion on our roads

HC 872 (HC 1661)

Eighth Report

Bus Services after the Spending Review

HC 750 (HC 1550)

Seventh Report

Taxis and private hire vehicles: the road to reform

HC 720 (HC 1507)

Sixth Report

The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group

HC 948, incorporating HC 752–i (HC 1482)

Fifth Report

Keeping the UK moving: The impact on transport of the winter weather in December 2010

HC 794 (HC 1467)

Fourth Report

The cost of motor insurance

HC 591 (HC 1466)

Third Report

Transport and the economy

HC 473 (HC 962)

Second Report

Financial Scrutiny of the Department for Transport

First Report

Drink and drug driving law

Tenth Special Report

The proposal for a National Policy Statement on Ports: Government Response to the Committee Fifth Report of Session 2009–10

HC 1598

Third Special Report

The performance of the Department for Transport: Government response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2009–10

HC 549

HC 1609 (HC 1933) HC 1694

HC 1185–I (HC 1754)

HC 683 HC 460 (Cm 8050)

Second Special Report Update on the London Underground and the publicprivate (PPP) partnership agreements: Government response to the Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2009–10

HC 467

First Special Report

HC 421

The major road network: Government response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2009–10

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence Taken before the Transport Committee on Monday 25 February 2013 Members present: Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair) Sarah Champion Jim Dobbin Kwasi Kwarteng Karl McCartney

Adrian Sanders Iain Stewart Graham Stringer ________________ Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Jay Parmar, Legal and Policy Director, British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, Jack Semple, Director of Policy, Road Haulage Association, James Firth, Head of Road Freight and Enforcement Policy, Freight Transport Association, and Steven Latham, Senior Operations Manager, National Franchised Dealers Association, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Could we have your names and organisations, please? Jay Parmar: I am Jay Parmar representing the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. Jack Semple: I am Jack Semple representing the Road Haulage Association. James Firth: I am James Firth from the Freight Transport Association. Steven Latham: I am Steven Latham representing the RMI, which is a retail motor trade organisation. Q2 Chair: Mr Semple, in the evidence that you have already sent to us you describe the relationship between VOSA operators and the authorised testing facilities—the ATFs—as “fundamentally flawed”. Could you tell us what you mean by that? Jack Semple: The current arrangement, which is part of the testing transformation programme that was introduced by the previous Government and carried on largely as was by the current Government, is an issue that is frequently discussed by members and is of considerable concern, as in fact are all of VOSA’s activities. If you are in the haulage industry, running trucks is your main business and, therefore, compliance and enforcement activities are very important. In terms of testing, we had a system where VOSA was completely in control of the location, the booking and the carrying out of the test, apart from the development of designated premises towards the end of the previous system. That old system has been changed completely now with the introduction of authorised testing facilities, which are completely in the private sector. We now have private sector premises that have a contract with VOSA, which is also their regulator— that is an uncomfortable relationship as well— whereby they may be maintaining the vehicles but they have to run a booking system where they have to block book a VOSA tester. In terms of the efficiency and flexibility that VOSA can provide to this new setup, we do not consider that can ever achieve an acceptable level of efficiency. We have an opportunity

to take the logical next step that we believe will increase and improve investment in safety and the safety culture within the industry. There is a real opportunity to open up the ability to test the vehicle at the statutory annual test to the private sector—to ATFs—within a system of high-quality regulation, which is very important. The obvious regulator, I would guess, would be VOSA—but where VOSA does not itself test the vehicles. Q3 Chair: Before we consider what might be done to change things, I would like to get a full understanding of what problems there are now or, indeed, if there are any improvements on the old system. Does any other member of the panel want to add to what Mr Semple has said or disagree with anything? Jay Parmar: I would not go so far as sharing Jack’s concerns about it being “fundamentally flawed”, but certainly it is an uncomfortable situation where you have ATF owners who have to make, potentially, a £250,000 investment into a testing facility. They are wholly and totally reliant on VOSA for providing the testers. Again, that removes the potential flexibility and competitiveness for that particular ATF. Looking at the current regime critically, the concern we have is the overdependency that an ATF owner will have on VOSA. Let’s not lose sight of what VOSA is really about. It is there to enforce road safety standards. It should not be an employer of testers. Alastair Peoples has already outlined in his statements that VOSA would like to see 75% of all testing carried out in an ATF by next year. If that is realistically to be achieved, then we have to look at the current model, particularly in the areas where they are having difficulties in getting ATF interest. These are particularly in the remote areas up and down the UK. We can start to look at making that business case more attractive for an ATF owner by allowing them that flexibility, where they have multi-skilled staff being able to be deployed for a couple of hours to do the testing and then they can do other work. That will give the ATF owner that flexibility.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Ev 2 Transport Committee: Evidence

25 February 2013 Jay Parmar, Jack Semple, James Firth and Steven Latham

Q4 Chair: What is the position about people being able to get tests when they require them? Is that happening now? VOSA does have targets, but it is not clear if they are being met. James Firth: I am hearing anecdotal evidence all the time of operators having difficulty getting tests—of 150-mile-round trips in order to find a test. VOSA tells us that it is responding to pleas from the ATF providers when they feel they have a lack of resource. Our real concern, as Mr Semple was describing earlier, is that where previously all bookings were made through VOSA and, therefore, failures of bookings are monitored by VOSA directly. They do not now have full sight of all the management information they need to be able to recognise if there may be a problem. I have asked our membership a number of times, “If you are encountering problems, you must let us know because we need to be able to let VOSA know.” To be frank with the Committee, there has been very little real evidence coming in on that score, but we do still keep hearing the stories. My key concern is that, if there is a problem, or if there were to be a problem, I am not sure how well VOSA will be able to have oversight of that. Q5 Chair: But the information you have is anecdotal rather than from a comprehensive account of what is actually happening. James Firth: Yes, indeed. Steven Latham: We have a situation where operators—I do not represent operators but they do feed back—often have to ring around to get a test. We now have 300 ATFs and 160 designated premises. Staff from 89 test stations have to go and facilitate the tests all round the country. Obviously, the allocation of the testers is probably quite difficult within the body of testers they have. This is where suddenly one ATF is allocated its 21-axles test on one day but somebody else wants to go to a different ATF. ATFs are growing. We have only been there since 2010, so we are either going to have a shortage of VOSA’s own testers or we need to do something else, which is probably what we are suggesting. Q6 Chair: Will the expansion of the authorised testing facilities help the situation? I think VOSA has plans to do that. Jack Semple: The expansion of ATFs will be held back so long as VOSA’s monopoly of testing is maintained. We won’t see the optimisation of what could be achieved. We have to be careful to differentiate the fundamental flaws that are identified in the submission with the day-to-day practical teething problems of the transfer, where we have clear winners and losers among operators, and we have a cost of change that was inevitably identified. James identified individual cases that we have raised with VOSA and have tried to resolve, but those are teething problems and day-to-day issues. The fundamental flaw is in the relationship—the fact that VOSA is putting itself between the ATF and the operator. It cannot possibly have the flexibility to respond. The gateway reviews envisaged between 500 and 1,500 ATFs. We are currently at about 300. How is VOSA going to get round 500 to 1,500 ATFs

without a significant increase in resource? We have failed to see the half-day slots that were indicated by VOSA. We have failed to see the night-time working in some busy service that was highlighted as a potential from VOSA. VOSA is making slow progress in terms of trying to adapt to what is—for it—a much more complicated and difficult position. Fundamentally, compared with what we could have, which is an encouragement of investment and safety culture within the industry, the current arrangement cannot be as satisfactory. Q7 Sarah Champion: Forgive me; I am trying to get my head round this. You are all making lots of points and I am trying to unpick how they interrelate. Mr Semple, you talk about fundamental flaws. Are they flaws that you are anticipating in that VOSA will not have enough testers to go round, or are they flaws that you are seeing now? Mr Firth says that he is receiving anecdotal evidence of problems, but not actual problems. If it was a real problem now, wouldn’t you have floods of people complaining? Jack Semple: We have a number of members who are ATFs already and many more members who are interested in becoming ATFs—that is haulage operators. They could test their vehicles at much less cost than they have with VOSA and with much greater flexibility. That would reduce the cost to the operator who is booking his vehicle in to test. We also think that there would be a significant increase in the number of ATFs. There would be a greater willingness by workshops to invest in upgrading their facilities so that they could carry out their own tests. Q8 Sarah Champion: But, if there are more ATFs, that would mean there needed to be less premises owned by VOSA, saving them money. Is your fear that they will not invest in more testers, or are you arguing that you want the whole thing to be privatised? Jay Parmar: That is a really important point. We have to make the distinction. Today, if you have an operator that wants to find a location to carry out the test, they have two choices. They either use the ATF that is available locally or they travel to a VOSA test site. Those are the two choices they have today. If you do not get your vehicle maintained by a particular ATF owner, one of the concerns that our members are picking up is the difficulty in getting that vehicle tested. There is no contractual relationship. One of the arguments would be to say that they then have to travel to the VOSA test site. That is going to be much further away. You are quite right to identify that the VOSA strategy is to start to close its own testing sites. The choice an operator will have is going to start to reduce increasingly as VOSA starts to move towards that strategy of closing their sites. Our members operate one in four trucks in the UK. They are already reporting to us that they have to travel further. It is contrary to VOSA’s own strategy of shorter distances. The cost of that is going to increase as well.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 3

25 February 2013 Jay Parmar, Jack Semple, James Firth and Steven Latham

Q9 Sarah Champion: But Mr Semple said that they are looking to have between 500 and 1,500 within the next few years. Wouldn’t that address that? Jay Parmar: I do not think that is going to address the issue, largely because, going back to the earlier question, you need to look at UK competitiveness. Those trucks need to be tested and maintained when the operator is not going to need them. That particularly looks at the flexibility and the time of day that these vehicles can be tested. Night-shift work, for example, is one area that we are looking at; weekend work is another area. With VOSA’s testers, there will be restrictions as to what flexibility they can offer. We are trying to create those sorts of efficiencies and productivity. The current model is not going to achieve and deliver that, no matter how many ATF sites are open up and down the country. You have to look fundamentally at the relationship of the testing being carried out by the ATF owners’ own staff and not be reliant on VOSA’s staff. If you look up and down the country, whilst there are some trials going on by VOSA to look at home working, for example, again you are reliant on that service being sufficiently flexible to meet the peaks and demands that the industry needs. We do not think that is going to be achieved in the current model. Q10 Chair: Mr Parmar, you have referred to some problems. Is that based on anecdotal evidence? Jay Parmar: No; that is our members ringing us up and telling us that they are having difficulties. They have to wait two to three months for a test date for a particular vehicle and they have to travel much further than currently because the local VOSA test site has been closed. They have to travel much further for that flexibility. It is already costing industry a great deal of money without that difficulty. If you were to put some figures on that, you could be running into millions of pounds that it is costing industry now. James Firth: On that point we are also hearing those sorts of tales. If you were an operator located next door to a VOSA test site and it closed down, you are then losing out. Of course, if—which is more likely with there being more ATFs than VOSA stations—an ATF opened next door to you, I do not think operators would be ringing us up and saying, “Oh, this is fantastic.” It would just be the way it is operating. I would make one point. I do not want to delve into ancient history, but I reflect on the fact that seven or eight years ago the industry was looking at year on year double-digit percentage fee increases from VOSA. The purpose of those increases was to refurbish the ageing testing estate. That was a model that was fundamentally flawed, if you like. It is important to recognise that on this issue VOSA listened to industry; it saw that it had to change and this is a transformation programme. We are moving through it at the moment, and there is a consultation open from the Department for Transport on the motoring services agencies. It clearly indicates a willingness now to investigate new mechanisms for delivering the tests. Certainly, the flexibilities that ATFs have brought—and we have to recognise that they have brought flexibilities—are constrained by the fact that the test examination has to be delivered by

Government-employed staff; I agree with Mr Semple on that. It is now time to move on from that position and realise the flexibilities that could be brought. Q11 Karl McCartney: I want to pick up the point that Mr Firth mentioned about Government employees and also examine what Mr Semple said. As a Conservative I obviously welcome privatisation. However, a Government employee is independent. With regard to safety benchmarking, if all testers were employed by ATF operators—i.e. hauliers—how can you guarantee there would not be the temptation maybe to cut corners or do things that an independent assessor would not do? Jack Semple: I am very pleased that you have asked the question. Karl McCartney: I was pleased to ask it. Jack Semple: There are still people who have perhaps spent 30 or 40 years within the industry and have grown up with VOSA and the system as it has been. They find it difficult to conceive of a system that is different, but we are already moving in that direction. At the moment, the good operator—the well-run workshop, whether it be a franchise dealer, a thirdparty workshop or a haulier’s own workshop, and we are very keen that they are able to test as well—is already the subject of a regulatory regime. They are already assessing and inspecting the vehicle to the same safety standards at least four times and in some cases six times a year. They are also maintaining the paperwork. This is a point that is not always appreciated. For the companies that are doing that well, it is surely but a short step for them to do the statutory annual test as well within approved facilities. In terms of safeguards, a haulier who is already maintaining and testing his vehicle to a standard has an immense amount to lose were he to abuse the system. For a start, he loses his ability to test his own vehicle in his own workshop and would have to take it somewhere else. In addition, were VOSA or somebody else to be the regulator, his good repute as a haulier is under threat, so whatever benefit there might be in abusing the system—and the well-run operators would not do that anyway—the risk to his core business is very considerable. I do not think the issue would arise. It might arise on occasion, but in the main what a good haulier—and we are talking about regulation of a high-quality system—has to lose would far outweigh what he might gain. He is already maintaining and assessing his vehicle 364 days a year and doing it well within a regulated system. What we are talking about is the 365th day— testing the vehicle and maintaining the paperwork. Q12 Karl McCartney: You have just answered on behalf of the well-run hauliers. I am not picking on road hauliers at all, but in any industry I hope you will admit that there will be some road hauliers who perhaps are not as good as others. What safeguards would you see whereby they would not be able to buck the system and do something that your good hauliers would never do? Jack Semple: No regulator worth his salt would give them permission to do the annual statutory test. It is a very important point.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Ev 4 Transport Committee: Evidence

25 February 2013 Jay Parmar, Jack Semple, James Firth and Steven Latham

Steven Latham: I would point out that, as well as hauliers, there is a plethora of people involved in ATFs, including a lot of truck dealers and independent workshops. All of those have a very commercial interest in it. These trucks and hauliers are regulated to a standard. If they start producing substandard vehicles, they will be pulled over at a rate of knots and will lose their customer business. They have to have a very high standard. We know with the franchised dealers that they have a standard of first-time pass from preparation of over 90%. We know that they are dealing with newer trucks, and I take on board that newer trucks run by big professional operators always have a better test standard. Outside the industry they will be regulated by VOSA. You only have to look at the MOT system. You have a 40% fail rate on car and light vans and a 50% fail rate on heavy vans, which is Class 7—3 tonnes to 3.5 tonnes. This shows to me that the private sector is quite happy to fail vehicles and demand a high standard of roadworthiness. Q13 Chair: But don’t you think you would need some kind of regulation if you moved into this new system? Mr Parmar, do you have any ideas on that? What would you need to make sure that standards were right and public safety was observed? Jay Parmar: We must not lose sight of the road safety outcomes that we are trying to deliver here. The earlier question about what controls and measures will be in place is a valid one. The MOT scheme is delivering good safety outcomes. The comment about cars and vans is a valid one. VOSA already oversees the independence of those testers and they are subject to audit. We do not see that changing in any way. We see that as VOSA extending its reach from cars to vans to heavy goods vehicles. Those independent testers will be subject to scrutiny by VOSA. If they do not meet those very high standards, then they would lose their ability to carry out those tests. Q14 Karl McCartney: Chair, this is a subject close to my heart. At ATFs how much time do you think will be given over to VIC checks for private vehicles as opposed to road hauliers’ vehicles, if at all? Jay Parmar: The question about vehicle identity checks is a very interesting one. I know it was the subject of consultation. We think that needs to be completely reviewed to see if it is valid in its current structure and format. There is no reason why an ATF owner, if it was prescribed, could not carry out those tests if and when they are needed. I think the VIC checks could be carried out. Q15 Karl McCartney: You will understand that testing a large lorry, whether it is your own or somebody else’s, is probably going to be more economically beneficial than testing somebody’s private car that is maybe a Cat C vehicle. Jay Parmar: You are absolutely right. One of the concerns we have is about the open access to a third party being able to book and validly carry it out. That needs to be subject to audit. The earlier point made by James Firth about the booking system was a valid

one. We need to have a very open and accessible system for anybody. You do not necessarily have to have your vehicle maintained by that particular ATF owner to be able to take and get fair access. Q16 Karl McCartney: Private individuals are having much the same experience as your anecdotal evidence for road hauliers. If you try and get a private vehicle VIC checked, you will find it is six to eight weeks and you will have to travel a long way to get that check done. Jay Parmar: That should be the subject of review as well. We should have that access, whether it is an ATF or a VIC check. That needs to be looked at. Our concern around the third-party access is a particularly valid one. If you do not get your vehicle maintained there, can you simply turn up to get your vehicle tested by that ATF owner? A large number of the ATF owners are existing designated premises, who are maybe testing their own vehicles. It is a valid point that you make with regard to accessibility and fairness without having to wait. It would erode your own competitiveness in getting your vehicle tested if that was not available. Q17 Chair: Wouldn’t there be a possible problem of hauliers testing their own vehicles? James Firth: I have to say that FTA members have expressed caution—I think that is the appropriate word—about operators potentially testing their own vehicles. There was also the issue raised of testing a vehicle that they have maintained—to use the colloquialism, “marking their own work”. I am a little bit nervous about making comparisons too closely to the MOT scheme. I would prefer to look further afield than our industry. There are examples out there of how this can be made to work better. We would look perhaps to the aviation industry. I have to say I do not know the airworthiness testing system in detail, but, as far as I can tell, you do not have to fly your plane to a plane test station and have a Government employee check it over. There are lessons we can learn. The cautions that Mr McCartney highlights are very serious, but we go into this with our eyes open and not just gung-ho, saying, “We need this because it is cheaper and it is better.” We recognise that it has to be done properly, with appropriate safeguards in place. Chair: Public safety has to be paramount. James Firth: Absolutely. Q18 Iain Stewart: I would like to raise the related topic of the roadworthiness of foreign HGVs on our roads. Is there cause for concern? If so, what should VOSA be doing about it? Jay Parmar: If you look at VOSA’s own statistics, the roadworthiness figures are converging. Foreign hauliers are certainly looking perhaps at stringent controls in other member states, which are being applied. If you look at VOSA’s own statistics, nonGB prohibition of roadworthiness is now at 14.2% compared with GB vehicles at 10.3%. When you then compare and contrast that with the drivers’ hours and you start to look at the 12.9% of GB vehicles versus non-GB at 11.5%, you can start to see there is

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 5

25 February 2013 Jay Parmar, Jack Semple, James Firth and Steven Latham

convergence taking place. That is because over the last four to five years VOSA has targeted foreign operators and a strong signal has been sent. You are now perhaps even seeing a behavioural change by foreign operators who are coming and using it; they are not relying on smaller operators using international companies to carry out their work. Again, it relates to the type of countries that they are travelling through. In Germany, the federal roads are charged at Euro 5. They are using more modern and newer vehicles when coming to the UK as part of their long journey. Q19 Iain Stewart: Is that a unanimous view in the industry? Jack Semple: I would put a slightly different slant on it. In our written evidence, we recognise the gains that VOSA has made from 2008 with the additional funding that it has had. However, anecdotally from within VOSA, our indications are not only that the targeting is much more effective in targeting UK vehicles, but also the severity of the infringements tends to be significantly worse with foreign vehicles. We have a broad concern—we would not restrict this only to foreign vehicles, but it is particularly the case with foreign vehicles—that, for example, devices aimed at falsifying the drivers’ hours record are not sufficiently prosecuted by VOSA. There is a real problem there and to some extent a hidden problem. We have evidence from colleagues in Europe that the use of magnets and similar devices is becoming more common rather than less common. It is a good two years now that the Central Motorway Police Group found that one in three trucks stopped in a threemonth period were using magnets to falsify the drivers’ hours record. That is a hugely serious offence. It basically means that it is almost impossible for the enforcers to know how many hours you have been driving. Q20 Iain Stewart: Is the solution to that that VOSA needs more resources? Could it be an issue of penalties or their strategy? What is the solution? Jack Semple: VOSA, working perhaps with the police, has to be more consistent and effective in taking these drivers to court. The court needs to be a bit more consistent in imposing adequate penalties. At the moment, as I understand it, because of the lack of co-ordination, somebody who uses a magnet very often gets a £200 fixed penalty for not having a functioning tachograph. In terms of VOSA’s funding, our concern is to ensure that the funding is maintained going forward. We would like to engage more closely with VOSA in future as to how the money is allocated. James Firth: When we are talking about non-GB operators—we can all throw statistics back and forth when we are speaking—VOSA has a plethora of statistics. The thing that I draw out of it when talking about these statistics is that, for the domestic GB operators, they work against the background of having some quite sophisticated targeting tools available to use. The main one is OCRS. They are getting better at developing targeting tools for non-GB operators, but it is nothing like what they have for domestic

operators. We have to remember when comparing statistics that there is a mechanical prohibition rate of 28% for HGV motor vehicles for the last year for domestic and 31% for non-GB. While they sound like similar amounts, of course for GB that is for those whom VOSA would expect to be the worst, and for the non-GB it is more like the average of the foreign operator. The thing that could potentially make a big difference to this—we are coming on to the Road User Levy Bill later—is that the potential for the data that that generates in terms of understanding which operators are in the country could be a tremendously powerful tool for VOSA to use in improving enforcement for non-GB operators. Q21 Chair: Before we go on to the Road User Levy Bill, does anybody else have further comments to make about differential treatment between domestic and foreign HGVs in relation to infringements? I just want to give you all the opportunity to tell us. We are told that VOSA’s budget in relation to compliance has been reduced and that that has caused some of these problems. Is that your impression? Jack Semple: The Committee is very well aware that there was a big increase in 2008. That principle of increased funding from the Government for enforcement has pretty much been maintained. We do not know what the plan is for the coming financial year, but we fear a cut. Going forward, with proposals for increased liberalisation of cabotage rules, this is going to become more and not less of an issue. The key point is that we have foreign operators operating in the UK who would not get a UK operating licence because the traffic commissioners do not think they operate a sufficiently compliant business. As long as that remains the case, we have to ensure that we have adequate resources to enforce against foreign vehicles. Q22 Chair: I would like to ask you about the Road User Levy Bill. On a number of previous occasions some of you have given evidence to this Committee and the previous Select Committee about the importance of securing a level playing field. Do you think that this new Bill will secure that? James Firth: It will help get to a more level playing field, but, against the key issue of fuel duty differentials between GB and the average across Europe, it is not going to have as significant an impact as action against fuel duty might. None the less it will help and we fully support the Road User Levy Bill’s enactment. Q23 Chair: You sound a bit reticent. You have all been asking for this Bill for a long time. It has now come. Where are the problems? Jack Semple: I would agree with James. Basically, we are very supportive. It will not level the playing field. We have by far the highest duty level in Europe. On an annualised basis, that can easily amount to £12,000 a year cost advantage in terms of fuel duty for a foreign operator. None the less, in terms of the principle of doing what we can in this area within EU

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Ev 6 Transport Committee: Evidence

25 February 2013 Jay Parmar, Jack Semple, James Firth and Steven Latham

rules and getting additional information for enforcement, our members are strongly behind it. Q24 Chair: The Government have made an assessment about the net cost to British hauliers. They estimate that there will be very little, if any, additional cost. Is that something that you agree with from your own work? Jay Parmar: I would certainly go back to the original principle behind the Bill, which is to create a level playing field. That is something we would certainly agree with, together with our colleagues on the panel. But we have to be careful what we ask for. The estimates by the Treasury’s own figures are that they are expecting a gross revenue of around £40 million, with a net revenue of around £18 million to £23 million. We then need to look at the actual cost of running that scheme—the enforcement costs—which I am sure we will come on to. Our concerns are largely around the reduced pollution certificate benefits that currently UK owners enjoy. We believe that we have to get that model right. Again, we have yet to see the details of this, though we believe that some additional announcements will be made in the budget. We have to make sure that we are protecting UK owners from losing the potential RPC for greener trucks that they operate. We also have to look at the actual mechanism of claiming refunds on the unused portion of the VED or Levy paid. We have raised that again through various discussions, both in the Public Bill Committee and also within the House. We question the Minister’s intentions of reducing the amount an operator can reclaim on VDs that they have paid over the year. There is a concern that we must get that model right. Currently, an operator or owner is able to reclaim the full outstanding months due on a VED. When the Bill becomes law, they will be restricted to reclaiming the amount by the one-tenth methodology put in. If you put that into figures for our members, who dispose of around 20,000 trucks every year, we believe we are going to lose out by £2.7 million. While the Minister has given us assurances through the debates in the House, we have yet to see the details of those assurances and how they will be addressed. We have to be careful that the bill does not start to impose unintended costs on UK owners. Q25 Chair: That is something we should all look at because the Ministers gave a very clear intention that the practicality needs to be looked at. What about the relationships and roles of VOSA, the traffic commissioners and the Department for Transport? Do you have any views on how those three organisations are connected? Jack Semple: There was a very important document last summer—the framework agreement between the traffic commissioners, the DFT and VOSA—which is helpful and which goes a significant way to

recognising the importance of all three parties and their relative roles. It also highlights the importance of fair competition in the role of the traffic commissioner. We would like to see that restored specifically in the role of VOSA. It is important that the industry has confidence that the regulator, VOSA and the DFT are all working together. I think we are making progress in that direction. Q26 Chair: Does it have confidence on making progress towards that? Jack Semple: Reasonable confidence. Q27 Chair: Do you all agree? Does the industry have confidence that VOSA, the traffic commissioners and the Department are working together? James Firth: Yes; I believe that the industry does have confidence in that. The framework document was very important. For the trade associations that work closely with both bodies, we can see how that relationship is working. There is a difficulty for operators outside in the industry understanding the relationship between the two bodies, particularly on the issue where you have VOSA staff working for the traffic commissioners and understanding the important difference there. As I mentioned, there is currently a consultation out on the motoring services agencies from the Department for Transport. While it does talk about redrawing the boundaries of responsibility for the various agencies, I notice that it did not touch on issues of the staff that support the traffic commissioners and I wonder if that is partly because the DFT got its fingers burnt a little bit last year when it tried talking about the independence of the traffic commissioners in a VOSA fees consultation. Certainly, the trade responded strongly to that. I do not know if it is perhaps time to investigate whether the traffic commissioners should have staff that can be identified as being separate from VOSA. Jack Semple: A very positive development has been the establishment of the commercial vehicle road safety compliance forum. That is chaired by the Department for Transport and brings back to the Department the responsibility and the active leadership in terms of what compliance is all about. I think that has perhaps been unclear between itself and VOSA. That is a useful forum for moving forward in this area as well. In terms of the traffic commissioners, we have made a lot of progress both on the statutory transparency of what they do and the requirement to discuss with the industry. In practice, we are seeing that as well. We are keen to see a bit more of that from VOSA going forward. Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming and answering our questions.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 7

Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Kevin Warden, VOSA TUS Secretary, and Gary Washer, VOSA TUS Assistant Secretary, gave evidence. Q28 Chair: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Can we have your name and organisation, please? Kevin Warden: My name is Kevin Warden. I am a member of Prospect Union and I am also the VOSA Trade Union Side Secretary. Gary Washer: Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Gary Washer from the Public and Commercial Services Union. I am the VOSA Assistant Trade Union Side Secretary. Q29 Chair: What are your views about VOSA’s strategy for improving arrangements for annual inspections? How do you think it is all working? Kevin Warden: When we gave evidence in 2008 we had concerns about the plans as they were developing. Those concerns remain, I must admit, while the increase in ATFs has come along. We are deeply concerned about the threat and the consequence of privatisation, and I heard what Mr McCartney said in the previous session. While you will hear bits of anecdotal evidence from us, we have some factual evidence as well. When you compare the vehicle testing of the light schemes—cars and light goods vehicles—VOSA strongly regulates that. It audits the systems and trains and ensures that the testers doing that testing work do so to the right standards. Yet still, year on year, when VOSA examiners go out and do random checks on recently tested car/light vehicles, around 15% of those vehicles year on year are found to have been tested incorrectly by the private sector. They are random. If you begin to go down the road where VOSA targets garages where it suspects that the standards are not being applied, then that increases to around 25% of vehicles tested by the private sector being given the wrong test result. We have to be absolutely honest here. That does not mean all of those vehicles are dangerous. It could mean that some of those vehicles were passed by the private sector when they should have failed, and some were failed by the private sector when they should have passed, but they were given the wrong result at annual test. To convert that over to heavy goods vehicles or to PSV vehicles, there is little to convince us that putting that sort of privatised system in place would not perhaps result in the same sort of abuse by those doing the test. As well as being a union representative, I was a vehicle examiner working for VOSA many years ago. This is an actual factual event: I visited a motorcycle garage one year and watched a tester do a perfect demonstration test on a motorcycle; unbeknown to me, the following day one of my colleagues went in and did what we used to call an incognito test, which now they call a mystery shopper test. A perfect test was demonstrated to me, but the following day it transpired that that vehicle did not even make its way into the workshop. The person who had proved to me the day before that they were absolutely competent to do the test just got on the vehicle, drove it down the road, rode it back and said to one of my colleagues,

“Yeah, that’s all right”, and issued an MOT certificate. That is a real-life example of how the private sector sometimes reacts, particularly in the current MOT scheme, when you introduce profit into safety. VOSA is trying and working its absolute hardest to keep those standards high, but we get perfect examples time and time again of competence one day and then abuse shortly afterwards. Q30 Chair: Where is the information you refer to documented? Kevin Warden: VOSA produces those figures. Certainly, the 15% failure rate is something that VOSA produces either through FOI or internally. It was always previously determined in reports that VOSA did, but VOSA should be able to confirm that those figures are accurate. Q31 Chair: What do you think would happen if staff directly employed by the authorised testing facilities were able to carry out the tests rather than VOSA staff? Kevin Warden: Hearing the previous panel as well and the assurances that they were giving, it is quite interesting. When you introduce commercial pressures into vehicle and safety testing, our fear would be that that commercial pressure, particularly when you are looking at commercial vehicles or PSV vehicles and the lost capacity in financial terms of those vehicles being off the road, has the likelihood of persuading people to cut corners and to turn a blind eye to some defects to ensure that that vehicle goes back on to the road with an MOT certificate, albeit it would be invalid. It was interesting to hear again what the previous panel said and what the FTA have done. We include this in our written evidence. They sent something like 555 vehicles into franchised dealerships to be serviced. When those vehicles came out from service, they were inspected by the FTA’s own examiners and 27% of those vehicles were found not to meet the minimum MOT standard. Again, we have to be really clear here. The MOT standard is not a once-a-year standard to be attained. It is the minimum safety standard that every vehicle should maintain on a day-by-day basis as it is being used on the roads. People tend to think of the MOT as this huge once-a-year mountain to climb. It is the minimum standard that we test vehicles to. As I say, certainly within those vehicles that have come to our test stations, around 20% of those vehicles prepared still fail. We are fearful in road safety terms. We emphasise that our members are here and our staff are dedicated to road safety. We are not here to try to make a lot of money. You would not join the civil service if you wanted to become a millionaire, I can assure you. I can show you my payslip and I am certainly not a millionaire. Our people join because of a dedication to road safety. The fears they have are that road safety will be diminished if it is passed out to the private sector to undertake.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Ev 8 Transport Committee: Evidence

25 February 2013 Kevin Warden and Gary Washer

Q32 Sarah Champion: Mr Warden, I completely share your fears. When Mr Semple was saying how wonderful all companies were and of course they would be great, I was thinking that that is great for the 10% at the very top, but what about the people lower down the food chain, who are being hit by a recession and who are trying to meet targets? I fear, like you, that corners will be cut. We did a visit and were with the VOSA chief executive for most of the day. We all pressed quite hard on his views on privatisation for the testing staff. He rebuffed those. What is your gut feeling? Do you think that, in his mind, he is looking to secure the staff from this Government or do you think that the creep of privatisation is going to happen? Kevin Warden: Up until quite recently I have been having one-to-ones with the chief executive as the Trade Union Side Secretary on a monthly basis. That is changing a little bit more recently, but we have been having those meetings. I believe, with his hand on his heart, Alastair—the chief executive—believes that road safety is best served by VOSA staff doing the testing, albeit done at non-VOSA test sites such as ATFs or DPs, if that is the best model to fit. From the trade union side point of view, we have been warning from day one that by allowing greater and greater flexibility and access to sites—the arguments that trade associations were making, such as, “If they only have one or two vehicles to test, surely it would be better just to allow them to test the one or two vehicles.” We have said this right from day one to the chief executive. He is not blind to it. In his heart, I think he is dedicated to road safety and to the public sector undertaking those road safety checks. In reality, he sees the political pressure that is being put on to move the physical element of testing out to the private sector. I have just one more point and then I will let Gary in. I am taking up most of the talking here. We talk about testing and we talk about enforcement. Certainly from the point of view of a vehicle examiner and an engineer, and having worked for VOSA for nigh on a quarter of a century now, they are two sides of the same coin. Testing is the first element of enforcement. It is proving by operators that they can maintain or present their vehicles to the minimum standard at least once a year to show that they can present that vehicle in that way. Those figures, as I understand it, also feed in to the operator compliance risk score. By moving that out to the private sector and asking an operator’s own fitter to do a test, that would go into the operator risk score to say that that operator was good, which would mean that on the roadside there was less chance of that vehicle being pulled in for a safety check. It is a selffulfilling prophecy and a circular argument: the vehicles will always pass, because of that they will be less likely to be pulled on the roadside, and if they are pulled on the roadside, as a green operator it is less likely there will be a check on the vehicle. Q33 Sarah Champion: Mr Parmar was talking about flexibility and weekends and evenings. It is extremely commendable how flexible the testing staff have been to this point. Does that need for flexibility have any

concerns for you, or do you think that the staff would be open to a more flexible working approach as they seem to be embracing it? Kevin Warden: In the discussions we have had with VOSA, and this goes back three years, our doors are open to talk about it. We spoke before about the shift workers—the high- risk transport initiative workers. When VOSA wanted to go down that route and introduce shifts, that was quite a change for the civil service from the way we had done it in the past. It had happened in other areas of the civil service, we understand, but we were open to discussion. We negotiated some terms. Staff have come in and have been working on those terms. We have recently been in discussion about changing the shift patterns. We are open to discussion on sorts of areas of greater flexibility. Yes, we are open to discussion. The one thing that we are concerned about is allowing current staff the opportunity to opt in or opt out of the newer type of arrangements. I know that is causing some consternation back at the agency because they are looking at everybody moving on to this wholly flexible system. I heard one of the witnesses from the previous panel talking about working from home or being deployed from home, as VOSA says. I joined 25 years ago as a vehicle examiner and I was deployed from home pretty much every day of my working week. So this is nothing new, whether it is enforcement or going out testing. As I say, they can come and talk to us. VOSA began tentative discussions two or three years ago about a new contract. They were not the easiest, I must be honest. We are waiting now because of changes within the governance between the Department for Transport and VOSA. We understand that any discussions about changes to contracts are going to be handled at DFT level. We are still waiting for the start of those discussions. Gary Washer: I want to pick up on the point from the last Committee inquiry into VOSA back in 2009. At the end of that process, when the recommendation was made not to privatise the testing environment and the testing system, we made it perfectly clear to the Minister at that time that we were very receptive and provided evidence to him of the sorts of changes that we believed would go some way to providing industry with what it wanted. That was extended testing times and perhaps weekend and evening testing. As my colleague has said, at that time our door was open. All DFT and VOSA had to do was come and talk to us. We were assured that we would be able to negotiate on behalf of the staff in VOSA to enable them to provide the sorts of things that industry wanted. Unfortunately, what has happened is that we have continued down the same route that was being proposed previously, which is a fundamental step-bystep process, and we have genuine concerns that it will lead to the outsourcing and privatisation of the whole testing scheme. Q34 Chair: What could be done within the system as it is now to improve flexibility and convenience for business in wanting to test vehicles? Gary Washer: At the present moment—it was something highlighted by the previous witnesses—

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 9

25 February 2013 Kevin Warden and Gary Washer

VOSA has a problem with regard to resources. At the last Committee hearing in 2009, even the chief executive at that time, Stephen Tetlow, admitted that to go forward in the way that they wanted would require an approximate 50% increase in testing staff. Since that time in 2009, we have had restrictions on public sector recruitment, which has made life very difficult. Even now, today, VOSA is finding it very difficult, mainly because of the financial issues and the fact that the staff we would want to come in to be able to do that sort of work are simply not prepared to come in for the sorts of salaries and conditions that we are offering at the present moment. They much prefer to work in main dealers and vehicle maintainers, where they can earn far more. Q35 Chair: What suggestions would you have to improve the situation? Gary Washer: We need to look at how we get a balance and a mix. What we would suggest, as we have done previously, is that we need a balance. We have had designated premises, and we were quite surprised at Mr Semple’s evidence when he said that DPs were new. They have been around for 30 years. We have been supporting designated premises and sending staff out for over 30 years. We believe that there are financial arguments, where companies have looked at it and said, “It makes financial sense for us to do testing at our premises.” They became designated premises over the last 30 years and VOSA has supported them by providing staff to them. What we now have is, effectively, VOSA forcing industry to become ATFs. We have had examples relayed to us where existing designated premises are being told— Q36 Chair: I am looking for some ideas of how to improve the current system. We have heard suggestions of another fairly fundamental change. I was wondering if you have any suggestions as to how to improve the way the system works for business without a radical change. Gary Washer: We believe that the existing framework of having VOSA sites, supplemented by ATFs, DPs, or whatever you wish to call them, is a model that works. It has worked for the last 30 years. It means that people who have a VOSA station close to them can get a test when they want it in a short period of time. That would be good. We have VOSA effectively closing off— Q37 Chair: Would you then favour there being additional authorised sites to deal with the problem? Mr Warden, do you have any ideas on that? There clearly is some problem with how it is working at the moment. Kevin Warden: Sure. The network of test stations that we have, and it was picked up earlier as well, is in need of refurbishment. It is 40 years old and has had very little investment. We included a letter in the written evidence that we wrote to the then Minister, Mike Penning, setting out perhaps a new picture of how VOSA could look to meet the gap with industry. There would be a backbone of VOSA’s own test stations supplemented by ATFs.

One of the witnesses on the last panel spoke about possible half-day testing. That, again, is something that VOSA would be happy to look at from the VOSA Trade Union Side point of view, but, of course, that will put up costs. If somebody has to travel out to one site to do half-a-day testing and then travels to another, you can only get two half-day testings in one day without the additional flexibilities that a revised contract may bring. Again, we are open to discuss all these opportunities, and particularly if it maintains road safety in the hands of independent and impartial examiners who have no axe to grind; there is no commercial pressure on them one way or the other. We are happy to look at how we can accommodate that in the terms and conditions, as long as it is done on a voluntary basis and people are not forced down that route. We will work whichever way we possibly can. Q38 Chair: How do you view the current position on foreign HGVs? Is there still concern on safety standards? Gary Washer: We would probably echo the previous panel’s evidence inasmuch as, over the past few years, there does appear to have been a considerable shift away from the roadworthiness aspects of foreign vehicles and more towards traffic enforcement, drivers’ hours, cabotage and the interference with tachographs. From that point of view we would agree with the previous evidence, and certainly it is evidence we find coming back from our own examiners themselves. From that perspective, we do think that the quality of vehicles from foreign hauliers that we are now seeing in this country is of a better standard, and it may well be for a number of the reasons previously given in evidence. But we are not finding the numbers or the real horror stories that we did four or five years ago. What we are finding is that there is more on the drivers’ hours, the cabotage and the licensing side of things, which is fairly consistent. Q39 Chair: What do you think could be done to deal with that? Gary Washer: We would look at the introduction of the HRTI—the High Risk Transport Initiative—and the shift-working staff that we had. We believe that was a good step forward. We are disappointed that the initial funding given by the Department for that has now been withdrawn. It has been subsumed within the single enforcement budget. That is on a downward trend in terms of funding. It means that we certainly have not been able to expand the number of shiftworking teams in the way that we would have hoped to have done had the funding continued. That is having a real, detrimental effect in terms of the cuts in the funding. It means that we cannot continue in the way we had initially started for that brief few years. Q40 Kwasi Kwarteng: With regard to the HGV Road User Levy Bill, you have mentioned foreign users. Do you think that the Bill equalises or levels the playing field, as people have suggested? Gary Washer: I think it is still probably too early to tell at the present moment. It will depend on what the final result turns out to be. We can probably echo

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Ev 10 Transport Committee: Evidence

25 February 2013 Kevin Warden and Gary Washer

some of the concerns of the previous panel. Until we see the final details, it is going to be a bit difficult to know exactly. You may have the unexpected consequence element creep in relating to how you balance things out to make sure that that level playing field is maintained. One of the things we put in our evidence is that we see an element whereby the revenue through that permit, or whatever it is going to be called, could be used, first, to administer the system and also to provide a route for funding enforcement of those vehicles coming into the country. By enabling VOSA to do that work, it would, first, enable us to make sure that we have accurate information very early on about the vehicles coming into this country that are buying the permits or paying the levy fees. That means we then have accurate information about those operators and those vehicles. If we have that data, then obviously that is immediately made available to our enforcement staff at the side of the road to be able to target them. Kevin Warden: If I can add one little bit— Kwasi Kwarteng: Can I ask a follow-on question after you have done that? Kevin Warden: Again, the early signs are good, I think. Within VOSA we have had one meeting of a project group to look at the project initiation document. That is a draft document and is still being worked through. It may not come as a surprise to you that one of the main questions in it that I asked was, “What funding is coming for this? Is it coming out of VOSA’s existing funding?” If my memory serves me correctly, we were told that there are three lumps of £500,000 being made available to VOSA to get the system’s capital costs up and running. Early day signals from our point of view are that it is going in the right direction, but it is very early days. Kwasi Kwarteng: You have answered my follow-up. Q41 Chair: You have commented in the written evidence you have given us that VOSA’s enforcement activity is now mainly focused on offences subject to a fixed penalty notice. Could you tell us what problems that creates? Gary Washer: I would like to expand on that. While we welcome the introduction of the fixed penalties and we think they are a useful tool, what we have seen over the years since their introduction is that there is an emphasis now on being able to deal with matters at the side of the road by a fixed penalty very quickly and very easily. What we don’t then get is the followup that happens with those operators afterwards. This is where we have concerns in a number of areas as a result of that. First, that means we don’t use that information to go and follow up with the operators. It seems to us to be imposing a shift in targeting from the non-compliant operators simply on to the drivers in the cab of the vehicles, and we are simply fining the drivers. Unfortunately, in this particular climate, we find that, if drivers are being targeted because they are noncompliant, they may be doing that because they are being put in a position of having to do so because of the pressures they are being put under by operators. The fact that we are then not going and visiting

operators as frequently to do those follow-up inquiries means we are not looking at the systems the operator has. That means we are not getting the higher and indepth information. It just seems unfair to us that we are placing the burden now on the lowest form of employee within the industry rather than on the unscrupulous operators behind them. Because we are not doing those investigations and going forward through prosecutions to magistrates courts, then obviously those are not following through the conduct proceedings to the traffic commissioners and public inquiries. It also means that VOSA stands all of the costs of issuing those fixed penalties. Because it is a fixed penalty, that money goes directly to the Treasury. We stand all of the costs and have no ability to reclaim any costs, whereas, had we gone down the prosecution route through the magistrates courts or the Crown courts, then we have the ability to reclaim all of our costs involved with that. We find that that is a bit short-sighted and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a very costly way to do it. It is done very quickly but is not necessarily providing the best outcomes. Q42 Chair: You refer to the graduated court deposit process and talk about limitations there. Could you tell us more about that? Gary Washer: We have two systems. One is a fixed penalty, which we are all fairly familiar with. The other is a graduated deposit. This alludes also to the previous panel’s evidence about interruption devices. We have this strange situation within the legislation at the present moment, which is probably one of the failings of the legislation. At the present moment, if we issue a graduated deposit for the most serious offences of falsifying or interrupting with vehicles, we take a deposit off those drivers, specifically foreign nationals, so that they are then due to come back to court. Because of the requirements of our legal process, if we are unable to serve papers on those people because they live overseas, they never come back to court, and after a certain period of time they are then able to claim the deposit back with interest. So we end up paying them more than we have collected because they have offended and did not come to court. It is a little perverse from our perspective. Q43 Chair: What can be done about that? It sounds a most incredible situation. It actually costs us more if we try and prosecute someone who we think has committed an offence. Gary Washer: Obviously not every operator claims the money back, but that is a possibility. I think we need to look at the legislation again and what is in there to make sure that, if we are taking a graduated deposit, it is a deposit against something. We perhaps need to look at how matters can proceed if people fail to respond to court papers in these particular cases. Obviously, that is something for the lawyers to look at, but it is something that needs to be redressed. Q44 Chair: Do we know how often this has happened and how much we have paid out?

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 11

25 February 2013 Kevin Warden and Gary Washer

Gary Washer: I do not know, but I am sure VOSA will be able to tell you how many deposits they have had to repay. Chairman: We will ask them. Gary Washer: It is a situation that is incredibly frustrating. In some way it goes to the previous evidence as to why examiners, because they know that happens, take it down to a lower level of offence whereby they can deal with it by fixed penalty, albeit the maximum. Obviously there is a financial penalty there, but we have to work within the systems we have at the moment. Q45 Chair: You have also suggested that VOSA budget cuts have affected the work of the traffic commissioners. Can you tell us any more about that? Gary Washer: It comes back to the previous point we were making about not being able to take the prosecution route for serious offences. What we have found since the introduction of fixed penalties is that more and more matters are being referred directly to the traffic commissioners. Again it comes back to the funding issue. VOSA has a limited amount of funds. At the present moment, its legal budget is somewhere in the region of £750,000 and that is capped. What we are now finding is that we have to provide legal representatives at more and more inquiries that deal with impounding, immobilisation and public inquiries for conduct. Matters have not gone through a magistrates court or Crown court first. Previously we were just dealing with the matter of the traffic commissioners dealing with conduct on the basis of

convictions. As those convictions have not happened, we now effectively have to prove those cases or the conduct of the operator in front of the commissioner. Unfortunately, because of the legal system for tribunals, we are not allowed to recover any of our costs. Again, we have to pay for a legal representative to present the cases to the traffic commissioners because they are now being challenged in front of the commissioners, whereas the operators would previously have done that in court. We now have to suffer the additional cost of providing a legal representative at those hearings and yet we cannot reclaim the cost of those representatives if the case is eventually proven. Q46 Mr Sanders: What sort of costs are you talking about in a year? What is the figure? Gary Washer: Do you mean in individual cases or overall? Mr Sanders: What is the amount spent on external legal advice in a 12-month period? Gary Washer: The information we have is that the VOSA legal budget is about £750,000, and it is exceeded every year. It is difficult to break it down into individual cases, but as that budget is broken every year then obviously the need is there. As we target more operators to try and get into more of the non-compliant, obviously the implications of those investigations become more serious for the operator and, therefore, they are defended more vigorously, so the legal costs rise. Chair: Thank you very much.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Ev 12 Transport Committee: Evidence

Monday 22 April 2013 Members present: Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair) Sarah Champion Kwasi Kwarteng

Adrian Sanders Iain Stewart ________________ Examination of Witness

Witness: Beverley Bell, Senior Traffic Commissioner, gave evidence. Q47 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. I am afraid we are without power at the moment. We are hoping it will come on during the afternoon. Could you give your name and position for our records? Beverley Bell: Beverley Bell, Senior Traffic Commissioner. Q48 Chair: Thank you very much. Are you satisfied that the traffic commissioners are seen as independent when you share the same premises and the same secretariat with VOSA? Beverley Bell: I think there is confusion amongst the industry about who the regulator is and who the enforcement agency is. It is a constant distraction. Traffic commissioners constantly have to say to everybody, “We are independent.” I think, if we were in a different building or buildings, and if we had different e-mail addresses and our own identity, that distraction would go away. It also means there is always the concern that, one day, somebody is going to take a point of law and appeal on the basis that we are not actually independent of VOSA. Q49 Chair: What would you like changed to make the separation clearer? What about branding—which you have mentioned in your written evidence? Beverley Bell: Branding is one suggestion and one solution, but in some respects it is a bit like putting a sticking plaster over a wound that needs some stitches. Branding would make it easier, but it wouldn’t get rid of that constant problem and that constant distraction. We have been very mindful of the Motoring Services Strategy review. We have suggested in there, when we have put in our response, that there might perhaps be some benefit in having an agency that is a regulator and an agency that is an enforcement agency. That would make it very easy and very clear to everybody who came into contact with those agencies who did what. It would prevent that blurring of distinction. Q50 Chair: How much do you think the problem is one of perception as opposed to reality? Beverley Bell: The two are inextricably linked. It is a reality. The Nolan Transport case, which we have referred to in our written submission, sets out quite clearly that it is all very well having framework documents that we have worked very hard at, and it is all very well having administrative arrangements, but, if, in reality, our independence is being undermined, then there has to be a better solution to the problem.

Q51 Chair: Does the framework document as it exists now clarify the relationships? Beverley Bell: I think it does; yes. Q52 Chair: You think it does. Beverley Bell: It clarifies the relationships. I used to be a solicitor in private practice and it is like drafting up the consent order in divorce proceedings, saying “You have this dog and I’ll have that piece of furniture.” You then have to make it work, and that is sometimes the difficulty. We are trying very hard to make it work. I would just like to express my thanks to the DFT because it really seems to have been helpful to me and my colleagues in trying to establish exactly who does what within VOSA and within the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. We have regular tripartite meetings with VOSA, the Department and me to try to sort out some of those issues. Q53 Chair: The Freight Transport Association says the fact that fees are raised by the traffic commissioners but managed by VOSA raises concerns about how money is spent. What would your comment be on that? Beverley Bell: Yes. For the first time I have started to look at the fee income and how it is spent. Again, there are some real stars in VOSA who have been very helpful to me and to colleagues in producing data and accounts for us. For the first time, traffic commissioners are able to look at how our own licence fee money is being spent, and it is very scary. It is quite clear—and I am not going to go into great detail today on the figures because they can be provided separately—that more money is being spent than is being received in fee income and also in other areas of income. For example, we do driver conduct work on behalf of DVLA. We are overspending to a huge extent. That would suggest that we are not charging enough. I am not aware that anybody has asked the question, “Why aren’t we charging enough and what can we do to charge more?” It is a similar situation with regard to other work that we do. I am looking at that and at how the money is actually spent. Q54 Chair: You have also made some comments about VOSA’s enforcement activities— Beverley Bell: Absolutely. Chair:—and how some changes in the way they approach enforcement have affected the work you do. Could you tell us a little more about that? Beverley Bell: Probably what I would say to the members of the Committee is that, if you forget

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 13

22 April 2013 Beverley Bell

everything else I have said to you today, I would ask you not to forget this. This is really what motivates traffic commissioners to get up and go to work, and regulate the commercial vehicle industry, many of whom are compliant. Things have changed drastically, in my view, and in my colleagues’ view—because I do speak for all my colleagues—over the past five to six years. I was explaining it to the taxi driver on the way here. I said, “Please be quick; I’ve got to be at the Transport Select Committee. How long will it take?” He said, “Well, you know, you run transport, luv.” I said, “Yes, but I don’t.” He said, “Well, what do you do?” I said to him in a couple of sentences that commissioners grant the licence. VOSA checks that they run properly, and, if they don’t, it sees the traffic commissioners; and I explained our powers. It is the middle bit—VOSA checking that they do it properly—that concerns us. If you look at the statistics, in 2005–06, there were 26,000, as near as damn it, weighing of vehicles. In 2010–11 there were 2,600, as near as damn it. That is a tenth. Overloading prosecutions in 2011–12 were 166. VOSA only prosecutes at over 30%. Your vehicle has to be overloaded by more than 30% before there is a prosecution, despite the fact that the European regulations say that, if you overload by 20% or more, you commit a most serious infringement. In relation to unsatisfactory maintenance investigations, in 2005–06, as near as damn it, there were 15,000 maintenance investigations, of which 40% were unsatisfactory. In 2010–11, there were 4,500 maintenance investigations, of which 58% were unsatisfactory. I am no mathematician, but, if you do the maths, you will see that, due to the substantial number of reductions in maintenance investigations, we are potentially missing out on 3,500 unsatisfactory maintenance investigations. All commissioners have grave concerns that VOSA is not targeting the serially and seriously non-compliant. I am concerned about some of the aspects of its report because it says that it is referring all convictions to us that it brings to court. In its stats for the last year, 2011–12, there were about 6,000 convictions that it says were referred to us. That is not the case. A quick call round my offices earlier today revealed in the region of 650 cases referred to us. Where are the drivers’ hours referrals? Where are the serious investigations? It is the view of all commissioners that this is not happening any more. We don’t get those serious cases brought to our attention. It is easy for VOSA to target the soft underbelly of the nice but incompetent small operators. It is much more difficult to target and enforce the tough hard core of highly non-compliant operators who show a total disregard for road safety. Thank you for listening to me on this. The final point I would make is this. You have heard from the trade associations. Indeed, some of them are here today to hear what is said this afternoon. You have heard about the effect of non-compliance on fair competition. Not complying saves operators thousands and thousands of pounds. Breaches of drivers’ hours are a very cost-effective way to cut costs—work the vehicles harder and work the drivers harder. The compliant operator just hangs their head in

despair when they see non-compliant operators, quite frankly, getting away with it. That is without looking at the effect on road safety, which I won’t bleat on about because everybody knows the effects of not complying with road safety. I think you can tell from the length of time it has taken me to answer the question that commissioners are very concerned that VOSA needs to be cohesive, structured, joined up, and engage with us early, to look together at how to root out the serially and seriously non-compliant. That is where we want VOSA to support TCs. Q55 Chair: What you have just said to us is extremely serious and raises very serious issues about road safety. Beverley Bell: Yes. Q56 Chair: Is there any dialogue taking place between you and VOSA on those very serious issues? Beverley Bell: There is now, yes. We asked to be able to engage with VOSA at a much earlier stage about its strategies for enforcement. Two of my colleagues, Sarah Bell and Kevin Rooney, are now working with VOSA to see how their five pillars are going to work in the real world and how their pillar of enforcement is going to work. Q57 Chair: Has that produced any results? Beverley Bell: It is early days. As far as enforcement was concerned, I was not clear on what the structure and the cohesive approach was, but I draw back from making any findings at this stage because it is early days. Q58 Sarah Champion: Mrs Bell, on that whole area, my understanding is that VOSA has to pick up the costs of any legal action that it takes. Beverley Bell: Yes. Q59 Sarah Champion: Its budget, if it is not reduced, is not a key part of its expenditure. Do you think the main reason it is not going forward with prosecutions is that it just cannot afford to, so it is going for the soft targets? Beverley Bell: No, I don’t think that is the case at all. Before I had this job, I was a solicitor and I used to prosecute for the then Vehicle Inspectorate on things like drivers’ hours overloadings. The budget is about £750,000. There has been an overspend year on year on year. I was fascinated to read one of the responses to the VOSA document, which said that, more and more, solicitors had to appear at public inquiries. That is absolutely not the case. Even on impoundings, which are party and party hearings where VOSA has to be represented, often it does not even send solicitors then. We are often left to pick up the work that maybe the solicitor would do. Q60 Sarah Champion: £750,000 sounds like a very small amount of money to me. Beverley Bell: Yes. Q61 Sarah Champion: Is it the case that, if its budget was increased, it might be able to prosecute

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Ev 14 Transport Committee: Evidence

22 April 2013 Beverley Bell

more? If it is looking at its bottom line and we are all making cuts, do you not think that is going to be a factor? Beverley Bell: It is for VOSA to justify how it sets its prosecution budget. It doesn’t have to prosecute to bring cases to our attention. It can bring fixed penalties to our attention; it can bring drivers’ hours offences to our attention. I am not sure that it is. Q62 Sarah Champion: On those fixed penalties, do you believe that the fines are enough of a deterrent? Beverley Bell: Commissioners have taken the view that the fine amount is not always sufficient to act as a deterrent. As I understand it, this is all part of a European piece of legislation so we could not unilaterally increase the fines. I stand to be corrected on that, but that is my understanding. Q63 Sarah Champion: But, if you could, would your feeling be that they should be higher? Beverley Bell: Yes. Q64 Sarah Champion: You mentioned the EU. I have in my head rather than in the briefing paper in front of me that, when we are prosecuting people from the EU, if they then go back to Europe and don’t pay the bill, we effectively have to pick up the legal costs but cannot enforce them to pay the fines that are being levied. Beverley Bell: I have been trying to find out some more about that this afternoon. Obviously you are going to have to ask VOSA because it does the enforcement, but I understand that it has had to change its policy, especially when it comes to cabotage and combined transport enforcement, because of the problem of getting the money out of the foreign operators. Q65 Chair: I would like to clarify what you were saying before about the nature of the discussions you are having with VOSA, how it is addressing the compliance issue and its impact on public safety. That is what you were talking about, wasn’t it? Beverley Bell: Yes. Q66 Chair: Are these informal discussions, or do they lead to any formal framework on how things might operate in the future? Beverley Bell: I asked if the meeting was going to be minuted and notes taken. VOSA said, “No,” and I said, “Well, maybe it would be a good idea if we did take some notes and we did have some action points arising out of it.” I think it is too early to say. We have only just got to the point where we are now a voice being heard by VOSA at the early stage to say, “How are VOSA going to enforce, and how are we, as commissioners, going to regulate?” We are really at the start of that process. I can’t tell you whether it is going to be successful or not, but I can tell you that we are very keen to have the work brought to us and we will deal with it; we will deal with the operators. Q67 Chair: At what level are those discussions taking place? Have they involved the chief executive of VOSA?

Beverley Bell: I see the chief executive of VOSA rarely. We have six-monthly or quarterly dates in the diary to have a catch-up on the telephone. That is not the issue. It is making sure that the right people at the right level know what is needed. From our perspective, we have two commissioners assigned to look at this work. They will then deal with the people on the ground, who will formulate the policy and do the work. I would also add that there is the recently formed Compliance Forum, which is chaired by the DFT. When I started as the Senior, there was a big call— especially from the trade associations—for some sort of forum where we could openly debate both the rhetoric around enforcement and the practicalities. The DFT have taken up that mantle and I am very grateful to them. They now chair regular meetings where we have VOSA, and they send their director of compliance. They don’t send their chief executive because he is not operational enough. All the trade associations are represented, and I go on behalf of the traffic commissioners. I have forgotten somebody very important but I can’t just think who it is at the moment. Again, that is a very good mechanism to start to say, “What is VOSA doing to target the serially and seriously non-compliant?” Q68 Chair: Has that process brought about any changes, or are they just friendly discussions? Beverley Bell: No, they are not friendly discussions. They are good, clear, constructive debate. It is not a talking shop. There are action points and we look at what needs to be done. It really is too early to say. I do feel we are in this new era, which is why I used the analogy before of the consent order. We have the document and we now have to make it work. We have got to the stage where we now have a dialogue with VOSA. I just hope it listens. It is all very well talking to people, but, if they don’t listen, we are not going to be in a good place. I hope it listens. Q69 Chair: What work is being done to improve the IT system that supports the processing of licences? Beverley Bell: Our IT system is antiquated and out of support. It needs sorting out fairly quickly. Again, TCs have been approached early on to ask what we can do and what we need to make sure that the system that we have is as effective as it can be. That is part of a much bigger IT modernisation programme that VOSA is going through. Q70 Chair: What action is being taken to improve information sharing between Government agencies and other organisations? Beverley Bell: Data handling is a real concern of all traffic commissioners. When I started in post, I discovered that not everybody who was accessing data that we own was legally allowed to do so. I raised it at the highest level. Two years down the line we have still not resolved the data-sharing issues. We have made progress and we are in the process of negotiating a data-sharing agreement between VOSA and the traffic commissioners, but we still don’t have that in place.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 15

22 April 2013 Beverley Bell

The next target on my to-do list for data sharing is to make sure that we have the proper processes in place to share data with all of the police forces. Everything is antiquated. There are agreements that go back several years that are now no longer fit for purpose. It is a bit of a running sore. The problem is that I don’t have anybody to ask to draft the data-sharing agreements, so I have to go cap in hand to nice people like David Coker in the DFT and say, “Help.” He is lovely and he helps. Then I go to VOSA and say, “Can you have a look at this?”, and sometime later I get a response. That is the reality. Q71 Chair: This doesn’t sound a very constructive way of doing things. Is this a systems failure? Are the structures not there or are people not making it work? Beverley Bell: It is back to that running sore and that distraction of who prepares the data-sharing agreements for traffic commissioners. Should it be VOSA, which is in fact the enforcement agency but also produces and provides to us our administrative support? Should it be the Department for Transport, because we are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport? There is no clarity around who should do what for us. That has never really been sorted out. It has all been fudged in the past. For the first time, now that we as commissioners are trying to open all these cans of worms and sort them out, we have these problems. Q72 Chair: You have now raised two issues where there clearly are major failings with the way the agency is working or there appear to be implications of enforcement policies, and there is this example about addressing how to apply the correct data. Is the Department brought into any of these issues to resolve them? Beverley Bell: Yes, absolutely. The Department is well aware. These are the sorts of matters that we discuss at the tripartite meetings. Things like data sharing are on the agenda all the time. You used the word “failings”. I am not necessarily saying it is a failing. I am saying that, in the past, there has been no clarity about who does what for traffic commissioners. For example, hopefully, we are about to sign a data-sharing agreement with a nice department of the Department for Transport in Hastings called BSOG. They deal with the bus service operators’ grant. I now have to go to VOSA and say, “Please will you draft me a data-sharing agreement?” It is not clear who does it—or do I ask the DFT to do it? I am not saying it is a failing. I am saying for the first time that we are getting hold of those knotty issues and trying to resolve them. Q73 Chair: I want to turn now to bus transport issues. This is an issue that affects a lot of people and there is obviously a great deal of concern expressed in relation to it. In your last annual report, you described the changes to how VOSA monitors bus services as a “sea change”. Could you tell us what you mean by that? Beverley Bell: There was a change of policy by the DFT with regard to how bus punctuality and reliability should be enforced. Unfortunately, that

didn’t communicate through to traffic commissioners quickly enough. That was not anybody’s fault; it was just one of those things. VOSA then worked on a new project to implement the new policy. I will be quite blunt here in my remarks. It is fair to say that that bus compliance transition work was a failure. It grieves me to say it. We have effectively lost 12 months. Commissioners are passionate about bus reliability and punctuality. It is the one thing that we really want to do effectively because it has such rewards. We all feel that VOSA’s policy and the way it implemented its policy was doomed to fail. We raised it with the DFT. Again, the DFT has been incredibly helpful. A lady called Rachael Watson has come to our assistance. She has had meetings with VOSA. She has been to Bristol to see how things work. She is actually going on a visit with VOSA next week to see how it works. There is a whole area of change that needs to happen very quickly because we are just not doing the bus cases that we want to. Q74 Chair: What was VOSA doing wrong? Beverley Bell: In summary, it was giving highly complex work to vehicle examiners. In summary, it was asking vehicle examiners to advise operators on how to run reliable and punctual services. Q75 Chair: It was asking the operators. Beverley Bell: No. In summary, it was asking vehicle examiners, whose job it is to go and make sure the brakes are working, to go to an operator, look at its systems for running reliable services, to find if those systems were good or bad, and, if they were bad, to advise the operator on how to run a reliable and punctual service. That was the original plan. I think vehicle examiners are there—I am sorry if I am being too blunt—to check vehicles. All the bus compliance monitors were made redundant. Q76 Mr Sanders: Who should have been doing this job? Beverley Bell: The bus compliance officers. VOSA had dedicated bus compliance officers. Q77 Mr Sanders: They are no longer there. Beverley Bell: No; they have been made redundant. Q78 Mr Sanders: But the function they had to perform is still a duty that had to be carried out. Beverley Bell: Yes. I would venture to suggest that maybe traffic examiners, who are more used to looking at paper systems and procedures, would have been the ones to have done it. I am not being in any way derogatory about vehicle examiners. They do a fabulous job, but it seemed odd that the vehicle examiners would be going out and looking at bus service reliability, which is a very complex area. Q79 Mr Sanders: Whose job would it be to take that up and inform the Minister that this is happening? Beverley Bell: Commissioners have historically done it through their annual reports. That is how, historically, we have made our concerns known. I have raised my concerns with VOSA and with the DFT in my capacity now as Senior through the

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Ev 16 Transport Committee: Evidence

22 April 2013 Beverley Bell

tripartite meetings that we have. That is why the DFT came to our assistance. Q80 Mr Sanders: Did you raise it verbally or did you present a report? Beverley Bell: Both. Q81 Mr Sanders: So that is somewhere within the Department’s filing system. Have they acted upon it? Have they responded to you? Beverley Bell: Yes. Q82 Mr Sanders: What have they done? Beverley Bell: As I said to you before, this lady called Rachael Watson, who works in the Department for Transport, along with Anthony Ferguson, was very proactive in saying, “We have a difficulty; let’s see if we can resolve it and let’s find some solutions.” That is where we are now. I didn’t do it by report; I did it by letter. Q83 Mr Sanders: So it hasn’t actually been resolved. Beverley Bell: No. Like everything else at the moment, it is a work in progress. Q84 Chair: Is there an issue about getting access to information? Are there confidentiality agreements that stop you getting information about the performance of buses? Beverley Bell: That is very interesting because I am in the process of redrafting the statutory guidance document. I notice that pteg said in their response that they felt that Commissioners should be given access to performance monitoring reports by operators and on operators. I shall be dealing with that. I see no reason why there shouldn’t be any publication of data on bus reliability and punctuality, whether that is from the transport authorities like Transport for Greater Manchester, Merseytravel, or whether it is by the operators themselves. Q85 Chair: What do you need to help you to enforce standards of punctuality and safety in respect of the vehicle operators? Beverley Bell: With regard to punctuality, the Commissioners would like a clear definition of who does what within VOSA, who they report to, what the parameters are and how the money that the DFT gives to VOSA is spent. I would like that to be a tripartite dialogue between VOSA, the TCs and the DFT. It is; it is happening. I could almost come back for the rerun in a year and say, “That was a year ago. How are we now?” You have asked me about safety. I am not unduly concerned about the state of the fleet with regard to wheels falling off. I am much more concerned about drivers—tired drivers, drivers who are abusing the

hours, drivers who fall asleep at the wheel, enforcement of cabotage and enforcement of combined transport. That is what we are concerned about. Q86 Chair: Are you saying that you don’t have enough information on that aspect? Beverley Bell: We don’t have the cases brought to us that we used to have brought to us. We used to be given cases that were what we would call goodquality revocation cases, if I am forthright. They are the cases where it was likely that the operator would be put out of business because it was fiddling the drivers’ hours rules, fiddling the tachographs and driving all the time. We don’t get those cases, but it still goes on. That is what is so frustrating for us as regulators. It must be even more frustrating for the operators who have to compete with them. Q87 Chair: What has caused this change? Beverley Bell: You will have to ask VOSA that because we don’t have any influence. Historically, we have not had influence over what VOSA chooses to do in its enforcement. We have never been consulted about it. Q88 Chair: Presumably VOSA must be aware of your concerns. Beverley Bell: Yes. Q89 Chair: What is their response? Beverley Bell: Their response is the five pillars that are referred to in their business plan and to consult with us at an early stage, but I don’t know what the strategy is. I don’t know what the plan is. If I give you an example, in my traffic area, I get anonymous letters complaining about operators. It took four occasions before VOSA would even act on that. There were four occasions of me raising it. When eventually it came to my attention, drivers were tipping off the cards—in other words, falsifying their tachograph charts. If that had been left to VOSA, nothing would have happened. I don’t want to single out one case. They do some fabulous work, but I don’t think they do enough of it. I am saying too much; I am sorry. Q90 Chair: When was the last time you raised this with VOSA? Beverley Bell: It is a constant theme. It is aware that it is a constant theme. I say it at every event I go to with VOSA and I say it at every public event where I give a presentation. I say, “I am sure VOSA will be working hard to target the serially and seriously noncompliant.” It knows that it is a concern. That is what the compliance forum is all about with the DFT. Chair: Thank you very much indeed. You have given us important and disturbing information.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 17

Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Alastair Peoples, CEO, VOSA, and Stephen Hammond MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport, gave evidence. Q91 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Would you give your name and position? Stephen Hammond: Good afternoon. I am Stephen Hammond, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport. Within my portfolio is the work of the motoring agencies. Alastair Peoples: Good afternoon. My name is Alastair Peoples. I am chief executive of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. Q92 Chair: Mr Hammond, I understand that you want to make a statement. Stephen Hammond: I would be grateful just to make a very brief opening statement, if that were possible. Thank you, Mrs Ellman. I am pleased that we are here this afternoon. I am pleased for your interest in the work of VOSA and for inviting Mr Peoples and me to give some evidence. Their work should be seen in the context of the new Motoring Services Strategy, which outlines broad reform proposals and sets out three key principles for the future. Those are: first, putting customers and businesses at the heart of everything all the agencies do; secondly, rationalising the number of bodies and agencies that deliver those services; and, thirdly, working more closely and collaboratively with partners to deliver those services. The response of the recent consultation that we did on that will be published in the summer. As part of the strategy, VOSA is part way through a successful change programme to bring testing closer to the customer. We now have over 300 non-VOSA testing sites, and I anticipate that 85% of the tests will be conducted outside VOSA premises by this time next year. Since the Committee’s last inquiry, VOSA has focused its enforcement activity where it will make the most difference to road safety. VOSA is gearing up to enforce the HGV Road User Levy Act. This legislation was passed through Parliament unamended and enjoys strong cross-party support. It has been welcomed by the haulage industry. I anticipate that there is nothing to prevent the new scheme starting from April 2014, which will mean for the first time that foreign vehicles will pay a contribution to take account of the wear and tear they cause on the UK road network. Finally, VOSA has reduced the deficit of £46.6 million as of April 2010 to a deficit of £4 million as of March 2013. That is a big saving over a three-year period, while making no overall increases in the HGV and PSV testing fees since 2009. I am aware that the TSC visited a VOSA facility in February. I trust that that was an informative visit and that you were impressed by the effectiveness and dedication of the staff. We look forward to answering your questions this afternoon. Q93 Chair: Thank you very much. We have just heard some evidence from Beverley Bell, Senior Traffic Commissioner. She has just expressed great

concern to us about the way in which VOSA goes about its enforcement activities and the lack of involvement of the traffic commissioners. She has great concern about the areas covered, amounting to a problem in relation to public safety in general. Mr Peoples, are you aware of this issue? Alastair Peoples: I don’t recognise the issue. For the past number of years we have been very successful in setting up a targeting regime that is benchmarked within Europe. It is something we call the Operator Compliance Risk Score. It has been very widely accepted within the industry as targeting those most in need of our attention at the roadside. We will be looking very closely at the evidence of what impacts most in terms of road safety, and we have been working very closely with stakeholders at all levels, whether it is within the Department or the industry, in terms of identifying and highlighting the approach that we would have. It is of some concern that Mrs Bell has raised this because there is no evidence that I have found that that is the case. Q94 Chair: Are you telling us that you are not aware of a major issue and major concerns from the traffic commissioners in relation to VOSA activities? Alastair Peoples: The traffic commissioners have never raised those concerns with me. In terms of our effectiveness, we are looking at much greater targeting of areas that we believe impact most on road safety. It is fair to say that the industry and those that represent the industry recognise that we are targeting the most serial of offenders in terms of the roadside. It is not the only thing that we do. Clearly there is education and training required, but, in terms of our targeting, we firmly believe that we are targeting those that require most attention from VOSA. Q95 Chair: Minister, are you aware of this issue— of this major concern being expressed by the traffic commissioners? Stephen Hammond: Like Mr Peoples, they have never raised that issue with me in terms of their major concern. I am aware of the targeting regime that VOSA have. I am aware of what they are trying to do and their scores. I am aware of their approach in certain cases in going straight to red with certain operators, but the traffic commissioner has not raised that concern, certainly with me, since I have been in post. Q96 Chair: How would you describe your relationship with the traffic commissioners? Alastair Peoples: I would describe it as businesslike. In terms of my relationship with Mrs Bell, I feel it is very cordial. I don’t have much day-to-day discussion with the traffic commissioners themselves. I work through Mrs Bell, who is the Senior Traffic Commissioner. It is fair to say that, in working through some of the issues that we have had, it has not always been a marriage made in heaven, if I can use that phrase. I am the accounting officer for the

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Ev 18 Transport Committee: Evidence

22 April 2013 Alistair Peoples and Stephen Hammond MP

agency and for the budget held by the traffic commissioners. That accountability brings with it some responsibility in terms of managing public money. I want to pay some credit to Mrs Bell for moving the traffic commissioner audit to one that has just been announced, which is a reasonable audit, where she has spearheaded moving things forward to a point where I am now much more content as accounting officer in terms of my responsibilities. Q97 Chair: Let me ask you about the Authorised Testing Facilities and the system that you are now operating. How do you see the system at the moment? Do you think it is working satisfactorily, or do you intend to make any changes, whoever would like to reply? Stephen Hammond: I will start off and, if Mr Peoples wants to join in, he can. Like you, I have seen the system in operation. I have had a chance to examine the records since the system has been in place. It is effectively VOSA managing a very successful change programme. It is bringing testing closer to the people. It is not privatisation; it is a contract arrangement. So far, it is impressive that, in the three years since they have moved this process, there have been no issues with non-compliance of VOSA staff in terms of attendance at these ATFs. The key thing is to be clear that, at these ATFs, it is VOSA staff who are undertaking these tests and that they are the keepers of quality. Alastair Peoples: I would add to that. This ATF strategy is not in isolation in terms of being just a good thing to take testing closer to the customer. It was meeting a real need within the agency. Ministers pointed out the deficit in which the agency found itself and the considerable amount of money that would be needed to refurbish the VOSA estate. Old thinking would have been to increase fees and refurbish the estate, much of which predates the motorway network and is in any case in the wrong place. New thinking would be that, instead of bringing the vehicles to us, we should take the examiners to them. On your visit, particularly with Ford, you saw the real benefits for them, both in terms of financial payback and, more importantly, the business opportunity it gives in terms of the different use of the resources. I am very impressed at how well this has taken off. We are in austere times. The fact that this growth has been nearly exponential has been fantastic. We are now at 300 ATFs. Indeed, since you visited, there have been 17 more ATFs that have come online. We are now looking at some 85% of all our work being done within 12 months. That is fantastic in terms of real business benefits. There are 320 more sites than we had ourselves, without adding any additional burden to the test fee. Q98 Kwasi Kwarteng: I have a question for the Minister. Clearly, there is a slight mismatch in terms of the evidence the Committee has heard. Does that concern you in terms of the channels of information from VOSA to your Department? Are you satisfied that the communication is working well?

Stephen Hammond: Are we now going back to the traffic commissioners and the evidence you have heard on that? Kwasi Kwarteng: Yes. Stephen Hammond: Of course the traffic commissioners also have an open line to my Department. I attended the opening of one of the new traffic offices less than six weeks ago in Cambridge. I had a chance to speak for at least half an hour with the traffic commissioner there at their new premises. Again, all I can say is that I hope the traffic commissioners will use the opportunity to make their concerns known to me. Q99 Sarah Champion: Minister, when we spoke to the industry, they supported the idea of the ATFs employing their own staff rather than VOSA staff to test vehicles. Do you think the system should be liberalised further? Stephen Hammond: At the moment I am keen to ensure that we get to the target number of ATFs open. I am not persuaded that that is the right step at this stage, partly because I want to ensure that the quality of testing is maintained and is as rigorous as it has been—and it is because we know the VOSA staff are there. That might be something to look to in the future, but it would obviously require oversight to maintain the quality that we expect. It is not something that I anticipate discussing in the near term. Q100 Sarah Champion: Mr Peoples, we have heard anecdotal evidence of people facing long delays in getting appointments. What can be done to overcome that? Alastair Peoples: There are a number of things. This is now moving the booking itself to the 300 ATFs directly. It is a bit like the MOT model where they deal directly with the ATF. One of the things that have just gone live on gov.uk is how to find your nearest ATF. You can put in your postcode and find out where the nearest ATF is. We give contact details and the type of test that they conduct. There is then an opportunity for you to go and book directly with the ATF. We also operate a contact centre, so, again, if you dial the VOSA number, you go through to our contact centre in Swansea. They will give you the nearest ATF, but they will also tell you what the first available booking is at a VOSA test site beside you. Q101 Sarah Champion: I am particularly concerned with more rural and outreach areas. Are you going to set targets for distances so that people only have to travel, say, an hour before getting to a site? Alastair Peoples: We currently work with a notional 30-mile, 60 minutes, for 90% of customers. On the basis that we have now provided 324 additional sites, it is our contention that people will have to travel less and not more. In those rural areas where there may not be particular take-up in ATFs, we still have our own test sites. We have an opportunity to keep those, or, as we do in some of the rural sites in Scotland, we can enter into agreements with operators. There is one in Fort William where we rent a lane one day a week from them. There is another one where we own a site in Portree. We use it one day a week and we rent it

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 19

22 April 2013 Alistair Peoples and Stephen Hammond MP

out to one of the major bus companies four days a week. There are lots of different opportunities where there is not particular take-up in ATF to ensure that there is provision of service as close as we can make it. Q102 Sarah Champion: I can see that that is great for the 90%, but 10% are probably in the rural outlying areas and they are probably the smaller operators. Is there any certainty you can give them that they won’t be giving up a whole day trekking to one of these centres? Alastair Peoples: That is the case at the moment in many cases because distances are greater in those rural areas. Quite often, operators have to travel quite large distances. I am anticipating that that will not get any worse, and, indeed, with ATFs, it is going to get a lot better for them. Q103 Sarah Champion: Is there any evidence of larger operators not opening up their testing sites to competitors? Alastair Peoples: The way we are looking at this at the moment is that it is entirely voluntary whether you become an ATF, whether you have open access or whether you provide third party. As we went to Ford, they recognised that they may decide to open this up to trusted third parties. For many operators this is a saving for them. They have enough work just to do it themselves. I am very content that the vast majority of the sites that we have are open access. Clearly, in any future provision of service in terms of where we close down VOSA sites, we do very sensitive market analysis to look at where the sites are, where they are in relation to the current operators, and whether or not they are open access third party. That is the kind of decision and debate that we have when we are putting a submission to the Minister proposing that we should cease testing in any particular site. Q104 Chair: What kind of information do you have about how this new system is working? What kind of records do you keep? Alastair Peoples: We have a number of records. First, we know how many vehicles are going through on any particular day. We know the pass/fail rate. We know the reasons for failure of each examiner. That information is exactly as we capture at our own VOSA test sites. Q105 Chair: What about people who want appointments for testing? Do you have any records of how many people are kept waiting or for how long? Alastair Peoples: No. It is a bit like the MOT scheme for cars. The booking with the ATFs is entirely between the ATF and the operator. Q106 Chair: When we are given anecdotal information that people are kept waiting and there are problems, you do not have comprehensive information on that. Alastair Peoples: We do not have comprehensive information on that, but we still have the VOSA network and the VOSA contact centre. On our website

you can book a test either with a VOSA site or going through the contact centre. Q107 Chair: But you do not have information to know that. Alastair Peoples: Not specifically on the ATFs, no. Q108 Chair: Minister, can I just confirm that you are still committed to a national network of VOSA testing facilities as well as the private sector ones? Stephen Hammond: The case will be whether or not that is necessary given the roll-out of up to 85% of tests at non-VOSA sites. We will ensure that there is provision for testing where it is required, but we obviously won’t duplicate what VOSA are putting in in terms of the ATFs. Q109 Chair: What does that mean in relation to your position now? Are you committed to a national VOSA system now, or have you not yet taken the decision? The last time we were told by your predecessor that a national VOSA system would be retained. Stephen Hammond: There is a national VOSA system retained in that the work is being done. What you are talking about is whether I am committed to a national network of VOSA sites. I am saying to you that the roll-out of ATFs is currently at something like 65% of the work, going up to about 85% of the work, in terms of the work that can be done only in the sites. I am committed to ensuring that there are sites to meet what Mr Peoples has described as his test in terms of availability. Some of those will remain in the public sector, but the bulk of the sites, as you can see, will be ATFs that are in the private sector. Q110 Chair: What work is being done to facilitate night-time working? Alastair Peoples: Is this in relation to enforcement or testing? Chair: Testing. Alastair Peoples: At the moment, we get in touch with the ATF operators every three months and ask them what provision of service they want for the next three months. We try and match whatever the criteria are with the resource that we have. In the main, most of the work is between six in the morning and eight at night. We hear a lot that people want 24/7 working. When we go and talk to them about exactly what they want, it is a future tense thing. “We would like to have that capability. We would like to have that facility.” I can give you a small anecdote. I was out recently at a new ATF operator who is just building a new site. He was working 18 hours a day. When I asked him why he didn’t open 24 hours a day, he said that, when he is doing repairs in the middle of the night and suddenly he finds that he needs to fit an expensive part, generally speaking the transport manager of the owner of the vehicle does not want a call in the middle of the night to see whether he wants to spend the money. This will fit maybe own-account operators. We are very happy to talk to anyone about the provision that they have. We are committed to trying to ensure that we match resource with demand, whatever time of the day it is.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Ev 20 Transport Committee: Evidence

22 April 2013 Alistair Peoples and Stephen Hammond MP

Q111 Chair: Would test fees increase if people had to work unsociable hours? Alastair Peoples: There is an element of crosssubsidisation here. We don’t want to give a particular service at a lower cost to one operator. In terms of where we want to take testing, we are looking at providing that flexibility through a potential change of terms and conditions. We hope that will have the benefit of fitting the demand from the ATFs with the resource available from the staff. It will allow people to choose whether they want to work longer days and have fewer of those days working in an attempt to match the resource from the ATFs with the demand. Our overall aim is to give the ATF operator what they need. I would say that sometimes they are asking for a resource that they cannot use. When we are talking to people about the next three months, what we are looking at are the last three, six or nine months and how they have used the resource. There is a danger that people will ask for so much that we are drawing resource from one of their competitors because they then tend to cancel that resource at the last minute. It is a fine balance of matching demand with resource and looking for expertise. Q112 Chair: Are you expecting fees to go up? Alastair Peoples: I am anticipating that, overall, the strategy will keep the fees neutral—as I have said, we have not increased our fees for the last three years— with no significant increase over the next two years. I am looking at the ATF strategy either keeping fees as they are or the potential in real terms to reduce them over a period of time. Q113 Chair: How do you deal with foreign HGVs in relation to drivers’ hours? Alastair Peoples: We have a targeting system for foreign vehicles. When we stop foreign vehicles we do a complete check. We are looking not just at drivers’ hours but roadworthiness issues. I wonder, Chair, if you are alluding to the issue of graduated deposits here in terms of how we deal with them. Q114 Chair: I am asking you a question. I know there are a number of issues, but I am asking how you deal with the specific issue of drivers’ hours. We have had a number of representations. Alastair Peoples: We will look at the tachograph and draw down the information stored on the tachograph. Our examiners are trained to analyse those. We are looking for evidence of non-compliance with the drivers’ hours. We are now finding some issues in relation to tampering. There may be elements of fraud in that as well. We have a particular way of dealing with the fraud elements of that. We look at the charts; we identify the driver, and we draw that down and do our own analysis against the relevant legislation. Q115 Chair: We have been told that a number of trucks are using magnets to falsify drivers’ hours. Is that something that you are addressing? Alastair Peoples: It is. This is becoming more significant now. The issue around drivers driving longer has a real competitive advantage for some

operators. We are finding some very sophisticated means of tampering with the tachographs. Ironically, the electronic tachograph was introduced to try and do away with the fraudulent element of the waxed tachograph charts. We have found that it has spurred a whole new industry in terms of manipulation. Our examiners are well trained in looking for any abnormalities in the record. We are unique in Europe in having live real-time access to a European-wide database in terms of use of magnets. We are very well aware of that. We also now have the sophistication of using an endoscope to look inside gearboxes and small compartments to check and see whether or not there are any magnetic devices found. Where we do find them we take the appropriate action, which usually involves the police. We also potentially prohibit the vehicle and put that same information online as soon as we can, so it is open not only to the rest of our examiners but for roadside examinations Europe-wide. Q116 Chair: Are you satisfied that you have enough powers to deal with issues from HGVs? Alastair Peoples: Yes, we are satisfied. We work with the primary enforcement agency, which is the police. If there are any issues in terms of things that we can’t deal with, we will call down on the police potentially to arrest the individual there and then. Q117 Chair: You have mentioned accessing information on a cross-European level. Are you satisfied that the systems are there to enable you to do that? Alastair Peoples: We are the only enforcement body in Europe that has real-time access to this at the roadside. You can go on to the website and access that, so we are ahead of the game on that one at the moment. Stephen Hammond: It is also fair to say that a new generation of tachographs has come in since last year. Alastair Peoples: The third generation is trying to address this further element of magnets and magnetic effect. It will be non-ferrous material. Hopefully, it will try and address the issue of magnet tampering. Q118 Chair: Do you think the traffic commissioners’ independence is undermined by their close association with VOSA? Stephen Hammond: As you know, Mrs Ellman, there are three things. As Mr Peoples has already said, he is the accounting officer for them; so there is that element. We are all aware that they have statutory independence in terms of the traffic commissioners’ operations. Although the staff that are in traffic commissioners’ offices are employed by VOSA, they are responsible to or they effectively work for the traffic commissioner. I am also aware that this issue has been raised. I have spoken to Mr Peoples about it on at least one occasion. I am clear that the statutory independence is there for the traffic commissioner. Where I think there is some concern, which one or two people have raised, is with regard to the implications of the 1981 Act, which allow some of the activities of the

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 21

22 April 2013 Alistair Peoples and Stephen Hammond MP

commissioner to be done by VOSA staff. Those are at a very low level. I have also looked at where the new relocation of the traffic commissioners’ offices have in some cases caused concerns. I visited Cambridge and I have also looked at the one in the south-west. It is clear they have separate entrances and the buildings are properly designated as the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. Q119 Chair: Do you think this is a serious issue? Stephen Hammond: It would be a serious issue if the independence of the traffic commissioners was not guaranteed by law or, operationally, they were not seen or perceived to be independent. I believe that they are seen to be independent by the vast bulk of the industry and by their operations. Q120 Chair: The memorandum of agreement between VOSA and the traffic commissioners was due to be finalised by the end of the 2012–13 financial year. That has not happened. What is going on? Stephen Hammond: There are still ongoing discussions about one or two of the elements inside that memorandum of understanding. Some of that is to do with the resources, and some, as Mr Peoples has pointed out, is to do with the audit and the movement of the audit process. Q121 Chair: What about branding of the commissioners? Would that help? Stephen Hammond: The commissioners are branded “The Office of the Traffic Commissioners”. That is branded on their buildings as you go in. The buildings are not branded VOSA buildings; they are branded “The Office of the Traffic Commissioners”. Q122 Chair: Do you think this whole issue of independence and whether they are independent— whether it is perception or reality—is anything that should cause you concern? Stephen Hammond: Mrs Ellman, I am aware of the issue and I keep it under review. So far, the traffic commissioners have not come to me and said they are concerned that the balance is now wrong. Of course it would be of concern to me if I thought that the independence of that office had been altered. Q123 Chair: Mr Peoples, do you think this is a big and serious issue? Alastair Peoples: To pick up on your point about perception and reality, Chair, this is more a perception than reality. I can certainly look the Committee in the eye and say that I have never attempted in any way to interfere with her judicial authority, nor have I any evidence of any of my staff doing that. The staff who work in the Office of the Traffic Commissioner work for the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. The work is ring-fenced for the traffic commissioner and they work under the delegated authority of the traffic commissioner, which can be withdrawn at any time. We try and do everything that we can to ensure that that independence is there—and visibly there. Any time that we can get any evidence, even of the perception, then we are very happy to look at it. Indeed, recently one of the traffic commissioners said

that when you go into some of the offices as a visitor you get a VOSA pass. Once we heard that, we very quickly moved to a separate Office of the Traffic Commissioner pass. As we become aware of anything, no matter how small it is, we try and resolve it because we are aware of the sensitivities in this. But I have absolutely no evidence that their independence is in any way being impeded by anything that VOSA does. Q124 Chair: Are you saying that you are not aware of any major ongoing issue? Alastair Peoples: I am not aware of any major ongoing issues in terms of their independence, no. Q125 Chair: What about the fact that the traffic commissioners no longer have a say in VOSA’s strategic and volume targets and the way you operate? Do you think that is a problem? Alastair Peoples: I do not think it is a problem. There are a number of forums where they have a say in this. It is very clear in terms of that independence that you talked about to ensure there is clear blue water between what they do and the enforcement role that VOSA does. We are well aware of that, and there are a number of opportunities for the Senior Traffic Commissioner, for my staff and the Department to get together to look at what we are doing strategically. We also agree with the Department on what our enforcement strategy for the next year is in the agency’s business plan. We also agree with the Department, who have access to the traffic commissioners, in terms of how we spend the non-fee element of our budget, which is the single enforcement budget. That looks at things like foreign operators, limousines or whatever. There are a number of opportunities for them to make their voice known without affecting that independence that we talked about earlier. Q126 Chair: Again, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that, as you see it, there aren’t any issues that are not being dealt with? Alastair Peoples: That is exactly how I see it. There are ample opportunities, either directly to me, through the sponsorship department or through some of those meetings, for the Senior Traffic Commissioner to make her voice heard and the concerns, if there are any, of her colleagues. Q127 Chair: This is not the information we were given just before you came into this meeting. Minister, perhaps you want to comment. The evidence we have heard this afternoon before you came to give your own evidence is really very much at odds with the impression that you are giving now. We had the impression before that there were major ongoing problems that have not all been resolved. Does it concern you that we have heard a different narrative? Alastair Peoples: Yes. Again, Chair— Chair: Is it a surprise to you? Alastair Peoples: It is a surprise at one level. I think the traffic commissioners guard and value their independence very highly. Their perception may be as you say; I think the reality is somewhat different. The

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Ev 22 Transport Committee: Evidence

22 April 2013 Alistair Peoples and Stephen Hammond MP

element for me is that, where I am made aware, directly or indirectly, of any issues around that, I am very happy to address them, either directly with the Senior Traffic Commissioner or through the sponsoring department. Quite often I do meet with Mrs Bell and colleagues in the Department to deal with those ongoing issues, regardless of whether they are perception or reality, whether strategic or tactical. I am always very happy to resolve those issues. Q128 Chair: Minister, do you want to add anything? Stephen Hammond: I do want to add something. I am aware that, since original evidence was submitted, the framework document has been submitted to the Committee, which should, I hope, give some confidence about the clarification of the relationship. The relationship and the independence are there in statute. As a result of what you have just said, I shall look tomorrow to see where that might be. As we said earlier, I have had a number of conversations—not only with Mr Peoples but with Mr Peoples and others—to ensure that the statutory guidance and statutory obligations of the traffic commissioners are met. Q129 Sarah Champion: I know we have focused on perception. Perception is in many cases more important than the reality; it is what people deal with. One of the other things that we discussed with Mrs Bell was about enforcement. Her view—and she had the data to back it up—was that VOSA may be targeting smaller operators, who were easy pickings, at the expense of going for bigger prosecutions and actions against the larger operators. Do you think that is a fair comment? Is that something that you recognise? Alastair Peoples: I have not seen the evidence that she produced, but certainly it is very likely that the numbers she has taken are from our effectiveness report. The Operator Compliance Risk Score, which is seen as a benchmark throughout Europe and highly lauded by the industry as targeting the right people, targets those operators, large or small, that pose the greatest risk to road safety, whether that is in drivers’ hours, roadworthiness or in terms of the foreign fleet. We don’t specifically target the smaller operators. The criteria of OCRS are well known and look at roadworthiness. There is a formula for working out exactly what that is on the basis of annual test or on each roadworthiness encounter at the roadside. Q130 Sarah Champion: Your trade union suggested that cuts to VOSA’s enforcement budget were leading you to curtail some enforcement activity. Is that the reality? Alastair Peoples: In terms of cuts to VOSA’s enforcement activity we are a trading fund, so the funding of enforcement from the fee depends on the number of people who apply for annual tests. If there is less money coming in, then we have to look at how we spend that. The single enforcement budget has been maintained for this year. There has been no cut on that, although we were looking at what the impact of cuts would be over time.

In preparing for this, we looked at the number of front-line staff. The number of front-line staff, whether it is vehicle testers on the testing side or examiners, is broadly the same as 10 years ago. We have much better tools in terms of ANPR weigh-inmotion sensors. We look at targeting through the OCRS. There is much greater use of intelligence. I see no significant cut on the enforcement budget at all. Q131 Sarah Champion: It is admirable that you are obviously using technology and getting a lot more sophisticated to keep the prosecution level up, but, if your enforcement budget was higher, would you be able to prosecute more people and therefore would our roads be safer? Alastair Peoples: I need to be careful here. As a good chief executive we can always use more resources, but it does take careful planning. In terms of the trading fund, the money that I would need to provide those resources will have to come in through fees. That is unlikely to happen. On the single enforcement budget we have some more money, primarily for the levy but also looking at light goods vehicles and limousines. We have to plan this because the resource generally buys staff and we have to procure them, train them and get them up to speed at the roadside. It is not the answer to everything. What we have planned for this year is the full and effective use of that resource. If we were going to bring in additional resource, it is going to take some long-term planning. It cannot just be turned on and turned off. At the moment, I think we are making very good use of the resources that we have. Stephen Hammond: The other point, it is fair to say, is that you are recruiting more examiners at the moment. In the last year we have recruited an extra 19, with 16 more to recruit. Is that right, Alastair? Alastair Peoples: Absolutely, yes. Stephen Hammond: The important point is that, although they are using the technology and the technology is impressive, they understand the need for personnel—and that is also being addressed. Q132 Chair: Does VOSA have adequate resources to ensure compliance with the measures in the HGV Road User Levy Act? Alastair Peoples: I believe we have. We have been working with the Department very closely since the Bill was passed. We have been looking with the Department in terms of setting up the system. The Department has given us £500,000 for looking at a capital budget for investment on ANPR and the database, and also £500,000 in terms of looking at the staff resource to get the scheme up and running. We have already been funded to the same extent of £500,000 in running costs next year. We have been highly involved in setting up the scheme and looking at the resources required, both in terms of setting up the scheme and running it next year. That will give us the equivalent of eight full-time staff. We look at this in terms of whether that would be appropriate. We will be building this resource into the normal enforcement that we do at the roadside. Q133 Chair: Do you have enough powers as well?

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 23

22 April 2013 Alistair Peoples and Stephen Hammond MP

Alastair Peoples: We believe we have enough powers in terms of issuing fixed penalties.

to share information with other EU nations. Obviously there will need to be a build-up of knowledge first.

Q134 Chair: There is a £200 fixed penalty notice. Is that enough to deter non-compliance? A small foreign operator might reckon it is worth paying that and not complying. Stephen Hammond: You are right, but it is a judgment of how many times in the UK people are not complying. On a two-day trip, if you did not comply, the £200 fine would not be satisfactory. Don’t forget that there are cameras being placed that VOSA is confident will pick up 95% of the movements, so the longer the trip, the bigger the risk. The £200 is a deterrent. I recognise it is not a full deterrent but it is a deterrent.

Q138 Kwasi Kwarteng: I want to ask about the HGV Levy. Is that something that you feel will be rolled out successfully? Are there any pitfalls or banana skins on the way that you have identified? Stephen Hammond: You will be aware that the Bill went through the House, and prior to that and during its passage we had to give a number of reassurances. The first reassurance, of course, was that we could enforce it. You have heard today from my answer, and at the evidence session we gave to the Bill, that VOSA is confident, as are the Government, that we can enforce it. Secondly, we had to look at what we would need to put in place to make it work. That is the contract for the foreign operator payment system that Mrs Ellman has just referred to, as is ensuring that there is enough knowledge. We also had to ensure that we were able to introduce simultaneous introduction for the UK and foreign vehicles at the same time. As you are aware, UK lorries pay the levy but get a refund against VAT, so they pay no more. The vast majority—94% of UK vehicles—will pay no more than they pay now. I am clear that we are rolling out the process, as we said, in terms of meeting the milestones and the timelines we need to get the contracts let, to get the extra enforcement in place to ensure that foreign vehicles know that there is an obligation upon them. They will be able to pay the levy either via a dedicated website, by telephone or in person at points of sale. We are clear that that is being made known to them as well. At this stage I don’t anticipate that there are any obstacles to the roll-out in April of next year.

Q135 Chair: The Government have said they would like to use automatic number plate recognition to help enforce the levy. Is that going to happen? Stephen Hammond: Yes, it is. I should also have pointed out in answer to your previous question that, although the £200 is the fixed penalty notice, were someone not to comply on more than one occasion, the vehicle can be impounded, which is my point about the longer trip. Equally, I should have mentioned that people can be taken to court and there would be a maximum fine of up to £5,000. You are right that we are using ANPR. It is going to be strategically placed, particularly around the busier port entrances and indeed at Ashford, which I believe you have seen. As I say, that is why I am confident that 95% of the movements will be picked up. Q136 Chair: The Government have also said that there will be a website for drivers to check that the levy has been paid. How far has that been developed? Stephen Hammond: As I said, the scheme will start in April of next year. At the moment we are in the process of ensuring that the contract is being let. I hope that we will be able to announce that before the summer recess. Q137 Chair: Can information found from the HGV Road User Levy be used for enforcement purposes? Stephen Hammond: My understanding is that, as we build up a knowledge base with intelligence, it will be used in a similar way. It will also be able to be used

Q139 Mr Sanders: Would you normally read all of the evidence of these sessions, because I would strongly recommend the evidence that was given to us before you entered the room? I would perhaps suggest that you call in the previous witness to inform yourself of some of the allegations that were made and the inconsistencies we heard about. Stephen Hammond: I hope you noted earlier that I said I was concerned that you had heard that and I was already intending to do something about it. Chair: Thank you very much for coming and answering our questions.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SE]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 24 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence Written evidence from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) (VOSA 06) 1. Overview of response 1.1 This memorandum is submitted by the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association on behalf of its members who own or manage over 133,000 heavy goods vehicle in the UK. 1.2 Our submission focusses on two key areas of the committee’s inquiry—Firstly to highlight how we believe VOSA is able to improve the arrangements for vehicle test sites and secondly to raise our concerns with the manner in which the HGV Road User Levy is to be implemented and enforced. 2. Who we are and what we do 2.1 The BVRLA is the trade body for companies engaged in the leasing and rental of cars and commercial vehicles. Our members provide rental, leasing and fleet management services to corporate users and consumers. 2.2 We represent the interest of members who large and small, publically listed and family-owned—who are all united in their support for the industry and its ability to provide affordable, sustainable and safe road transport. 2.3 BVRLA Members adhere to a mandatory Code of Conduct which helps to ensure customers receive high level of professional standards across and quality assurance. The Code is fully backed by an independent audit and a conciliation service. 3. How should arrangements for vehicle test sites be improved 3.1 We support the introduction of Authorised Testing Facility (“ATF”) scheme in so far as it helps to ensure that the location a heavy goods vehicles (“HGV”) can be tested is closer to the point of maintenance and inspection. 3.2 To ensure this objective is truly effective, HGV operators, owners or maintainers, as applicable, will need to make the necessary investment to develop their premises into ATFs. Under this arrangement VOSA will need to ensure that it is able to supply testing staff at levels that are sufficient to meet the ATF owner’s testing requirements and needs. We have real concerns whether VOSA is in fact able to meet this requirement. The reliance and dependency placed on VOSA by ATF site owners is likely to dilute the effectiveness of the scheme and weaken the business case to become at ATF site owner. 3.3 We remain concerned that VOSA’s will be unable to fully deliver the benefits for vehicle owners and operators, as it will, for example, be unable to provide testers during periods of high demands and on a day or time required by the ATF owner. This mismatch between demand and supply of HGV testing requirements is likely to erode VOSA’s key objective and will undermine growth in the number of ATF sites being available across the UK. Unless this is situation is carefully rebalanced then we believe it will lead to a reduction in testing sites being widely available and an erosion of choice leading to an uncompetitive testing environment. 3.4 It is on this basis that we strongly suggest that the Government considers the proposal which the BVRLA, together with other industry trade bodies, outlined in a letter to the Transport Minister in 2010. Under this proposal it was suggested that the Department for Transport should adopt the testing model currently available today for motor cars and light commercial vehicles where roadworthiness test is carried out by approved individuals or accredited testers as employees of the ATFs owner. 3.5 Adopting our suggested approach will not only enhance the choice of testing locations available, but will help to foster healthy growth of ATFs sites across the UK. The success of this approach will be supported by the fact that ATF owners will be in direct control of the time and day the tester is available to meet fully satisfy the testing needs. Despite VOSA’s best efforts, we do not believe this level of flexibility can be realistically delivered by VOSA staff without radically changing the terms of existing employment contracts. 3.6 The existing testing model for car and vans already has stringent approvals and is fully overseen and audited by VOSA. This approach has stood the test of time in terms of both standards and road safety outcomes. Furthermore, the cost savings under this approach will benefit truck owners, operators and the UK economy as a whole. These cost savings can be realised through the following: — greater flexibility as to the time and day when testing can take place; — improved efficiency through less restrictive employment requirements for the testers; — reduced fees for testing; and — greater choice in testing locations. 3.7 In addition, this approach towards testing of HGVs in the UK can be fully supported from a road safety perspective especially as GB-registered trucks are already maintained to a high standard and annual test failure rates, both before and after minor rectification, are at a record low level.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 25

3.8 It should also be noted that due to the stringent procedures in place of a full mechanical inspection of a HGV every six to eight weeks, then the annual roadworthiness test in effect an audit of the inspection and rectification process for HGVs. If one of the key objectives of the ATF approach by VOSA is to help bring the location of the vehicle test closer to where the vehicle is being inspected and maintained, then unfortunately we do not believe this is being delivered today. We say this as some of our members are reporting to us the difficulties they are experiencing in being able to book and find an ATF site which is able to meet their needs local to where the vehicle is being inspected or maintained. 3.9 We also regret to report to the committee that the situation will only get worse as VOSA continues with its strategy of closing its testing sites and there is a poor take up and growth of “open” ATF across the UK. It is therefore time for the industry to be given, and to accept, unequivocal responsibility for high standards of maintenance. The risks and penalties would be much higher in commercial vehicles than for cars and vans— for an in-house workshop, the risk of directly losing good repute; and for a third party workshop, the risk both to reputation and of putting at risk a customer’s good repute. Moving towards a system similar to that of cars and vans would, we believe, lead to a further strengthening rather than a diminution of safety standards. 3.10 We therefore respectfully urge the committee to recommend fully transferring HGV testing to the private sector, with standards monitored and enforced by an independent body such as VOSA as opposed to the current policy which is only move location to private sector premises. 4. How should the HGV Road User Levy Bill be implemented? 4.1 From an enforcement perspective, we question whether the Government has given sufficient attention to the issue of non-compliance by foreign hauliers. We say this as we feel there is a real threat that foreign hauliers will simply find it cheaper to take the risk of being caught and then pay a fine rather than pay the proposed £10 daily charge. 4.2 We do not believe that the proposed £200 penalty is set at a sufficiently high enough level to deter noncompliance by foreign haulier operating on UK roads. At this level we believe there will be a high percentage of foreign hauliers who will take the risk of being caught rather than pay the daily charge. BVRLA has as a consequence given oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee recommending that a penalty is raised to £1,000 to help ensure that it sends out a clear and effective deterrence message. 4.3 We also believe that VOSA, as the lead enforcement agency, needs to be given a robust and ring-fenced enforcement budget to help ensure a high level of compliance. It is vital that VOSA are visible to help reduce the threat of non-compliance. The department will also need to recognise that if the enforcement budget was to be substantially increased, then the overall net revenues would be reduced further. This of course would bring into question the overall cost benefit of introducing the scheme and move the dynamics from a financial contribution argument to a principles argument which we discuss in detail below. 4.4 Unless the HGV Road User Levy Bill is amended to address our key concerns then we do not believe the Government’s primary objective of delivering a fairer arrangement for UK HGV owners or operators will be secured. In particular, we continue to have some serious concerns that the proposed Levy, in its current form, is likely to result in a high number of UK HGV owners being financially worse off, which we detail below. 4.5 Firstly, for truck owners that are operating the greenest truck are currently financial incentivised to do so through the Reduced Pollution Certificate (“RPC”). The RPC enables the truck owner to obtain discount against the cost of their VED which we explain below is likely to be eroded through the introduction of the HGV Road User Levy. 4.6 Specifically, we believe the proposals will adversely impact owners, with a fleet of 50 or more vehicles, as they may be unable to retain the current financial benefits arising from the Reduced Pollution Certificate (RPC). As outlined, the proposals state that the existing VED reductions for vehicles holding a valid RPC will be replaced with grants of the same economic value. However, we believe that doing so could leave some UK HGV owners being exposed to the prospect that the proposed grant system may be incompatible with European State Aid rules which describe the rules for providing “de minimis” aid. We have calculated the direct financial loss of the RPC on our members, who own more than 50 HGVs on their fleet, to be £3.7 million per annum. We have provided a detailed calculation on how we have arrived at this impact at Annex A. 4.7 Secondly, as drafted in clause 7 of the Bill, UK truck owner will be restricted from being able to claim a refund on whole used months of the Levy when they either take the vehicle off the road or is sold. Clause 7 restricts the vehicle owner to only be able to claim 1/10th of the annual HGV levy paid. This moves away the principle of a taxpayer being able to claim a refund on their road tax for any unused whole months. This will normally be the case when the vehicle is sold or subject to a statutory off the road notice (SORN). 4.8 We estimate that that the proposal to restrict the amount a vehicle owner to obtain a refund on the unused portion of the Levy could cost our industry £2.7 million per annum, which is broadly equivalent to the amount of VED refund our members who dispose or sell 20,000 HGV vehicles each year. 4.9 When these cost impact on UK businesses is taken into consideration with the Department for Transport’s own estimates of £500,000 additional costs on UK HGV owners, could see an estimated increase in costs of £6.9 million per annum.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 26 Transport Committee: Evidence

4.10 We also note that the proposed charge will, when paid by foreign hauliers, bring in an estimated gross revenue of £40 million and net revenue of £18–23 million each year. Whilst we appreciate the uncertainties in accurately estimating such figures, we wish to express our concerns over the cost effectiveness of the scheme and indeed question whether the proposed scheme will be effective enough to help to secure the Government’s primary objective of ensuring foreign hauliers make a fair contribution for using the UK road network. 4.11 We therefore respectfully suggest that the Transport Select committee carefully reviews the cost impact the proposals will have both VOSA and UK businesses and that it urges the Department for Transport to ensure the necessary amendments are made to the Bill to ensure the proposals are broadly cost neutral to the UK taxpayers. 5. What effect will this new work have on VOSA? 5.1 As we have mentioned we believe that without a robust enforcement budget to help ensure a high level of compliance the scheme will not be successful. VOSA will need additional budget to fund resources to enforce the HGV road user charge. 5.2 Therefore the effect on VOSA if the department want the charge to be successful will be significant as VOSA will need to ensure there is permanent resource available at UK Ports to ensure foreign hauliers are deterred from avoiding paying the charge. 5.3 We would also suggest that any penalty or fines raised from non-compliance are hypothecated towards VOSA’s enforcement budget and not to the Exchequer. 5.4 We would therefore urge the committee to make the necessary recommendations to the Department for Transport to help ensure the enforcement is both effective and implemented in a way to send a clear deterrent message. 6. Closing Comments 6.1 We trust our comments add value to the scrutiny of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and in particular that the committee makes the necessary recommendations to help strengthen the ATF scheme and that it fully recognises the impact the introduction of the HGV Road User Levy could have on VOSA’s limited resources. January 2013

Written evidence from the Road Haulage Association (RHA) (VOSA 14) The Road Haulage Association welcomes the committee’s new inquiry into the work of VOSA, which holds a position of great importance within the road haulage industry. Its work affects all firms licensed to operate vehicles above 3.5 tonnes gross weight, their managers and drivers. Following the development of the Department for Transport’s testing transformation programme, VOSA also affects companies with Authorised Testing Facilities (ATFs). VOSA basic role in enforcing high standards of operation and supporting the Traffic Commissioners is widely understood and supported across the professional road haulage industry, although that support has come under some strain. The Road Haulage Association has concerns relating to all VOSA major activities relating to road haulage and trucks. Much of this concern was set out in an RHA policy document published during summer 2011 following extensive comment and discussion from members: Safer operation and fairer competition in road haulage. (Appendix A.) In summary: Annual testing: The current model—in which VOSA is both regulator and contractor to ATFs and a middle-man between the ATF and the operator having its vehicles tested—is fundamentally flawed and will remain so, even if detailed improvements to contracts and work practices are achieved. The government should end VOSA’s monopoly of carrying out annual testing of trucks and open that activity widely to the private sector on the basis of a high quality licensing system. Such a measure would strengthen the safety culture in the industry, improve efficiency and boost growth. Enforcement: We are calling for greater consultation and clarity on enforcement policy and greater evidence of effective action against serious offenders and those who have a persistent pattern of offending. We believe priorities need to be refocused. We are hopeful that some of these issues will start to be addressed by the Department for Transport through the new Commercial Vehicle Compliance Forum, which it chairs. Central Licensing Office, Leeds: We have concerns over the service levels being delivered by the Leeds office, which may be suffering from under-resourcing. Education: We do not believe that this is one of VOSA’s core functions and we are concerned that scarce resources continue to be expended in this area at a time of budget pressure on enforcement. Any number of organisations can educate—only VOSA (and the police) can enforce.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 27

Standards of operation of foreign vehicles: Standards remain unacceptably low, affecting both road safety and fair competition. We understand that not only are foreign vehicles more likely to be noncompliant than UK vehicles, for which enforcement is more effectively targeted, the offences tend to be significantly more serious. We are pleased that the principle of increased enforcement resources established by the three-year High Risk Traffic Initiative announced in 2008 has been maintained by the present government. (The RHA lobbied strongly for increased resources in 2007/8 and the issue was highlighted by the committee.) This increased funding has enabled VOSA to make a significant impact on the activities of foreign operators in this country and we commend VOSA for that. Some of its activities have been high profile, others less so. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. One serious issue is the falsification of drivers’ hours through the use of magnets and other devices. The RHA generated some controversy elsewhere in the EU when it called last summer for mandatory jail terms for those involved in falsification; nonetheless, members strongly believe that this level of deterrent is required in respect of both foreign and UK operators. Progress towards a common understanding and, particularly, harmonised enforcement of drivers’ hours and other haulage rules across the EU remains disappointingly slow. VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners We judge that the relationship between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners has in the past been strained and less open than is desirable. The two should, we believe, have a close working relationship based on a clear understanding of the role and responsibilities of each partner, VOSA as enforcer and provider of administrative support, the TCs as regulators. The position of the TCs has been strengthened, we believe, by the creation of a the statutory role of Senior TC appointed by the Secretary of State by the legal requirements put upon the TCs for greater transparency and engagement with the industry, which we are seeing in practice. The Framework Document agreed between the TCs and the DfT, including its agencies, agreed by ministers last year, has provided a positive basis for co-operation. It states that the TCs lie at the heart of a fair and proportionate licensing system and that the purposes of Goods Vehicle is to properly manage risks to road safety and to support fair competition. VOSA’s proper role in supporting the TCs is especially relevant in respect of examining operations at the roadside and at depots; and in providing administrative support through the Central Licensing Office in Leeds. The developments in 2012 have established a foundation for the development of an appropriate, closer relationship between VOSA and the TCs in 2013. HGV Road User Levy Bill We support this Bill and welcome the priority it has been given by the Coalition. We note, also, the strong support that it received from all sides during the Ways & Means Debate and the support and recognition of the road haulage sector that was a recurring theme in MPs’ contributions. We have welcomed the ministerial commitment to enforcement of the levy through VOSA and urge that resources be made available on a continuing basis. Enforcement of the levy, and the broader enforcement benefits that will be available have been recognised by members as valuable elements of the charging scheme. APPENDIX A SAFER OPERATION AND FAIRER COMPETITION IN ROAD HAULAGE http://www.rha.uk.net/docs/2%20Compliance%20Policy%20final.pdf January 2012

Written evidence from the Freight Transport Association (FTA) (VOSA 11) 1. The Freight Transport Association (FTA) is pleased to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into the activities of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). As the regulatory enforcement agency for road freight, this is an area of paramount importance to FTA and its members. 2. FTA is one of the UK’s largest trade associations and represents over 14,000 companies relying on or providing the transport of freight both domestically and internationally, to or from the UK. Our members include hauliers, freight forwarders, rail and air freight operators, through to customers—producers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. They cover all modes of transport—road, rail, air and sea. FTA members operate over 200,000 commercial goods vehicles on the roads in the UK; which is approximately half of the UK fleet of goods vehicles. FTA members also consign around 90% of goods moved by rail and around 70% of goods moved by air and sea. 3. Since the Committee’s inquiry was launched the Department for Transport has published a consultation on the Motoring Services Strategy. This review could have significant implications for VOSA; the Association

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 28 Transport Committee: Evidence

will be discussing the consultation with members shortly and would be happy to provide a further addendum to this submission following that consultation if it would be useful. Compliance Enforcement of Non-UK Operators and the Impact of the HGV Road User Levy Bill 4. The VOSA effectiveness report1 appears to indicate that the roadworthiness standards of the average foreign vehicle are broadly equivalent to those of the worst domestic vehicles. In 2010–11 VOSA stopped 63,157 UK vehicles and 90,894 non-UK vehicles. The prohibition rate for UK vehicles was 29.5% and for non-UK vehicles was 34.8%. However it is important to note that the agency has an array of tools at its disposal for targeting domestic vehicles—including the Operator Compliance Risk Score—where it does not for foreign vehicles, hence the non-UK average is equivalent to the part of the UK fleet expected to be highrisk. The equivalent average value for the UK fleet can be derived from the Fleet Check which stops a random sample of domestic vehicles. The sample was much smaller (5,586) but demonstrated a prohibition rate of 11.1%. 5. FTA believes that this demonstrates that foreign vehicles remain the greater roadworthiness liability on the UK’s roads and continues to express its concern at the discontinuation of the High Risk Traffic Initiative in 2010–11 specifically aimed at addressing this threat to road safety. At the time of submission FTA understands the UK is one of only 2 European Member States ready to meet its obligation to interlink its national register of operators with Brussels2. This means that the flow of enforcement data will be only one way in the first instance. This will be to the detriment of UK operators abroad, since enforcement agencies are more likely to target operators on whom they have targeting data than those on whom they have none. VOSA acknowledged this point in its response to the 2011 consultation on fees: Improved reporting of serious infringements by GB standard licence holders when abroad will benefit restricted licence holders by reducing the likelihood of the latter being targeted for enforcement checks.3 6. The administration of the HGV Road User Levy will make the activities of foreign vehicles in the UK more visible to the Department for Transport and to enforcement and planning authorities, but the success of the scheme will be heavily dependent on effective enforcement. One of the principal challenges with foreign vehicle issues is that very little is known about their numbers, frequency of visits and duration of stay. The last official survey was undertaken in 2009. The Levy will provide a self-funded monitoring mechanism to make foreign vehicle activity visible and measureable. 7. Reliable monitoring of foreign vehicle activity is essential for effective enforcement of the current restrictions on cabotage (domestic journeys undertaken by foreign vehicles). The European Commission is proposing the abolition of these restrictions as early as 2014. The implementation of the Levy will quantify the availability of foreign vehicles in the UK and the scale of threat they pose to safety on UK roads and competitiveness of domestic operators. The Government must not supply data on UK operators to the interconnected EU database until such a time as it is satisfied it will receive reciprocal data from other member States, and UK companies operating abroad are not significantly disadvantaged against operators from Members States who have not satisfied the requirements of the Regulation. The Government must take the opportunity provided by the HGV Road User Levy Bill to develop its targeting information on non-UK operators. The Testing Transformation Programme 8. FTA supports the principle of the Testing Transformation Programme (TTP) which should reduce the overall costs to industry of complying with the requirements of annual testing. 9. The Association has concerns about the true availability of testing under the transformation programme. Test bookings are made directly with individual Authorised Testing Facilities (ATF); there is no central booking system. The industry has a Service Level Agreement with the Agency which, for test availability at VOSA sites, states: VOSA is committed to providing test appointments as close as possible to the requested date, and has a target to offer to offer 85% of tests, booked at least 10 days in advance, an appointment at the Test station of choice within one working day of the requested date.4 In reality, VOSA’s performance against this indicator was usually in excess of 90%. Now that over 50% of annual tests are booked without VOSA’s involvement the Agency has no sight of booking fulfilment success levels; the Agency does recognise that the existing Service Level Agreement is no longer relevant and needs 1 2 3 4

VOSA Effectiveness Report 2010–11, table A1.24 Regulation EC 1071/2009 Article 16 Fees for HGV and PSV testing and operator licensing for 2011—Consultation Report, VOSA, p7, 3.3.9 Service Level Agreement between the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and Operators and Providers of goods vehicles, trailers and passenger carrying vehicles, January 2008

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 29

to be reviewed. It states, however, that its market research indicates that there are no difficulties with access to test bookings but FTA is receiving anecdotal reports of “2–3 month” lead times and “30 mile journeys” to find a test slot. The Association is appealing to its members to provide specific evidence where difficulties are experienced, but the concern remains that if there is a problem now or in the future VOSA might not be able to detect it. 10. VOSA has always insisted that cessation of testing at VOSA test stations will be preceded by market testing which demonstrates that private capacity will be in place by the time testing is due to stop. However, until VOSA has signed a contract with an ATF provider it cannot be listed publicly. This can be unnerving for industry. 11. FTA does have concern, however, that this commitment is being tested. At the first ATF operators’ conference held in February 2012 delegates urged VOSA’s Chief Executive to accelerate the VOSA test station closure process in order to give a better certainty of market for new providers opening up; the Agency has clearly listened to their requests. FTA remains concerned that if the Programme is artificially accelerated resulting in an undersupply of test availability in a region, for the reasons outlined above VOSA may not know about it until it is too late. VOSA must establish an effective mechanism for monitoring actual test booking availability and fulfilment across all test sites. VOSA must continue to ensure that the commitment that VOSA test stations will not cease testing until private capacity is established is not jeopardised by pressures from the ATF providers to accelerate the closure process. VOSA’s Support of the Work of the Traffic Commissioners 12. FTA welcomed the framework document agreed between the Road Safety Minister and Senior Traffic Commissioner describing the relationship between traffic commissioners and the Department for Transport published in July 2012. The situation whereby Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) staff work for the independent Traffic Commissioners but are employed through contracts with VOSA is confusing and often not recognised within industry, so having this relationship defined more clearly is welcome. 13. Both VOSA’s and OTC’s work appears to be hindered by the difficulty in sharing information and data. Operators often despair that the system for managing their operator licence is separate from the systems for accessing VOSA services such as their encounter5 and test history reports and test booking services at VOSA test stations. It is understood that this is due to restrictions imposed by data protection regulation but that a project is underway with VOSA, OTC and the Cabinet Office to overcome these problems and hopefully provide industry with a “one-stop-shop” for managing all aspects of operator licensing. 14. FTA is concerned about the transparency of funding of OTC. The operator licence fee is raised by the Traffic Commissioner. However the fee is managed by VOSA, included in the agency’s accounts and therefore it is the Chief Executive of VOSA who is accountable to Parliament for its management. The Association struggles to identify exactly how industry’s licence fee is being spent—in particular how it is used to service the Agency’s standing debt. At a time of low margins and huge commercial pressures for businesses, confidence that their money is being spent appropriately is vital to retain customer trust for VOSA. VOSA must provide better transparency of how it collects and spends the Operator licence fee. Enforcement Priorities and the Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS) 15. FTA members have welcomed the creation and development of the Operator Compliance Risk Score as a mechanism for targeting VOSA’s resource towards vehicles most likely to pose a risk to road safety. With the developments to the scoring parameters introduced in October 2012 VOSA adopted several of FTA’s proposals for improving the system. FTA welcomes this, but the October changes did also create some unwelcomed developments which are addressed below. 16. There is no question that OCRS has streamlined VOSA’s enforcement effort, but it must be emphasised that OCRS informs the decision to inspect a vehicle, not necessarily the decision to stop a vehicle. In 2010–11 11.5% of vehicles stopped by VOSA at the roadside were waved on without inspection.6 This is most likely because in a large proportion of cases the decision to inspect a vehicle is made after it has been stopped rather than as part of the stopping process. This is known as a “sift”. Operators become frustrated that their vehicles are subjected to the inconvenience of being stopped (often having to wait for a vehicle examiner to become available) and passed over as low-risk but without any recognition for their compliance efforts. 17. VOSA is clear that the inspection undertaken during a sift is not detailed enough to allow it to register as a clear encounter and thereby impact positively on their score. This is now better understood although not widely recognised by industry (FTA continues to communicate understanding of the stopping process to its members). Few operators would wish VOSA to expend its time and resource examining vehicles which they expect to be compliant. 5

6

The encounter report records all the occasions where vehicles specified on an operator licence have been subject to full roadside inspections of either roadworthiness or drivers hours and vehicle weight. VOSA Effectiveness Report Heavy Goods Vehicle Motor Fleets 2010–11, Table A1.24. 20,737 stops out of 180,374 were “sifts”.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 30 Transport Committee: Evidence

18. What is apparent is that the Agency needs to better incorporate the decision to inspect a vehicle in the decision to stop. The long-term aim should be that the agency does not stop a vehicle unless it already knows it wants to undertake an inspection. This will require all checking sites to have ANPR facilities upstream of the stopping officer. This proposal obviously carries with it a significant capital investment. However, a number of other government agencies deploy ANPR—most notably DVLA; FTA believes VOSA must work with DVLA and other agencies to establish the effective strategic deployment of the Government’s enforcement targeting resource. 19. The 2012 changes mentioned above included the establishment of “Trigger Indicators”, offences considered so severe that an operator’s score becomes red and stays red for a fixed period of time irrespective of the underlying baseline OCRS score (described as “Straight to Red”). These include some of the Most Serious Infringements (MSIs) identified in annex IV of Regulation EC 1071/2009. While the importance of MSIs should not be understated—their detection at the roadside already leads, by law, to an investigation culminating in the requirement for the Traffic Commissioner to question an operator’s repute—it would seem that the level of compliance required for an operator’s score to recover from such an encounter so that the Straight to Red override takes effect, is so great that VOSA may find itself inspecting a significant number of vehicles which are likely to be defect-free. 20. The October 2012 changes also brought in a level of graduation in the points awarded for traffic offences (drivers’ hours and overloading). New scores were calculated using data backdated three years. It may be that the new parameters are now more accurate however it seems that single—and perhaps isolated—incidents are having a significant impact upon scores. Again, this may be misguiding the targeting of VOSA’s enforcement resource. VOSA has agreed to consult FTA in its post-implementation review of the October changes. 21. Since the establishment of OCRS VOSA has viewed it as a tool to aid its enforcement efforts. Unforeseen benefits have also become apparent since its introduction; most notably as a tool for an operator to better understand its own compliance risk. Uses included internal reporting to the board of directors, holding maintenance providers to account and engaging drivers and staff more closely in their responsibilities to the company’s operator licence. Indeed, VOSA has identified a correlation between those operators who have accessed their scores and reports through the online self-service system and low compliance risk. FTA has identified OCRS as potentially the single biggest driver of compliance improvement in recent years, and this is undoubtedly welcome. 22. An additional use for the score has been in the letting of contracts: a potential customer may require that a bidder discloses its OCRS banding colour as part of the bidding process. This may then be reviewed as a performance indicator as part of the contract—the contract potentially being jeopardised by a detrimental change in banding colour. This is a practise which VOSA has always warned against stating that the OCRS colour simply represents a snapshot of compliance risk rather than a rating of overall compliance. However, its use in this way has prevailed not least by a number of public bodies; and while VOSA has made efforts to influence local authorities and public bodies where it can, it has no influence over the contents of a contract between two private companies. 23. A number of FTA members have started now to suggest that a road safety risk element to a commercial contract could potentially be a significant driver of road safety improvement. Commercial business showing an interest in road safety compliance should be embraced. The time has come for VOSA to consider how it can provide guidance to industry for including a road safety element to commercial contracting and its own responsibilities to that process. VOSA must commit to the long term aim to create the infrastructure to be able to use targeting data to identify high-risk vehicles before they are stopped. This may require cross-agency working. FTA is concerned that the Overall Traffic Score no longer represents an effective indicator of compliance risk. VOSA must abolish the Straight to Red process for Most Serious Infringements and review the mechanism for calculating the Overall Traffic Score, as it creates the risk of directing enforcement resource towards vehicles which would be expected to be compliant. VOSA must consider its role in assisting industry in its obvious desire to include a road safety compliance indicator in contract letting. Managing Industry Trust 24. The Traffic Commissioners are always keen to emphasise the importance of trust in the operator licensing system. This level of trust extends also to the enforcers: industry must trust that VOSA will pursue noncompliance in a firm, fair and transparent way. Central to maintaining this trust is the feeling of partnership working between the Traffic Commissioners, VOSA, trade associations and, most importantly, industry itself. 25. VOSA’s customer service standards rely upon on a feedback process from industry. This is done at a macro level through surveys, but at a local level through interactions between VOSA staff and operators’ staff and also through the agency’s complaints, compliments and suggestions procedures. It has become apparent, however, that operators may not always be inclined to give honest feedback where they can be specifically identified for fear that this may be held against them in some way in future. FTA has discussed this issue with VOSA on a number of occasions; and has been assured that that no such “retaliation” exists, that VOSA’s

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 31

targeting is purely based upon the variety of tools it uses for assessing road safety compliance risk (these include the professional opinion of the stopping officer). FTA accepts VOSA’s position on this, but is concerned that significant sections of the industry seem reluctant to move from the view that one does not question the enforcer. 26. This issue will become even more important as ATFs become more prevalent. The new working level relationship between VOSA and ATF staff required to make Testing Transformation a success will be reliant on a significantly higher level of trust than has been required previously. 27. This problem may not be entirely of VOSA’s making, but FTA believes the Agency needs to seriously consider how it can overcome this barrier to a more productive relationship with the industry. The Association looks forward to working with VOSA in achieving this. VOSA must consider how its image and position of trust with industry can be improved. January 2013

Written evidence from the National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA) (VOSA 08) The National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA) is the largest and most influential franchised motor dealer association in the UK, representing most new car, van, truck and motorcycle dealers. While all our dealer members transact with VOSA regarding MOT’s and other related services, it is the NFDA Van & Truck division who wish to respond to this inquiry as all of it’s members are involved in heavy goods vehicles; roadworthiness. Furthermore, many are now investors in new ATFs (Authorised Test Facilities) and it is this aspect of VOSA business that the NFDA wish to comment on. We believe the following recommendations would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of VOSA services for industry and the consumer: Our members (franchised truck sales and service dealerships) cover large geographical areas and the consensus is that they are generally pleased with the ATF concept. They would, however, have preferred full “privatisation”, thus allowing the dealerships/site owners to directly employ the testing staff, as is done for other motor vehicle MOT categories up to and including Class 7 MOT testing. However, it is consider best to reserve VOSA staff resources for audit and enforcement purposes. It is the NFDA belief that it would be better to have the testing staff directly employed by the dealership/site owner as this would release full potential value to the ATF investor and enable the test facility to have the flexibility of better asset utilisation. Additionally, the inevitable result of extended opening hours would be to the benefit of Operators and industry. Recently the NFDA invited members of other trade associations to our National Truck Council meeting to share opinion and look for common areas of approach as the ATF issues develop; the Road Haulage Association, Freight Transport Association, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association joined this meeting and the issues of particular concern were as follows: Firstly, Out of Hours testing; because of the current limited hours of VOSA testers, it fails to meet the demands of dealer customers and transport operators who expect a service 24/7, due to the costs incurred by an operator for any time a truck is off the road. Members would request a move to allow night and weekend testing to alleviate this. Secondly, the total privatisation of Heavy Goods Vehicle testing at ATFs was discussed. It was evident that the RHA and FTA did not have any objections and BVRLA and SMMT do not object in principal to total privatisation of this testing. To summarise, the NFDA believe that the future of privately run ATF’s is dependent on the HGV testers being employees of the ATF, thus allowing operators expectations to be met by facilitating a dealer facility that is both a one-stop-shop and can also offer 24/7 service to fleet operators. We believe the above recommendations would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of VOSA services for both industry and the consumer. January 2013

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 32 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Trade Union Side (VOSA 12) 1. Executive Summary 1.1 The VOSA TUS is disappointed that VOSA and the Department for Transport have failed to action or implement most of the recommendations in the report produced by this Committee’s 7th report of session 2008–09, and we have seen a continual divergence from the path set out in the written Ministerial Statement of 3 July 2008. 1.2 It is most disappointing that DfT/VOSA’s seems to have totally ignored the recommendation that “VOSA be required to retain a significant network of sites in order to maintain adequate coverage for annual testing throughout the UK”. There are no plans, that the VOSA TUS is aware of, for VOSA to have a significant, strategically located network of Test Stations only a plan of working towards VOSA having no Test Stations. The VOSA TUS questions whether this is cost effective against social or economic criteria. 1.3 Whilst the mechanical condition of the foreign fleet do not seem to be causing the concerns they once did, compliance with driver’s hours, licensing and documentation remain a major cause for concern. The introduction of Fixed Penalties and Deposits was seen as a way of dealing with many of these issues, but the provisions of the legislation still cause many problems, and the practical application of these has, in our opinion, produced an undesired detrimental effect on road safety. VOSA staff are also unable to deal with offences committed on previous days or weeks. 1.4 The inability to enter ferry ports as and when required and obtain real time access to ships manifests, which was highlighted in the previous report, continues to be a major problem. 1.5 VOSA regularly reports on the number of ATFs which are operational but forgets to mention that the majority of them were previously Designated Premises (DP) where tests had been previously been conducted. Of the 284 ATFs VOSA quote as new sites, 164 were previously DPs. 1.6 After two years of marketing and “hard sell”, costing many millions of pounds, VOSA has managed to increase its testing at non VOSA sites by 30%. 1.7 None of those sites closed as a result of VOSA’s current ATF strategy have been sold, and in some cases VOSA has been left with long and expensive leases on these sites. Additionally some VOSA staff are travelling between VOSA Test Stations to test vehicles with the associated additional cost and time inefficiency of such a practice. We question how such arrangements meet the Trading Fund requirements. 1.8 The VOSA TUS has also received reports of ATFs charging for services which are covered by the test fee such as simulating a load for the purpose of the brake performance test. We question what will happen when all, or most, of VOSA stations are closed, and the market allowed free reign to charge whatever it likes, and will it be the Government of the day or the Transport Industry that will be held to ransom. 1.9 The VOSA TUS is also concerned over the continuing call for the privatisation of testing and for commercial operators and garages to be allowed to “self test”. The current DfT consultation on Motoring Services Strategy reinforces our concern and that the use of ATFs is the back door to full privatisation of testing provision. 1.10 DfT have removed the funding for the shift working from VOSA’s single enforcement budget and thereby not only stopped any further expansion of this work, but reduced its capability to continue the progress already made. 1.11 VOSA staff are now encouraged to concentrate most of their efforts on targeting driver only offences, and whilst reports are supposed to be sent to the Traffic Commissioners in regards to these offences, we believe that this does not happen. 1.12 Despite the fact that all, or most, of VOSA costs can be recovered from the defendants via the courts after a successful prosecution, VOSA is still persisting with working practices that encourage more and more offences to be dealt with by examiners by way of fixed penalty notices. Not only does this unfairly target drivers, who are often placed under increased pressure by their employers, but also means that VOSA is operating at a financial loss, as it has to both stand the costs and then not receive the money from the fixed penalty. 1.13 There has also been a significant reduction in VOSA’s legal budgets, with Traffic Commissioner’s having to now deal with unproven evidence to determine whether or not an Operators repute still exists. The result of this is that additional costs for Solicitors or Barristers mean that the financial costs are now given very serious considerations before a decision is made to proceed to Tribunal, should a TC’s decision be challenged. It would seem sensible to use the existing licensing system for UK Operators to administer the Road User Levy scheme and ring fence the income as a funding stream for VOSA’s roadside enforcement activities. This would also allow for the correct non-UK vehicle Operator information to be collected at source and made available to VOSA enforcement staff at the roadside.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 33

2. Introduction 2.1 This written submission is made by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Trade Union Side (VOSA TUS), which represents the three Trade Unions recognised by VOSA, namely Public and Commercial Services (PCS), Prospect and Unite, whose combined membership make up the majority of VOSA’s workforce. We believe that promoting road safety is the overriding objective for VOSA and should underpin all its activities whether they be enforcement, testing or other. 2.2 The VOSA TUS welcomed Committee’s 7th report of session 2008–09, but is disappointed that VOSA and the Department for Transport have failed to action or implement most of its recommendations. We suggest that reasons for the failure to accept and implement those recommendations are provided by the department. 2.3 Since the above report we have seen a continual divergence from the path set out in the written Ministerial Statement on 3 July 2008. VOSA did not take up the additional funding that had been made available to update its network of stations. Instead it has vigorously pursued the Authorised Test Facilities (ATF) policy of outsourcing the provision of facilities and ceased testing at many of its own test stations. The VOSA TUS wrote to the then Minister, Mike Penning, setting out what it believes is both a suitable and viable alternative to VOSA’s current plan. A copy of that letter is attached at Annex A to this submission. The VOSA TUS believes that VOSA has no strategic plan other that the Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples, being on record as working towards VOSA having no Test Stations. The VOSA TUS questions whether this is cost effective against social or economic criteria (see below). VOSA has said that the direction it is taking results from financial difficulties. These financial difficulties were caused primarily by poor management at senior management level (DfT and VOSA) at that time and things should by now have changed. Our concern is that financial management still needs improvement and scrutiny. 3. Foreign Vehicle Standards 3.1 Since the time of the Committee’s 7th report of session 2008–09, and the introduction of the Graduated Fixed Penalties and Deposits, the VOSA TUS believe that there has been a change in the type of offences detected. It is our belief that the mechanical condition of the foreign fleet does not seem to be causing the concerns they once did. This may be due, in part, to the wider European economic situation as our members report that many smaller operators no longer conduct this type of international work, into the UK. It is also true that the age profile of foreign vehicles has improved, and more and more modern vehicles are now being used. 3.2 The standard of compliance with driver’s hours, licensing and documentation however remain a major cause for concern. The introduction of Fixed Penalties and Deposits was seen as a way of dealing with many of these issues, but the provisions of the legislation still cause many problems. For example if a falsification of drivers hours records is detected VOSA are often left having to refund the graduated deposit that has been taken should the case be unable to proceed due to the driver being a non-GB resident. 3.3 As a result of the above VOSA’s examiners are encouraged to simply issue a prohibition and a fixed penalty for the “nearest appropriate” offence, as this ensures that the financial penalty imposed on the driver is non-refundable. 3.4 VOSA staff also suffer from the present legislation which restricts them to only dealing with offences that are current, meaning they are unable to deal with offences committed on previous days or weeks. 3.5 The inability to enter ferry ports, as and when required, to conduct compliance checks continues to be a major problem, meaning that staff have to try and target these vehicles once they have moved out onto the road network. This means it is not only more difficult to locate the vehicles, but you have to find somewhere to safely stop and inspect them. This often leads to a lack of suitable facilities for the driver if a problem is detected. 3.6 The access to the ships manifests, to enable better targeting, mentioned in the Select Committee’s 7th report of 2008–09, has only been introduced in one location, covering the whole country. This means that the information is only available during normal working hours, so outside of these times staff suffer from the same lack of information highlighted in 2009. 3.7 VOSA also suffers from the lack of access to intelligence gathered by many other Government departments, notably HMRC and DWP. Whilst there is good liaison between the United Kingdom Boarder Agency, and the Police, there is a biased flow of information with data going from VOSA onto the Police National Computer (PNC) with no reciprocal arrangement resulting in VOSA experiencing severe restrictions in accessing information already held on PNC. 3.8 The VOSA TUS is aware of a European wide project to enable better access to, and transfer of, data in regards to licensed Operators and their transport managers. This has yet to become operational. As a result difficulties are experienced with other EU states taking appropriate action following the UK passing information to them.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 34 Transport Committee: Evidence

4. Arrangements for Vehicle Tests 4.1 DfT and VOSA have failed to implement most of the recommendations contained within this Committee’s 7th report of 2008–09. It is most disappointing that DfT/VOSA’s seems to have totally ignored the recommendation that “VOSA be required to retain a significant network of sites in order to maintain adequate coverage for annual testing throughout the UK”. Since that recommendation was made a number of VOSA Testing Stations have either closed or have ceased testing and there are plans for more to follow in the near future. There are however no plans that the VOSA TUS is aware of for VOSA to have a significant, strategically located, network of Test Stations. In fact the Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples is on record as working towards VOSA having no Test Stations. As detailed in Section 1 of this submission, the VOSA TUS wrote to the then Minister, Mike Penning and set out what it believed to be a suitable “vision” for the future. 4.2 VOSA has now closed or ceased testing at 25% (17 of 68) full time stations, and 6% (1 of 16) part time stations (the Isle of Wight). To justify its action, VOSA continues to publish and promote highly misleading figures on the number of new ATFs. VOSA regularly reports on the number of ATFs which are operational but forgets to mention that the majority of them were previously Designated Premises (DP) where tests had been previously been conducted. The reality is that of the 284 ATFs VOSA quote as new sites, 164 were in fact previously DPs, leaving only a genuine 120 new sites. Of these 120 sites, seven only test there own vehicles, 12 only test 3rd party vehicles with the remainder being open access. 4.3 VOSA had historically tested around 25% of heavy vehicles at DPs. After two years, and many millions of pounds of marketing and “hard sell” by VOSA, together with “dirty tricks” such as deliberately reducing testing capacity at its own sites and allowing overtime to be worked on Saturdays to test at ATFs but not at its own sites, this figure has now grown to around 55%. 4.4 To date none of those sites closed as a result of VOSA’s current ATF strategy have been sold (albeit there has been one inter departmental “swop”), so no financial return has been achieved. In some cases VOSA has been left with long and expensive leases on these sites, from which they have been unable to negotiate a release. At the same time VOSA has to pay the additional time and travel costs of its staff travelling to nonVOSA Sites. Additionally some VOSA staff are travelling from a VOSA Test Station that has ceased testing to another VOSA site that remains open, with the associated additional cost and time inefficiency of such a practice. Given the additional travel costs and overtime payments required to service ATFs, or to send VOSA staff to work at other VOSA locations (the cost of which we do not believe is covered by the test fees VOSA receives) it could be argued that the public sector is subsidising the private sector providers. In fact with VOSA looking to decrease the test fee for testing at ATFs, recovery of the full cost of testing at ATFs is somewhat questionable. As a result we question how such arrangements meet the Trading Fund requirements that VOSA are required to operate within. 4.5 The VOSA TUS has also received reports of ATFs charging for services which are covered by the test fee such as simulating a load for the purpose of the brake performance test. We question what will happen when all, or most, of VOSA stations are closed, and the market allowed free reign to charge whatever it likes, will it be the Government of the day or the Transport Industry that will be held to ransom? 4.6 During the 2008–09 Inquiry the VOSA TUS gave evidence that VOSA would need to recruit additional staff to test the same volume of vehicles at non VOSA sites. Such recruitment has only just begun and, we understand, has not been as successful as VOSA would have liked. This may be as a result of the current Government policies on recruitment into the civil service and public sector pay and terms & conditions. The impact of the lack of staff, and VOSA’s inability to provide ATFs with the level of support they had been promised has in part been a driver for the creation of an “ATF Operators Association” who believe they have a “tester allocation crisis” on their hands as having invested in facilities they are understandable concerned that VOSA are unable to provide them with staff they are requesting. 4.7 The VOSA TUS is also concerned over the continuing call for the privatisation of testing and for commercial operators and garages to be allowed to “self test”. The current DfT consultation on Motoring Services Strategy reinforces our concern and that the use of ATFs is the back door to full privatisation of testing provision. It is important to note however that research conducted by the Freight Transport Association (FTA) identified 27% of vehicles recently serviced or maintained by both main dealers and independent garage would have failed an annual test. The National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA) has also conducted research showing that over the last five years for which data is available between 42.8%–50% (with a steady increase year on year) of Class 7 (smaller commercial vehicles with GVW between 3.0 and 3.5 tonnes) have failed their annual test. This research adds to the work undertaken by VOSA when assessing the quality of the UK’s light vehicle testing scheme which is undertaken in private garages and where around 15% of vehicles rechecked were found to have been incorrectly assessed with the final decision on the vehicle’s condition being incorrect. Further if “self testing “were to be permitted, as in the case with the Driving Standards Agency, where a significantly higher pass rate is obtained by private sector “delegated Examiners” than by DSA’s own driving Examiners, the VOSA TUS believes similar commercial pressures would come to bear on those undertaking vehicle tests which would have a detrimental affect to road safety in the UK.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 35

5. Better Support for Traffic Commissioners (TC’s) Work 5.1 Having welcomed the introduction of both shift working and the graduated deposits and fixed penalty notices in our evidence in 2008–09, it is hugely disappointing to see what has happened since. 5.2 Firstly, DfT have removed the funding for the shift working from VOSA’s single enforcement budget and thereby not only stopped any further expansion of this work, but reduced its capability to continue the progress already made. Secondly, staff are now concentrating most of their efforts on targeting driver offences, whereby Examiners are encouraged to issue a fixed penalty notice, and move on. The impact of this is that the UK licensed vehicle Operators are not being dealt with as they have in the past, given that follow up investigations now rarely take place and the subsequent prosecutions do not happen. Whilst reports are supposed to be sent to the Traffic Commissioners in regards to these offences, we believe that this does not happen and has therefore resulted in a reduction in the number of Public Inquiries and disciplinary action on the licence holders. Thirdly, given the limitations of the Graduated Deposit legislation it makes it almost impossible for the most serious of offences committed (falsification of driver’s records) by a GB driver with no traceable UK address to be taken to court. This is compounded by VOSA then being required, after a specified period, to refund the graduated deposit previously paid plus interest. 5.3 As a result VOSA staff rarely use the graduated court deposit process and simply look to deal with a less serious offence, for which they can prohibit the vehicle and impose a fixed penalty. Because of this there is also a tendency to deal with GB drivers in the same way, thereby ensuring equal treatment for GB and nonGB drivers. However the long term impact of this is that less information on the serious offences makes its way to the Traffic Commissioners, for their further action. 5.4 Despite the fact that all, or most, of VOSA costs can be recovered from the defendants via the courts after a successful prosecution, VOSA is still persisting with working practices that encourage more and more offences to be dealt with by examiners by way of fixed penalty notices. Not only does this unfairly target drivers, who are often placed under increased pressure by their employers, but also means that VOSA is operating at a financial loss, as it has to both stand the costs of all the work involved and then not receive the money of the fixed penalty, which goes straight to HM Treasury. 5.5 There has also been to serious impact on Traffic Commissioners as a result of a significant reduction in VOSA’s legal budgets. Firstly, more of the work that is directed to the Traffic Commissioners to hear at Public Inquiry, is done so without having first gone through a Magistrates (or Crown) Court process. This means TC’s have to now deal with unproven evidence to determine whether or not an Operator’s repute still exists, whereas in the past they were able to deal more simply with convictions as these had already been secured. Secondly, the additional costs of Solicitors or Barristers mean that the financial costs are now given very serious considerations before a decision is made to proceed to Tribunal, should a TC’s decision be challenged. 6 HGV Road User Levy 6.1 Whilst we are uncertain on many of the details of this scheme, and how it will be operated, given the comments in section 5 above the detrimental financial impact of fixed penalty’s, it does appear that this levy could easily be ring fenced to provide an income stream for VOSA’s roadside enforcement activities and could be used, in part, to fund more staff. 6.2 VOSA already operates the Vehicle Operator Licensing system on behalf of the Traffic Commissioners, and UK operators are familiar with contacting VOSA in regards to any changes. It would therefore seem appropriate to use this existing system for UK Operators in the administration of the Road User Levy. 6.3 Given that the above system is already in the process of being linked electronically to all other EU countries systems, as part of an existing EU project, it would again seem sensible to see how this could be used to allow EU vehicle Operators to purchase/pay for their Road User Levy charge. By enabling VOSA to operate this system it would also allow for the correct vehicle Operator identification information for non-UK Operators to be collected at source, verified as correct and then for this to be available to all enforcement staff at the roadside. This would ensure that any infringements then detected would be attributed to the correct nonUK operator and fed back to the appropriate EU national authority. Annex A Letter from Kevin Warden, VOSA TUS Secretary, to Mike Penning, Minister of State Dear Mike, VOSA TESTING TRANSFORMATION PROJECT I would like to start by thanking you for meeting with us on 16 September 2010. We believe the meeting was helpful and provided the opportunity for an open and frank first exchange. We appreciate your invitation to meet again in the near future together with your offer of regular half yearly meetings and would like through this letter to formally accept.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 36 Transport Committee: Evidence

During our meeting we said we would write to you setting out both our view of the Testing Transformation Project (TTP) as well as our vision for the future provision of heavy vehicle testing in Great Britain. Current TTP Policy The current policy for testing is based on VOSA’s business case (Public Sector Comparator (PSC)) after the feasibility study into the privatisation of heavy vehicle testing (and other elements of VOSA’s work) during the mid to late 2000s. The PSC planned for the closure and disposal of 30 to 35 VOSA Goods Vehicle Test Stations (GVTS).The money raised from the site disposals would be used to develop a strategic testing infrastructure by modernising the remaining 30+ GVTS network (the “safety net” or “backbone” (or possibly the option B which you mentioned at our meeting). Additionally the Government made available around £64 million over a three year period to both assist with the modernising of VOSA’s testing facilities as well as to support VOSA’s investment requirements (Jim Fitzpatrick’s written Ministerial statement 3 July 2008). This offer of additional funding was never taken up. We understand this was due to the discovery, following the departure of Stephen Tetlow as Chief Executive, of the level of financial deficit which had been allowed to build up since around 2003. We believe the main reason for the size of the of deficit is as a result of a massive financial injection into an e test booking system following its release in a totally unfit state together with the cost of the privatisation feasibility study, for which we understand VOSA had to meet staff salary, accommodation and associated expenses as well as the cost of engaging market research company MORI and consultants Deloittes and PwC costs. We do not believe either of these costs was planned for nor had a funding stream. We understand that the incoming Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples’, presented an estate strategy to DfT officials, as required by the PSC, shortly after taking up his current role. We believe it was at this time that DfT changed the policy. It required of VOSA a more radical strategy of moving all testing to non VOSA sites. Targets were set to move to 33%, 66% and 85% of tests being undertaken at non VOSA sites over three years starting in FY 2009–10. These inappropriate and unachievable targets have now been replaced. The DfT policy appears to be though still to dispose of the VOSA GVTS network as demonstrated at the 8 September TTP Board where DfT officials stated that “Whether ATFs are an end state or half way house, all testing will be done at ATFs”. This statement reinforces our view that DfT is undertaking an estate disposal exercise. The outcome of the validation reports we spoke about when we met reinforces our view. The VOSA TUS does not believe such a policy will best serve VOSA’s customers or the wider travelling public. We believe a strategy of better located VOSA sites supplemented by non VOSA sites is a better alternative. VOSA TUS Vision of Future Provision of Heavy Vehicle Testing Facilities We appreciate, and accept, the current VOSA GVTS network is on the whole 40 years old and has received minimal investment during that time. We further appreciate the network was mainly built on available Government land and while it may have been reasonably located for the road network of the late 1960s it is not, on the whole, best located for the early decades of the 21st Century. As a result we believe the time may now be right to assess station locations and that there may be opportunities to rationalise the current network, using non VOSA sites to supplement the VOSA network. We believe that Britain should have a significant network of publically owned test stations so operators have the ability to present their vehicle for test at a totally independent and impartial site where they are treated equally and fairly should they operate one or one hundred vehicles. This is a view shared by the Transport Select Committee as detailed within its 7th report of 2008–09 (published August 2009). The additional value of publically owned test stations is the efficiency and economy that can be released by co location with sister DfT agencies at key strategic locations. There seems little sense in having three or four DfT Agencies covering the cost of owning and renting sites when with a little foresight and investment co location would be good for the department and vehicle operators alike. The VOSA TUS sees no reason why VOSA, DSA, DVLA and HA (traffic officers) could not co-locate, thereby reducing the overall accommodation costs while creating DfT (roads) centres of excellence at strategically located sites. From a VOSA perspective the sites could, if ideally situated, also be utilised for enforcement activities, so allowing “enforcement” examinations to take place in safe and welfare friendly locations and where more comprehensive examinations, including vehicle’s brake performance, could take place. In addition the DfT network of sites could be supplemented, in VOSA’s terms, by the use of DPs/ATFs. We accept that investment would be required to permit such a network to take shape. However a properly organised project to bring the departments agencies together into co located sites, over say the next eight to 10 years, would allow the cost to be spread across a number of years which would be manageable even with a hugely reduced DfT budget expected after the Comprehensive Spending Review. Of course the disposal value

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 37

of existing sites, both VOSA’s and other DfT Agencies, would be available to part fund a network fit for the 21st century road network and which could serve the nation for decades. We believe such an approach would demonstrate good, internal, joined up government, could act as a one stop shop for the vast range of DfT’s (roads) services and provide heavy vehicle operators with a “safety net” to ensure they can comply with their legal requirements without fear of bias, favour, commercial competition or lack of test availability as a result of private sector economics. I hope this letter forms the basis of a further meeting between us in the near future. Yours sincerely, Kevin Warden VOSA TUS Secretary

Written evidence from the Traffic Commissioners (VOSA 05) Background and Focus of Evidence 1. The Transport Select Committee has announced an inquiry in to the work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). There are four elements, one of which is: — How can VOSA better support the work of the Traffic Commissioners? 2. Traffic Commissioners (TCs) have decided it is appropriate to contribute only on this specific question. In addition, TCs are aware that VOSA has helpfully included some financial and other relevant background in its submission. This is not repeated here except where it is useful to do so to explain a point. This contribution from TCs concentrates primarily on HGVs, PSVs and roadside enforcement. VOSA’s work in relation to bus service reliability has been inquired upon by the Select Committee quite recently. However, we will be happy to provide a contribution in this area either orally or in written evidence should the Committee require it. 3. TCs have been established for over 80 years. Our statutory position has most recently been updated in the Local Transport Act 2008, amending the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. Each TC is separately appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and each is a separate legal entity. 4. TCs have — — —

identified three key interlinked areas for our evidence. They are: The scope of VOSA’s work that is considered to be in support of TCs. The allocation of fee-income. Identity, branding and independence: the need for users to be clear who is the regulator.

5. Each is considered separately below. Scope of VOSA Work that is in Support of TCs 6. TCs are clear that our role is as the statutory independent regulators of the HGV and PSV operating industry. VOSA provides TCs with day to day support in the form of estate, ICT and staff. But VOSA is also the enforcement body. TCs depend on VOSA’s Vehicle Examiners (VEs) and Traffic Examiners (TEs) to conduct investigations on our behalf and provide us with the key evidence on which we challenge operators and make judicial decisions. For the sake of clarity, the role of VEs and TEs at Public Inquiry is not to “prosecute” any particular case. It is to provide information that is as objective as possible, based on clear facts and tangible evidence. So far as they are expected to provide opinion, TCs expect that opinion to be balanced, measured and fair. Our experience is that, on the whole, it is. (Note this is not the case where an individual is applying to a TC for the return of a vehicle that has been detained by VOSA. Those proceedings are adversarial and dealt with accordingly and that presents specific issues.) 7. TCs no longer have any input to the setting of VOSA strategic and volume targets. This occurred as a result of the Department for Transport pooling all vehicle agency enforcement funding in to what is known as the Single Enforcement Budget. This was done to simplify financial accounting arrangements, reducing the number of individual “contracts” and transactions. An unintended consequence was the loss of the formal Memorandum of Agreement between the Department and VOSA. This Memorandum set strategic and volume targets, involving TCs in that process. The memorandum covered all VOSA’s enforcement spend, not just that from general taxation and provided by the Department. In simplifying financial arrangements, an important control structure was lost. 8. VOSA’s Business Plan target in relation to enforcement and compliance relates to the effectiveness of individual vehicle targeting and sets the Agency, and by default, individual examiners a prohibition rate target. VOSA data shows that compliance decreases with fleet size and there are significant issues with holders of “restricted” licences, that is, those who hold a licence to operate HGVs to support a separate, primary, business or up to two PSVs as ancillary to their main business. The result is that VEs and TEs focus on vehicles belonging to small operators who actually use their vehicles relatively little. Targeting and selection does not consider broader road safety benefits beyond the individual vehicle stop. As a result, investigation of systemic

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 38 Transport Committee: Evidence

failures that would in the past have led to action against an operator’s licence and so have a far greater overall impact on road safety has reduced significantly. 9. A primary objective of operator licensing is to ensure fair competition, and so remove incentives to be non-compliant. This policy objective is widely welcomed by the compliant industry and its representatives. VOSA examiners are focused on immediate road safety concerns with mechanical defects and drivers’ hours infringements. Competition issues now appear undervalued within the Agency. As an example, the number of HGVs in GB weighed has dropped from 26,802 in 2005–06 to 2,652 in 2010–11 (the last year for which figures are published). 10. In 2005/6, VOSA undertook 15,336 maintenance investigations in relation to goods vehicle operators. Of those, 40.3% were found to be unsatisfactory. By contrast in 2010–11 only 4,490 investigations were undertaken with 58.5% being found unsatisfactory. TCs understand that maintenance investigations can be resource intensive and need to be targeted appropriately. The increase in the percentage of those found unsatisfactory is an indication of good targeting but the fact remains that over a five year period an operator has become much less than half as likely to be referred to TCs for regulatory action as a result of a VOSA visit. 11. The result of this clear move away from in-depth investigative work by VOSA is that TCs now generally see predominantly smaller operators for whom operating vehicles is not their core business. The contribution made by TCs to the compliance of the wider commercial vehicle fleet is not being optimised. During this period of emphatic shift in resource allocation by VOSA, overall fleet compliance in mechanical terms as measured by VOSA’s own random fleet compliance surveys has worsened, with 10.4% of vehicles stopped in 2005–06 having a defect that caused the vehicle to be issued with a prohibition notice, compared with 8.9% in 2010–11. This lack of effective follow up action following the finding of shortcomings at a roadside inspection means that VOSA’s enforcement work is not delivering best value. Allocation of Fee Income 12. The Department for Transport consulted in 2005 on plans to simplify fee administration by co-locating the collection of the annual operator licence enforcement fee with the HGV annual test fee. The central focus of the consultation was to reduce the number of transactions and so the administrative burden associated with compliance. There were secondary fairness issues, particularly relating to operators who used hire vehicles and in relation to trailer operation. Neither the consultation nor the following implementation proposed any strategic shift in the purpose or use of the fees collected. This was a customer service issue. 13. The legislation on the powers to collect fees and their purpose is unequivocal. The power to charge fees resides with TCs according to s45 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and s52 of the Public Passengers Vehicles Act 1981 and they are charged for prescribed purposes. The continuation fee is for the ongoing supervision of the licence including interventions by VEs and TEs. The collection of this element has become a single transaction with the collection of annual MoT test fees for HGVs and PSVs. 14. A result of the streamlining of fee collection means that TCs are now excluded from discussions relating to how the money is allocated. The streamlining happened in a similar timeframe to the introduction within the Department of the Single Enforcement Budget and that further blurs lines of accountability and legislative authority. Administrative simplification has had an apparently unintended consequence of a conflict between statute and policy. 15. VOSA has been highly progressive in technology terms in relation to roadside enforcement and systems such as online annual test bookings. These systems were implemented at a time when IT costs were very high and now account for a significant proportion of the Agency’s costs. In contrast, the operator licensing IT system was built over ten years ago and is now out of support. It appears on the face of it that operator licensing may be picking up an unfair allocation of the Agency’s overall IT costs. Identity, Branding and Independence: The need for Users to know who is the Regulator 16. Much has been written about the statutory and judicial independence of TCs. This has been reinforced by an increasing number of appeal court cases, including the Upper Tribunal, most recently in the impounding case of Irish haulier Nolan Transport. In the Nolan case, HH Judge Brodrick said: “The strongest verbal support for the independence of Traffic Commissioners can all too easily be damaged or destroyed by actions which, directly or indirectly, intentionally or inadvertently, undermine or give the appearance of undermining the independence of Traffic Commissioners. While the verbal support may come from the highest level it can be damaged or destroyed by action at the lowest level.” 17. VOSA’s Business Plan for 2012–13 includes a Key Target: “Determine 85% of goods and PSV applications unopposed and not requiring a public inquiry within nine weeks of the date of receipt of the application and the required fee”. The operator who applies for a licence makes his cheque payable to VOSA. The caseworker allocated will have a VOSA email address. It can therefore be of little surprise when operators believe that VOSA is the issuing authority for an operator’s licence when, in fact, it is staff employed by VOSA but working within individually delegated authority from TCs and under Statutory Guidance from the Senior Traffic Commissioner who actually perform that function.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 39

18. This lack of clarity of identity and purpose becomes more significant when a TC is exercising a regulatory role, and it becomes quite stark when a TC is making a judgement over whether to return a vehicle that has been impounded by VOSA. An applicant in such a process will almost certainly turn up for their impartial hearing at a building carrying a VOSA sign. They will be given a VOSA visitor’s badge. In the lift and the corridor, they will see VOSA-branded material aimed at the staff responsible for hosting their independent hearing. 19. The reality is that TCs make independent judicial decisions and this has been confirmed by the appeal courts. The issue is one of perception. Much could be overcome, firstly by way of a clear statement of the roles of VOSA and TCs for the benefit of the industries we regulate, and then by backing this up with branding and presentation. The key target in VOSA’s business plan confuses the Agency’s role in the provision of administrative support staff to TCs with the role of TCs in issuing that licence. 20. A clear statement of roles, expressing the legislative situation in plain terms, needs to be backed up with actions. Staff processing applications and administering licences under delegation from TCs need to be identified as the TC’s staff. This includes appropriate Office of the Traffic Commissioner email addresses, and public buildings that clearly identify, internally and externally, with the regulator rather than the enforcer. There are issues of both signage and physical separation. 21. Naturally emerging from this is that the role of TCs in the supervision and line management of the staff who work for them is ripe for a review. It may well be that the Agency needs a more sophisticated management structure for those staff who work for TCs. This is not ground-breaking. It must be addressed before the warning in HH Judge Brodrick’s words comes true. Additional Comment—DfT Agency Review 22. Since the Select Committee announced its terms of reference, the Department has announced a fundamental review of Agency structures. TCs will consider separately whether and how to respond to that. We should record here that we are highly willing to engage fully with our minds open. December 2012

Supplementary written evidence from the Traffic Commissioners (VOSA 05A) Letter from Berverly Bell, Senior Traffic Commissioner, to Dr Mark Egan, Clerk to the Transport Committee RE: THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS’ CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY IN TO THE WORK OF VOSA I am writing to bring to your attention an error relating to the numbers quoted in paragraph 11 of the traffic commissioners’ contribution to the Transport Select Committee inquiry in to the work of VOSA, sent to you on the 21 December. An investigation into this mistake revealed the cause to be a simple drafting error, for which I offer my most sincere apologies. Please find enclosed the amended version of the traffic commissioners’ original submission, now detailing the correct figures in paragraph 11, the remainder of the document remains unchanged. Please accept this letter as my formal apology for this error and any inconvenience this may cause. 11. The result of this clear move away from in-depth investigative work by VOSA is that TCs now generally see predominantly smaller operators for whom operating vehicles is not their core business. The contribution made by TCs to the compliance of the wider commercial vehicle fleet is not being optimised. During this period of emphatic shift in resource allocation by VOSA, overall fleet compliance in mechanical terms as measured by VOSA’s own random fleet compliance surveys has worsened, with 8.9% of vehicles stopped in 2005–06 having a defect that caused the vehicle to be issued with a prohibition notice, compared with 10.4% in 2010–11. This lack of effective follow up action following the finding of shortcomings at a roadside inspection means that VOSA’s enforcement work is not delivering best value.

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

The driving theme of the Testing Transformation Programme (TTP) is to take testing to the customer, with the objective, where possible, of moving vehicle testing closer to the place where vehicle maintenance is carried out. The programme is not property lead, so it is not a leading objective to reduce the VOSA estate per se through closing existing testing stations. However, it is expected that by increasing the provision of third party owned sites authorised to host heavy vehicle testing VOSA will be in a position to reduce the size of the VOSA testing estate. But, VOSA testing stations would only close when it was assured that there was sufficient alternative testing capacity in the market. In so doing VOSA will be especially mindful of the position of small operators. And, it is planned that VOSA should retain at least some of the existing testing estate over the next few years in order to ensure there is sufficient testing capacity. In certain locations it might become appropriate to transfer existing VOSA testing stations to the private sector. In such cases the business drivers would remain the same—ie to bring testing and maintenance closer together. If testing stations were transferred to the private sector, VOSA expect that this would only be addressed on a site by site basis, under a lease with restrictive covenants which, among other things, obliged the lessee to continue to host testing on a basis where it will be open to all. This should provide further assurance of availability of testing facilities for all types of customers.

Recommendation

We recognise that the use of private sector sites may be helpful in cutting costs and ensuring that operators receive a flexible annual testing service. However, we believe that any move towards complete privatisation of test sites would disproportionately affect smaller operators who have fewer resources. We further believe that certain areas of the country would be less profitable and could consequently be under-served by the private sector. Therefore, we recommend that VOSA be required to retain a significant network of sites in order to maintain adequate` coverage for annual testing throughout the UK and to safeguard VOSA’s role as the independent enforcement agency.

Memorandum No 1

VOSA is responsible for ensuring that there is an adequate network of testing facilities across GB. Our strategy, via the TTP remains that of taking testing closer to the customer through a network of ATFs provided by the private sector allowing for the ceasing of testing at its Goods Vehicle Testing Stations (GVTSs). In managing the transition from GVTSs to Authorised Testing Facilities (ATFs) we will only do this where there is adequate alternative provision. Since the launch of the ATF contract in February 2010 the number of ATFs has grown rapidly with 275 in operation as at November 2012. Our evidence shows that they serving all types of customers including smaller operators. As at November 2012, 5 GVTSs have been closed, 8 have ceased testing, 9 others have gone part time and 46 sites continue to operate full time, Our continued efforts to encourage the opening of more ATFs, in particular by targeting those parts of the country where early take up has been slow, lead us to believe that at least 75% of testing will be at non-VOSA sites by April 2014. Given the success of our ATF strategy to date our long term target is a network of ATFs that removes the need for any GVTSs. However, if despite our best efforts we are unable to encourage the opening of sufficient ATFs in all areas, we will consider alternative delivery models such as the renting of vehicle servicing bays from the private sector or the sale or leasing of existing GVTSs to operate as ATFs.

Current Position

THE TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE’S REPORT (HC39) INTO THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE VEHICLE AND OPERATOR SERVICES AGENCY (VOSA)—2012 UPDATE

Written evidence from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) (VOSA 02)

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 40 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

A consequence of TTP is that VOSA should need to do much less station modernisation than has been the case in recent years. It is the cost of station modernisation that has been a major driver for above inflation fee increases. It is expected that if the TTP is successful (ie that a significant proportion of tests shift to being carried out at non VOSA sites), and that VOSA is able to dispose of a significant number of its existing sites, that this would reduce a significant cost pressure, and result in lower VOSA testing fees than would be the case if VOSA retained an extensive GVTS network, and had to continue the programme of site modernisations. In addition, through TTP, VOSA is in negotiations with the TUS to secure more flexible working arrangements with its staff to support the provision of more flexible testing arrangements, and increasing availability over a longer working day.

Recommendation

The Committee acknowledges that fees for annual testing must reflect the costs of providing this service. However, changes in fees must be fair and above-inflation increases must be justified with real improvements in services. A move towards private sector involvement should reduce costs and therefore we will be looking for much greater flexibility in the numbers and times of test slots available before any future fee increases are proposed.

Fee changes for annual testing since April 2009 have been revenue neutral restructures—ie 0% general increase. However, some individual fees have changed without increasing the total fee bill to customers. As a comparison from April 2009 until October 2012 the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased by 12.8% (from 110.1 to 124.2) The restructures have been to move towards fees in which the cost of VOSA’s goods vehicle testing stations (GVTS) are met by those who use them; the extra staff costs of sending inspectors out to ATFs will be met by those using these sites. This process is still incomplete as there is still some cross subsidy of GVTS users from those who take vehicles to ATFs. VOSA plans to consult on a package of fee changes by summer 2013, which we expect to include proposals to remove the remaining cross subsidy by widening the differentials in fees that VOSA charges for tests at ATFs and its own test facilities The proposed package is also expected to include our first general increase in fees since 2009. The general increase would be applied after differential changes mentioned above. However the proposed general increases are expected to be considerably lower that the 12.8% change in CPI. Looking ahead VOSA have provisional plans that compliment the successful roll out of more ATFs and addresses concerns that have been raised regarding flexible deployment, travel to and from the ATFs, a new approach to the time a tester can be engaged on site and a greater flexibility on the end of day processes to ensure the full programme of work booked is delivered. Early soundings with select stakeholders indicate if these new arrangements are put in place they would be content with the offering from VOSA.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 41

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

The Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS) system has been a highly beneficial tool in providing VOSA a method to focus on operators offering the highest risk to road safety. However, VOSA also carry out random inspections on operators with a better compliance record to ensure that standards are maintained, and that the OCRS data is up to date and meaningful. The OCRS database is not used in isolation in terms of targeting mechanisms. The intelligence marker system provides VOSA with information on specific activity of both drivers and operators. Other technology such as Weigh in Motion Sensors (WIMS), coupled with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems, alert examiners to overloaded vehicles. VOSA have also been trialling the use of speed guns to provide information on speed limiter and fraudulent tachograph recording offending, the results have been promising, and the practical introduction of the devices is now being assessed. And indeed, one of the most powerful enforcement aids is the use of visual indicators; a lack of an operators licence disc in the windscreen of a vehicle, or a generally unroadworthy looking vehicle, can be easily spotted without the use of expert equipment.

Recommendation

We welcome the use of targeting mechanisms such as the Operators Compliance Risk Score in order to allocate resources most effectively and to apprehend successfully those most likely to be noncompliant. However, the OCRS mechanism is just one aspect of enforcement and VOSA should not rely on this score alone when targeting vehicles for inspection.

As outlined in our 2009 response, OCRS is a most useful way to target vehicles at roadside checks. We have continued to build on the effectiveness of OCRS—revising the way scores are calculated to more effectively identify risk of non-compliance as well as extending the system to improve the coverage of non-GB operators. As in 2009 we are continuing to use other triggers for stopping vehicles where appropriate—including weigh in motion sensors—together with visual indicators such as the loading, manner of driving or mechanical condition of the vehicle.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 42 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

OCRS has been operational in VOSA since 2005–06, and its purpose is as an enforcement tool providing risk information. VOSA agrees that the system should not be regarded as an indicator of overall operator quality and compliance. It has never been presented as any kind of league table and there are several pieces of communication which explain the objective of OCRS and how it works; including information on VOSA’s website, articles in VOSA’s ‘Moving On’ magazine for operators, and presentations to trade associations. However, it is accepted that on occasion the system has been misunderstood and misrepresented by others as a rating system, and VOSA will take the opportunity to remove any ambiguity and further emphasise the purpose of the OCRS system in a new OCRS guide which is currently in development. In respect of the availability of Operators’ risk scores, these are only accessible on the website to the individual operator whose score it is, and then only via a secure account. VOSA does not provide information on OCRS to third parties and has no intention of publishing the data. The next step is to further enhance the OCRS system by including the newly introduced graduated fixed penalties into the scoring mechanism, as this scheme both reflects offences detected at the roadside, and the seriousness of the offence detected—rather than a single score for each offence.

Recommendation

The Operators Compliance Risk Score is a valuable tool for enforcement purposes, but it should not be regarded as a direct indicator of operator reliability or quality for unrelated purposes. If OCRS scores are made available to third parties, VOSA needs to be sure that it indicates the limits for how such scores should be used, and how to interpret them appropriately.

VOSA recognises that the purpose of OCRS can still be misunderstood; for example by operators when bidding for contracts or by those seeking to arrange local authority contracts such as school transport. When such misuse has become known to VOSA, steps have been taken to ensure that the correct objective of the data is presented Nevertheless, awareness of OCRS in the industry has done much to drive good behaviour—in particular in respect of operators better managing their maintenance— which generally they out-source. To support such operators, VOSA has made available additional data to industry on the failure rates of their vehicles—which has enabled them to better manage their maintenance contractors. VOSA will continue to work with industry to make its data more widely available in an effort to continue to drive positive behaviour.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 43

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

New legislation came into force earlier this year which has introduced new sanctioning powers enabling VOSA to deal more effectively with drivers of foreign registered vehicles. Graduated fixed penalties are now issued for the majority of offences and drivers without a satisfactory address within the UK are required to make an immediate financial penalty deposit payments. These powers have provided a more consistent, non discriminatory, approach to the sanctioning of drivers. Powers to immobilise have also come into force this year, enabling the attachment of an immobilisation device to vehicles under prohibition. Prior to the introduction of these new powers, in many cases these prohibited vehicles would have absconded in an unroadworthy state, or with a tired driver at the wheel. Indeed, there are already indicators that these new enforcement measures are becoming an effective deterrent to foreign drivers, as VOSA have started to see increases in compliance in foreign based traffic, particularly in respect of drivers’ hours rules. The targeting information of foreign registered traffic is being improved with the development of an Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS) database which will operate very much in the same way as the current system, but will provide information on those non GB operators who are representing the highest risk to road safety. VOSA have a Secretary of State Key Target to introduce this non GB OCRS database by the end of 2009–10. The Department continues to press the European Commission and other Member States to include vehicle registration marks in the national register for operators. This would greatly aid targeted enforcements of non-UK vehicles on UK roads. A greater understanding of the current activities of non-UK vehicles will be available when the Department’s Foreign Vehicle Survey is completed later this year.

Recommendation

The number of foreign-registered heavy goods vehicles on Britain’s roads, particularly from the newer EU Member States is rising. They bring unacceptable levels of noncompliance with basic road safety standards. We recognise that the Government and VOSA cannot specifically target foreign operators, but it is imperative that the Government works intensively to identify ways to improve enforcement and compliance among foreign-registered heavy goods vehicles.

VOSA has used the new powers extensively since their introduction, particularly on foreign HGVs for roadworthiness, drivers’ hours and tachograph offences. There has been a noticeable improvement in these three key areas for foreign HGVs as sampled through the fleet compliance survey. Details are given in Memorandum No. 2 with the caveat that it is too early to say whether there is a firm link between the two.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 44 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

The Government investment of £24m over a 3 year period to introduce a High Risk Traffic Initiative (HRTI) has meant the recruitment of over 100 extra front line staff dedicated to roadside enforcement work. These new staff are making a significant 24/7 presence felt at ports, and on the road network, with a focus on high risk drivers and operators on an international journey. The continuation of the HRTI funding is being reviewed within the context of the Departments comprehensive spending review.

Recommendation

We are pleased to see the Government and VOSA initiating schemes, such as the High Risk Traffic Initiative (HRTI), which concentrate additional funding and staff resources on those vehicles that pose the greatest risk to road safety, often foreign registered vehicles. It can only be right that resources are concentrated where they are most likely to save lives. This is a significant step in the right direction, but we are concerned whether the number of additional staff is adequate, and we urge the Government and VOSA to take immediate action if it becomes clear that more staff is required for such schemes.

The HRTI funding was subsumed into other DfT funding for enforcement—and VOSA has continued to receive funding for doing enforcement (in addition to that funded from fees)—which in particular has been focused on foreign vehicle enforcement. There have been some reductions in funding, but VOSA has maintained its focus on front line activities where possible, to minimise any impacts on these important functions.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 45

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

Fixed penalty and financial penalty deposit levels were set so that they were broadly compatible with existing fixed penalties for similar offences. However, both these and other key aspects of the scheme will be included in the post-implementation review of the schemes scheduled for May 2010. A commitment was made both in Parliament and in the Impact Assessment to review the schemes one year after implementation. A requirement exists under Enforcement Directive 2006 22/EC that all member states must check 2% of all days worked by drivers. This will increase to 3% by 1 January 2010.

The comments of the Committee are appreciated. VOSA are involved on many levels with European colleagues, and actively engage in enforcement groups such Euro Controle Route, TISPOL and chair the digital tachograph committee for CORTE. VOSA has worked with the new member states of Hungary, Slovakia and Romania to improving roadside inspection activity and the quality of enforcement prior to entry into the EU. It is hoped that in the longer term, this work will lead to a better standard of vehicles from these countries entering into the UK.

Recommendation

We welcome the introduction of the Graduated Fixed Penalty, Financial Penalty Deposit and Immobilisation Schemes. We believe it will enhance VOSA’s ability to punish and deter noncompliance among non-UK operators. However, the fines are small and we recommend that there should be increases so that there is a real level of deterrence. The Government and VOSA must continue to explore ways to strengthen VOSA’s ability to enforce vehicle and drivers’ hours standards among foreign operators on UK roads.

At European level, VOSA’s enforcement work is seen as a model of best practice. We congratulate VOSA on this achievement.

VOSA continue to work with other enforcement bodies—and provide input to EC discussions—to promote best practice in enforcement and ensure the ‘GB view’ permeates widely. VOSA has recently been funded by the EC to lead a piece of work (TRACE) to develop a consistent approach to drivers’ hours enforcement—and this has been well received and rolled out to all member states as the expected approach they will take.

DfT has consulted about increases to fixed penalty notices and financial deposits, including the graduated penalties. The changes were proposed to be implemented in 2013’ As noted above the GFPD scheme can, on the whole, be considered a significant success—and certainly gives us the ability to provide a sanction to the drivers of foreign vehicles, something that was largely not possible prior to its introduction. However there are some areas that could be improved about the scheme, most notably in enabling VOSA to deal more effectively where there is evidence that drivers have committed drivers’ hours offences on a previous day. DfT are planning to consult shortly on the necessary legislative changes to enable this. The scheme is also less effective at dealing with the more serious offences—such as tachograph manipulation or falsification of records—the correct course of action relies upon police support to arrest offenders to appear in court (as just taking a deposit against a later summonsed court appearance inevitably results in the driver failing to claim and the deposit remains on hold indefinitely). It is also worth mentioning that the Scottish Government have not implemented the scheme for the police in Scotland—despite significant pressure from DfT, Ministers and VOSA—thus resulting in drivers being dealt with differently dependent on which enforcement authority is dealing with offences. VOSA issue graduated fixed penalties and take deposit payments, whereas the police would prosecute for the same offences. This issue is particularly apparent when multi agency checks involving both VOSA and the police are being carried out.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 46 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

The Department appreciates the Committee’s recognition of the importance and quality of this work. It will continue to work closely with industry colleagues as the new arrangements are implemented.

Recommendation

We are pleased to learn that the UK is taking the lead on work to improve enforcement and vehicle safety within the European Union. We welcome the work that is being done by officials from both VOSA and the Department for Transport with the Transport Council and the European Commission to coordinate work and develop a Europe-wide database of information regarding the safety records of European operators. The implementation of a Europewide database is vital work which is urgently needed to help save lives across the continent. It is heartening that the Government and industry representatives are working together to educate colleagues elsewhere in Europe about the benefits of our system and standards.

Many of these new arrangements are now in place—and those that are not will be shortly. All member states have a National Register of Road Transport Undertakings in place and they are due to be interconnected by 31 December 2012. Once interconnection has been achieved member states will be able to check the repute of Transport Managers across Europe and notify to the home member states instances were one of a number of Most Serious Infringements have been detected during roadside inspections. Although it is too early to make substantial comment on their effectiveness, we are aware that a number of Member States have made substantial improvements to their regulatory regimes as a result of it that should only have a positive impact on road safety for all countries in which those Member States’ vehicles are operated

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 47

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

VOSA recognise that the specification of vehicles onto PSV Operator’s Licences would offer significant benefits to improving the enforcement of the Operator Licensing system. This would enable the Operator Compliance and Risk Score (which is used to target vehicles for checking in roadside checks) to be much more robust for PSVs, and would also more readily help VOSA determine if a PSV is being used unlawfully without a licence (which will make the recently available PSV Impounding sanction a more useful tool). However, it is noted that a requirement for PSV operators to notify all vehicle registration numbers, in all circumstances, would bring with it a more substantial regulatory cost. It is not clear that the benefits of this approach would be sufficient to justify the regulatory costs involved Particular issues arise where an operator needs to use different vehicles, for example because a vehicle needs to be hired in at short notice to cover for a breakdown. At the present time it will not always be possible to notify VOSA immediately in these circumstances—although it is expected that over the next few years improvements in the on-line systems that VOSA have are likely to make this possible. Anecdotal evidence from parts of the industry suggests that delivering such improvements would be a prerequisite for industry support for the proposal. This issue is currently recognised in the goods vehicle operator licensing system, where operators have a limited period (the “margin concession”) within which the new vehicle details must be notified. An unscrupulous operator will therefore always be able to claim that an “unnotified” vehicle was being used under the margin concession and this would seriously limit the benefits that could otherwise arise from specifying vehicles on all PSV operators’ licences.

Recommendation

We welcome the improvements to public service vehicle (PSV) operator licensing, but there are clear loopholes, which imperil the safety of passengers, that still need to be closed regarding the use of PSV operator licences on multiple vehicles. We recommend that appropriate legislation be introduced as soon as possible to make provision for the specification of vehicles on operator licences for public service vehicles.

VOSA recognise the benefits the specification of vehicles on O Licences would bring—and also note that there is a level of industry support for such a measure. However, it is also noted that there would be an additional burden if vehicles were specified and therefore a change to legislation is unlikely at this time. We will continue to monitor this issue.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 48 Transport Committee: Evidence

Recommendation

There is an existing power for Traffic Commissioners—in particular circumstances—to specify which vehicles may be used under a PSV operator’s licence. This power, under section 26(5) of the Transport Act 1985, provides an opportunity for the Traffic Commissioners to require the operator to notify which vehicles will be used under the licence. This power is available where it appears to the traffic commissioner that vehicles are not being maintained in a fit and serviceable condition, or where an operator is making agreements with other operators in an attempt to circumvent the licensing requirements. This power appears to be seldom used by the Traffic Commissioners at present. In the first instance, therefore, the Government would encourage the Traffic Commissioners to make use of the existing power in the Transport Act 1985, mentioned above, in specific cases where they consider it appropriate to do so. The effectiveness of this approach will be monitored, and if it appears to be ineffective, more work will be done to determine how specification may be able to be applied in the PSV industry to minimise unlawful operation—ideally being focussed on those sectors where problems of unlawful operation are most significant.

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 49

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

Enforcement of bus punctuality lies with the Traffic Commissioners. Bus operators (outside London) must register all local services they intend to operate with the relevant Traffic Commissioner giving the prescribed particulars of those services (chiefly the route and timetable). Whilst they may register and deregister any service they choose, they are obliged to operate the service in accordance with the particulars they have registered. Traffic Commissioners can penalise operators who, without reasonable excuse, fail to run services in accordance with the registered particulars, either with a financial sanction1 and/or a restriction on their licence.2 The Local Transport Act 2008 enhanced the Traffic Commissioners’ powers, enabling them to hold local authorities to account for their contribution to poor performance, and enabling them to require an operator to invest in specific improvements or provide compensation to passengers, rather than, or in addition to, imposing a penalty. VOSA currently provide the Traffic Commissioners with support in this role and the Department believes that VOSA remains the most appropriate body to do this. To ensure that reliable and punctual bus services are provided, the Department believes it is vital for local authorities and bus operators to work together. The Department is currently working with key stakeholders to introduce a revised punctuality performance regime based on partnership working to ensure that problems are understood early and solutions applied. This work is being taken forward by the Bus Punctuality Working Group (BPWG), set up under the umbrella of the Bus Partnership Forum, consisting of key industry, local authority, passenger, and enforcement representatives. The BPWG is looking at a number of issues surrounding data sharing and the monitoring of bus punctuality, including whether data provided by local authorities could be utilised, and the use of electronic data as part of the punctuality monitoring process. The Department intends to issue guidance on the importance of local authorities and operators working in partnership to achieve punctual and reliable bus services, and setting out their respective roles. The guidance is being prepared in conjunction with the BPWG and should be issued early next year.

Recommendation

If the new reliability and punctuality monitoring system is to be effective, the role of VOSA and all other relevant agencies must be clarified. However, we do not believe that VOSA currently has the resources to adequately undertake this responsibility on top of its existing remit. We recommend that the Government transfer the responsibility for monitoring punctuality and service reliability to local bodies such as Integrated Transport Authorities. At the same time, the possible efficiencies that might be achieved by a more high-tech approach to monitoring should be explored.

VOSA has actively supported Traffic Commissioners in improving bus punctuality and has implemented the revised approach established by DfT to improve the effectiveness of this work. Further details of the way this has been achieved are given in Memorandum No. 2.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 50 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

Through the changes that have taken place recently a better and more coherent service is now being delivered to truck and bus operators across the country. The establishment of a statutory Senior Traffic Commissioner (STC) with new powers to issue guidance and direction to fellow Traffic Commissioners will greatly help in this process.

VOSA acknowledges the concerns of the Committee and accepts that the performance gain system has limitations. It is no longer a key target but is one of a number of internal management indicators utilised, along with input hours and various output measures. Performance gain is kept under review. VOSA takes the work done by examiners in support of public inquiries very seriously, and has adjusted the management system to recognise that the performance measure for preparation of case work for the Traffic Commissioners is equal to that given for roadside work.

Recommendation

We welcome the improvement in relations between VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners over the past two years. It is essential that they work seamlessly together, and that communication between them is effective.

We continue to have concerns about the operation of VOSA’s performance management system which may distort priorities so that crucial work in support of hearings by Traffic Commissioners is neglected. The system needs to be audited, and if necessary, adjusted to ensure that support for the enforcement work of Traffic Commissioners is given due priority.

VOSA have now moved to much simpler performance management measures—such as overall numbers of prohibitions and the rate of prohibition issue. This has simplified our performance management has ensured we have a transparent view of what is being done—and that includes support for TCs. Providing good quality information on the failings (or otherwise) of GB Operators remains a key element of the enforcement strategy. Over the last two years VOSA has refocused examiner time towards this activity to ensure that this activity is given adequate weight. There is a formal measure—known as the Traffic Commissioner Service Level Agreement—between the TCs and the Office(s) of the Traffic Commissioners, Licensing and Intelligence parts of VOSA. It is formed of 15 measures and is reported on each month. To achieve success, VOSA has to achieve 85% of our targets, and it has done this year on year since the Agreement was put in place in 2006. This year to date we are meeting 14 of the 15 measures which is a 93% achievement

The Department and Traffic Commissioners (TCs) have continued to work closely together since the last TSC to try and ensure there is clarity in the relationships between DfT and its’ agencies and TCs. Both parties have seen this as important so that TC independence and the perception of TC independence, as independent office holders, cannot be questioned. Additionally all parties are committed to proving that the operator licensing enforcement and regulatory systems can work together in such a way so as to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of both systems in improving road safety. The most significant progress in this respect was the publication in July 2012 of a Framework document that clearly set out the relationships between the various parties that was signed by the then Roads Minister Mike Penning and the STC. The Department believes this has resolved a number of the key issues of concern that TCs had but are aware that there are some further issues to resolve such as finalising a revised Memorandum of Agreement between VOSA and TCs. However we are hopeful this will be achieved before the end of this financial year.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 51

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

The Department, VOSA and the UK Borders Agency are currently developing strategies which may achieve a resolution to the issues around enforcement on port premises. It is intended that these developing strategies could achieve the objective of ensuring that enforcement and inspection work can be effectively and proportionately carried out at all port locations, without the need for any legislative change. VOSA maintain a presence at Coquelles, the French entry for Eurotunnel traffic, but have found that this is not always an efficient location for inspecting vehicles. There is insufficient space to prohibit vehicles in the inspection area, and VOSA has no jurisdiction to detain the vehicles in France. Therefore VOSA have to direct prohibited vehicles through the tunnel to be met and escorted by VOSA examiners at Ashford. VOSA are looking at both how resource could be used more efficiently, and at alternative equivalent deterrent mechanisms. Beyond Coquelles, work is being done to explore how VOSA can work in partnership with other countries to improve and increase inspections of vehicles at ports before vehicles enter the UK.

Recommendation

We recommend that VOSA be granted right of access to all port premises where road vehicles enter the UK. This could, of course, be achieved through legislation, but a quicker and more effective option could be to establish a Memorandum of Understanding between VOSA and all UK port authorities. If all UK ports where vehicles enter the UK are part of the agreement, no port would be at a disadvantage compared to others. We recommend that the Department for Transport and VOSA explore the options with ports operators, but if no voluntary agreement is forthcoming, Ministers should not shy away from legislative action. We also recommend that the possibility of carrying out inspections at ports outside the UK should be pursued where feasible and desirable.

VOSA now have a signed an Memorandum of Agreement with the British Ports Association and the Major UK Ports Group that sets out the expectations for VOSA’s access for ports and how VOSA will work when it does conduct checks within ports. The majority of ports are part of this agreement and we have had no significant issues at those that have signed the MoA. There are still a small number of ports where we do not have access—but these are being dealt with locally and/or we have alternative check locations that cover traffic transiting that port.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 52 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

VOSA is grateful for the recognition the Committee has given in terms of the joint working that is undertaken with other agencies. VOSA place significant focus on the collaborative efforts that can be utilised with the police and will continue to explore further avenues of combined effort. For many years joint large scale enforcement operations such as the ‘Operation Mermaid’ and ‘Operation Tourist’ checks have been undertaken, enabling collaborative working on both on a national and local level. VOSA meets regularly with the police and other agencies to share intelligence and information on high risk national targets. More recently it has been developing policies and strategies with the police for dealing with the illegal operation of limousines, which will see the agencies working together to impound vehicles found to be in contravention of regulations. The police have always been supportive to VOSA examiners where difficult confrontational circumstances have prevailed, and this support has been particularly valuable following the introduction of the graduated fixed penalties and deposits schemes earlier this year. VOSA are also involved with the police on a wider European basis, sitting on the European traffic police working group, TISPOL, which provides a forum for sharing information on tachograph fraud.

Recommendation

We welcome the progress which has been made by VOSA in terms of collaboration and information sharing with other agencies. These efforts must continue undiminished, with a particular emphasis on collaboration with the police. Collaboration facilitates optimal use of scarce resources. Also, information and intelligence is a key component of an enforcement policy which is based in significant measure on the targeting of the most likely offenders.

VOSA has maintained and extended its links with other enforcement agencies and has continued to work collaboratively with them. In particular the intelligence and investigative functions within VOSA are delivered in close consort with the police at an operational level. This includes Police representation at the VOSA national targeting meetings (which sets the national targeting priorities). VOSA also work with other agencies—sharing data where necessary to ensure that mutual objectives can be met. Recent work has included reviewing data collected by the Highways Agency on ‘incidents’ involving HGVs to determine if there were systemic failings with the operators of the vehicles involved. For certain elements of VOSA’s routine enforcement VOSA are still dependent on collaboration with the police. This is particularly the case where VOSA plan to impound vehicles—where police support is required. This has been at the fore recently in high profile operations that have dealt with some large foreign operators that have been operating within Great Britain outside of the cabotage rules—so their vehicles have been impounded. Recent high profile checks VOSA has undertaken jointly with other enforcement agencies include: — Operation Charlton—this programme of work took place during the Olympics. On behalf of the Highways Agency, VOSA enforced a weight restriction on HGVs using one of the bridges on the M4 close to London; — Operation Kansas—during the spring and summer of 2012, with the support of the Metropolitan Police and TfL, VOSA examiners inspected a number of limousines in central London on Friday and Saturday evenings. Some of these vehicles were impounded as they were being operated without an operators licence. In addition, VOSA is conducting checks of PSVs (especially limousines) across the country, where test purchases are used from known unlicensed operators; — Operation Utah—South Wales Traffic Police, Traffic Wales, the Highways Agency and VOSA are mounting co-ordinated checks of foreign HGVS using the Second Severn Crossing en-route to English and Continental destinations. The purpose of the operations is to “deny criminals the use of the roads” and VOSA concentrates on those aspects which involve batches of large vehicles.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 53

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

VOSA accepts it needs to improve the timeliness and accuracy of data to support its enforcement activity. VOSA is committed to improving this via the creation of an IT enabling enforcement strategy, the key areas of focus within this are: 1. To ensure all intelligence sources are as up to date as possible on the different technologies being used to stop/sift vehicles. 2. Enhance the current UK operator risk scoring system to include international traffic. 3. Exploitation of real or near real time data to improve detection of non compliance and the effectiveness of VOSA resources. 4. Assessing opportunities to enrich VOSA data for targeting, by sharing data with other Agencies (Police, HMRC, UK Borders etc.) and EU member states. Business cases will be produced to ensure that the investment in these improvements delivers value for money. The observation made by the Committee that it would be advantageous to have information available to VOSA, so examiners were aware of whether a vehicle had already been inspected elsewhere by VOSA that day is accepted, although it is considered a low probability and low road safety risk but will be explored as part of VOSA future IT enablement strategy.

Recommendation

In order to maximise efficiency and reduce inconvenience to operators, VOSA examiners must have access to accurate and up-todate information. Therefore, the adoption of an IT system which updates data instantly across the entire system must be a priority. If necessary, more resources should be made available to invest in better technology to achieve this.

VOSA accepted it needed to improve the timeliness and accuracy of data to support its enforcement activity. Since the previous update, we have made progress with the key areas of focus as follows: 1. To ensure all intelligence sources are as up to date as possible on the different technologies being used to stop/sift vehicles. In 2011–12 we delivered an IT solution to enable enforcement casework to be managed electronically. The capability to scan and attach supporting documents was introduced in 2012. In March 2012, we introduced a new IT solution which enabled intelligence recorded at VOSA’s contact centre to be automatically presented to intelligence offers for grading reducing delays in the handling process. By March 2013, we will measure intelligence outcomes using information managed in the intelligence and casework business systems. In 2012 we piloted new mobile technology to support sifting of vehicles at the roadside. We are now taking forward the pilot’s findings to deliver a new mobile solution to enable sifting and recording the outcomes of roadside inspections as part of VOSA’s wider mobile working strategy and IT modernisation programme. 2. Enhance the current UK operator risk scoring system to include international traffic. Enhancements to the operator risk scoring to include international traffic (non-GB OCRS) were introduced in 2011. In 2012, we completed an assessment of the performance of the solution and are considering areas for improvement as part of our plans for 2013–14. In addition, an enhanced GB OCRS solution was introduced in 2012 with extensive industry involvement. Further enhancements are planned for 2013–14. 3. Exploitation of real or near real time data to improve detection of non compliance and the effectiveness of VOSA resources. In 2011–12 we established joint working with Border Force (formerly UKBA) to improve targeting of international traffic through shared access to the Freight Targeting System (FTS). Working with Transport for London, we introduced networked real time automated number plate recognition (ANPR) technology at the Blackwall tunnel prior to the Olympics and are in the process of extending this capability to all our other fixed ANPR cameras.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 54 Transport Committee: Evidence

Recommendation

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

4. Assessing opportunities to enrich VOSA data for targeting, by sharing data with other Agencies (Police, HMRC, UK Borders etc.) and EU member states. We have established joint working relationships with — UK Border Force (formerly UKBA) for targeting of international traffic — EU Member States—the National Register for UK Operators was delivered in 2011. The interconnection of EU National Registers providing sharing of data for repute checks and international traffic infractions will be delivered by January 2013. — HMRC—data sharing for matters relating to financial repute — Police—ongoing of intelligence sharing and joint operational activity — Insurance Fraud Bureau—identifying MOT garages that might have been involved in insurance fraud In addition, we are assessing the feasibility of a public release of operator test and inspection data as part of our 2012–13 data transparency plans.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 55

It is agreed that VOSA’s enforcement effort would be improved by better access to the data information of other Agencies, and VOSA and the Department are exploring better ways of working with the Home Office, the Police and UK Border Agency to increase effectiveness by sharing data where possible. VOSA are alive to the privacy issues around the increased use of personal data, and would seek to achieve their enforcement objectives through minimal use of such data. The Department are also exploring whether VOSA have the legal powers to obtain information, such as Ships’ Manifests, and indeed whether UK Borders have the legal powers to disclose the information to VOSA.

We believe that aspects of current data protection legislation are a hindrance to successful targeting of foreign-registered vehicles. While it is very important to protect personal data from inappropriate use, it is unacceptable that information which could greatly improve road safety cannot be shared with the agency responsible for enforcing vehicle safety standards. The Government should give priority to legislative adjustments which would facilitate secure and effective data sharing between key government agencies such as VOSA and HMRC. In order to discharge its core functions effectively, VOSA needs to have the same access to Ships’ Manifests and other key documents as is enjoyed by the HMRC. The efficiency of regulation and enforcement in areas where the responsibilities of several bodies’ overlap could be greatly improved through better information sharing arrangements.

Transport Act 1985, section 26, as amended by section 62 of the Local Transport Act 2008.

2

December 2012

Transport Act 2000, section 155, as amended by section 64 of the Local Transport Act 2008.

1

Table Notes:

The Government’s 2009 Response (as published in HC 1057)

Recommendation Formal data sharing arrangements have been established with UK Border Force, HMRC, Insurance Fraud Bureau, Highways Agency and EU member states. There are established processes which enable lawful, proportionate and timely sharing of data, where required.

Current Position

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 56 Transport Committee: Evidence

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 57

Written evidence from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) (VOSA 02A) Introduction The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) welcomes the Committee’s interest in its work. The Agency plays a key role delivering the Government’s road safety strategy through ensuring compliance with regulations of vehicle operators, drivers, Transport Managers, MOT garages, tachograph and speed limiter calibration centres. VOSA also provides administrative support to the independent Traffic Commissioners. The submission covers: —

Background—VOSA as an organisation and road safety;



Annual testing—improvements to the arrangements for vehicle test sites;



Enforcement—the standards of foreign HGVs operating in the UK;



Supporting the work of the Traffic Commissioners;



Implementation of the HGV Road User Levy and the effect of the work on VOSA.

Background—The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency VOSA is an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport, and is part of the DfT’s Motoring Services (MS) Directorate. The Agency was established in 2003 and is responsible for: —

the annual testing of HGVs and PSVs;



enforcing compliance with roadworthiness standards, drivers hours, Working Time Directive and operator licensing conditions;



supervision of the MOT scheme, including training;



provision of guidance and information to support customers compliance; and



investigating collisions, monitoring of vehicle recalls and defects investigations.

VOSA also provides administrative support to the Traffic Commissioners, who are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and are statutorily independent of VOSA and the Department. Traffic Commissioners have responsibility for: —

the licensing of the operators of HGVs and PSVs;



the registration of local bus services;



granting vocational driver licences and taking action against drivers of HGVs and PSVs; and



the determination of appeals against the impounding by VOSA of illegally operated HGVs.

The Agency operates as a trading fund. In 2011–12 the total income was, in round terms £189 million. The majority of this income—£175 million—came from statutory fees (eg testing and licensing), the remainder came from areas such as voluntary testing and grant funding. VOSA employs 2,216 full time equivalent staff as at October 2012. They are located at its headquarters in Bristol, at offices in Swansea and Leeds and at around 100 operational locations across Great Britain (GB). Staff turnover is low and staff survey results indicate a strong allegiance to VOSA’s vision of improved road safety. Annual Testing Plans for the Future VOSA believes it has, in the last three years significantly improved arrangements for vehicle test sites and will continue to do so into the future. VOSA’s objective is for annual testing to be increasingly conducted at non-VOSA locations enabling statutory testing to be brought closer to the customer and point of maintenance. The Agency will encourage the opening of more Authorised Test Facilities (ATFs) in those parts of the country where early take-up has been slow; current plans have been submitted from industry to create a further 62 new builds and convert 22 of the 88 Designated Premises (DPs—these are similar to ATFs but are sites authorised for this function prior to the existence of ATFs—the key difference is that they are not managed through a contract) to ATF status. Our plan is that over 75% of testing will be at non-VOSA sites by April 2014. However, should we fail to encourage the opening of sufficient ATFs we will consider alternative delivery models. These will include the renting of servicing lanes in private sector facilities or ultimately the sale or leasing of existing Goods Vehicle Testing Stations to operate as ATFs. The history of testing and current practice in annual testing is set out in Annex 1 below.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 58 Transport Committee: Evidence

VOSA’s vision is that its Vehicle Inspectors will be increasingly multi-skilled, flexible and deployed in a way that best meets the needs of ATF operators and their customers whilst maintaining test quality. VOSA has already conducted a significant amount of planning of a future design to enable this. This design has been approved internally and is currently with DfT for approval. This Design complements the successful roll-out of more ATFs and covers a number of areas: — more flexible deployment—especially early starts/late finishes to match the working pattern of an individual site; — travel to and from the ATFs direct from the Inspector’s home, rather than the VOSA estate; — greater flexibility with regard to the end of day processes to ensure the full programme of work is delivered; — Enhanced Inspector skill-sets; ongoing development of technical skills will be managed by a Continuous Professional Development approach. In addition, analysis of test result data will inform targeted re-training in a certain area/capability; and — Electronic capture of test results. The proposed new Design will ensure that test quality and consistency is within tolerance levels and quality systems are ISO-compliant. Quality assurance of testing will be proportional to risk via ISO standards eg 9001/ 17025. ISO standards will also require improved arrangements for complaints handling and customers will be provided with a better range of information than is available now—see below. More relevant and useful data will be captured—electronically at the time of test—which will be used to help operators, presenters and VOSA improve compliance. This will both increase efficiency and ensure specific quality tolerances are met. The technology required will ensure that equipment is better matched to the workshop environment and optimised to support the capture of test and other data in near real time. VOSA recognises it will need to build stronger relationships with vehicle manufacturers, main dealers, operators and presenters and that new roles will be required to manage the new commercial arrangements. Customers—whether they be an ATF or vehicle operators—will be provided with an extensive range of statistics: volumes of tests, pass, fail, failure items, consistency and contract compliance. Paper-based reports will be replaced with bulletins through a web-based portal to enable better management of income and contractual obligations. Supporting the Work of the Traffic Commissioners VOSA directly provides support to the Traffic Commissioners—through the administrative support of the Operator Licensing System. The background to this work is contained at Annex 2. VOSA’s enforcement activities—and in particular the provision of the results of roadside checks and operator systems checks—are another key element of the work that VOSA does for TCs. A background to that enforcement work is contained at Annex 3. Improved Support VOSA believes it can further improve its support for the TCs in the medium and long term. The IT system supporting the Operator Licensing processing for TCs (the Operator Licensing Business System—OLBS) is due for replacement. VOSA has begun work with TCs on establishing the scope of the prospective replacement. In doing so opportunities are being identified for how that system can be improved to better support the TCs’ regulatory responsibilities, improve service to customers, improve process efficiency or present information to better assist enforcement prioritisation and meet the Government’s digital target. There is still work to be done on identifying the feasibility of some of the ideas being considered and discussed and detailed cost benefits have not been completed—but areas being looked at (either as a part of the OLBS refresh or as longer term developments) include the following areas: 1. Automated external checks This is where an application for a licence is checked out against data held by other government bodies. For example, it should be possible to check—by automatic means—the status of the way the business of the operator is structured and whether the firm is registered with Companies House. Another example is a check of financial standing, where banks would provide evidence of sufficient funds. Although this might take some effort to set up these links, they offer significant benefits in processing time and quality of assessment for licence applications. A reduction in the burden on applicants (and VOSA) would enhance the reputation of the system of operator licences. Another benefit would be that it is accordance with one of the Hampton Principles: businesses should not have to provide the same information to government twice. 2. On-line licence applications and licence maintenance Another reputation-enhancing development would be the completion of applications for licences on-line and the regular management of licences via a portal—an extension of the relatively limited services currently available to customers on-line through the Operator Self-Service element of OLBS. This would make the

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 59

process slicker and quicker by the reduction/removal of paper documents. Moreover, confirmation of the licence parameters at set intervals by the licence holder would make many public inquires less contentious as the basic details (eg change of entity) would not be the subject of debate and the hearing could focus its efforts on the real issues. But on-line applications would take a significant amount of time to arrange with its attendant costs. Up to date data would have benefits for compliance generally. Having better information about customers would have a positive impact on education and enforcement activities, and it would help TCs/VOSA achieve the Government target of digital by default. 3. Better case management VOSA has been using Electronic Case Management System (ECMS) for several years now. In essence it provides a structure for the creation of electronic case management files from paper documents allowing much easier transmission of information around the Agency. VOSA believes ECMS has further development potential which can help ensure that those cases reaching Traffic Commissioners contain additional information about the interaction VOSA has had with the operator. This would allow public inquiries to have the benefit of the whole picture. The reduction or removal of paper files where possible would also be a further move towards Government’s digital by default target. 4. Single customer account The proposition here is that persons or entities have a single secure digital portal through which they conduct business with VOSA and Traffic Commissioners. Once an account is opened the user has the ability to apply for different licences, update licence details, access reports and receive links to training, advice and guidance specific to the role they carry out. Traffic Commissioners would benefit from the knowledge that communications between them and operators (especially the larger ones) would be made more effective and that any message sent out with an increased likelihood it would reach all parts of the business. This is currently under review and VOSA is looking at a data sharing agreement with the Senior Traffic Commissioner. Standards of Foreign HGVs Operating in Great Britain Since the last TSC—which broadly coincided with the implementation of new powers to enable VOSA to issue effective penalties to foreign drivers—the Agency has continued to focus its efforts to deal with traffic that presents the highest risk to GB road users. This has resulted in considerable effort going into the checking of non-GB vehicles—typically this being around 50% of the roadside checks that we conduct. Since then we have seen some improvements in compliance rates compared to the GB vehicles, as measured through the fleet compliance survey. This is a statistically robust view of on-the-road compliance rates—not skewed by the targeting of at-risk vehicles: Roadworthiness

2010 2011

GB

Non-GB

10.4% 10.3%

21.8% 14.2%

Drivers Hours & Tachograph Checks GB Non-GB 12.4% 12.9%

14.4% 11.5%

This shows that non-GB and GB prohibition rates for vehicles are converging. The exact reasons for this are not known—but the implementation of the fixed penalties and deposits scheme will be a factor, as will our continued efforts to target the non-compliance (including use of non-GB Operator Compliance Risk Score) and legislative improvements that other member states will have been complying with that include changes to the annual testing requirements and bringing in operator licensing schemes analogous to that of long standing in GB. DfT continues to work with other Member States and the EC on changes to European Legislation to ensure that the safety of GB road users is preserved and that there is fair competition between the GB and non-GB industries. This has resulted in a number of positive changes to the rules by which industry are governed that have improved the situation. Most notably this has included new cabotage rules that have been much more enforceable than the previous rules and new requirements for the competent authority in member states to take action where their operators are found to be committing serious offences. We expect an EC proposal to further liberalise cabotage by the middle of 2013. It is not known at this time what form this will take. For the future, VOSA will continue to direct its efforts towards those operators that present the highest risk to road safety—and also ensuring that “fair competition” rules (such as cabotage) are enforced. VOSA will therefore continue putting a considerable proportion of its roadside enforcement effort into checks of foreign vehicles. VOSA will also continue to improve its ability to target these vehicles through the future development of non-GB OCRS. It will also use other data sources as appropriate to help it build up a better view of compliance of foreign operators—and the data available from the HGV Road User Levy (when launched in 2014) should support this. Further detail of VOSA’s overall approach top enforcement is at Annex 3. VOSA increasingly adopts a “zero tolerance” policy with these high risk targets—ensuring that when all other strategies have failed that enforcement is disruptive and forces behaviours to change. In these cases,

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 60 Transport Committee: Evidence

vehicles are targeted at base/point of entry, targeted where they are known to be used and stopped on every occasion they are encountered. It is noted that where this approach has been used—that the operators soon approach VOSA to discuss what it is they need to do to comply, as they cannot continue to run their business with this level of disruption. HGV Road User Levy The HGV Road User Levy is due to be implemented in April 2014 for both UK and (subject to the completion of the procurement process for the payment system) foreign hauliers. The new charge is being introduced through the HGV Road User Levy Bill which is currently working its way through parliament to provide the necessary primary legislation. The introduction of the levy is seen as a key measure towards levelling the playing field between UK and foreign hauliers. There will be new charges for foreign registered heavy goods vehicles that are 12 tonnes or over to use UK roads. For most UK vehicles Vehicle Excise Duty will be reduced so that they pay no more than now, so this new initiative makes little practical difference, effectively splitting the current Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) amounts into two—elements for the Levy and VED. The levy will be paid for at the same time as the VED payment is made, either annually or six monthly. VOSA’s role is expected to remain broadly unchanged from the current processes, as they will deal with Levy offences alongside their other enforcement work. For non-UK vehicles the Levy will be required for each day the vehicle uses UK roads—either on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis, with charges of £10 per day to £1,000 per year for the longest, heaviest vehicles. The Levy will be payable to an externally contracted service, and non-compliance will be primarily enforced by VOSA. We are currently liaising closely with DfT and other stakeholders in establishing the detail of the VOSA work, but we expect the following to form the framework of the enforcement: — In strategic locations, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipped cameras will access the Levy database to allow VOSA to specifically target non compliant vehicles. — Every foreign based vehicle inspected by VOSA will also be checked for compliance with the Levy. — VOSA will issue fixed penalty notices, or fixed penalty deposits (currently £200) to drivers of vehicles that are not covered by a valid Levy. — For operators taken to court, there is a maximum fine of £5,000 (level 5) which can be imposed. — VOSA will immobilise non compliant vehicles until the Levy is paid. — Information will be maintained on operators found to be non compliant which will result on VOSA targeting those operator’s vehicles in the future. The enforcement of the Levy will be new work to VOSA and introduces an extra compliance check on every foreign vehicle inspected. Some additional funding is planned to cover VOSA officer time as well as increase in IT capability, to ensure that robust compliance with the levy. The introduction of this work will not have a negative impact on VOSA’s other work. Annex 1 ANNUAL TESTING History Statutory roadworthiness inspections of heavy goods vehicles and trailers were introduced in Great Britain in the late 1960s for all vehicles after the first year of service. All tests were carried out by employees of predecessors to VOSA, at Government provided test stations. VOSA currently provides around [72] such stations from Shetland to Cornwall with a mix of full and part time sites to meet local requirements. The plan is for the size of VOSA’s network to decrease as a third party network expands. In the 1980s, VOSA offered operators of public service vehicles the option of tests at suitable Designated Premises (DPs), almost all of which were owned by operators of vehicles, usually the larger. About a decade later, VOSA extended this arrangement to include heavy goods vehicles and trailers, although many were converted serving lanes. In addition, an additional charge was made for testing at these sites to cover the cost of travel and lost time from sending staff to them and the typically lower throughput than at VOSA facilities. Those providing DPs were under no obligation to present only their own vehicles for test, or to allow others to present vehicles at their facilities (open access). The relationship between the facility provider and VOSA was informal in that VOSA gave no guarantees about service provision and had no certainty their staff would be fully utilised. The organisation owning the premises could charge presenters for the use of the test facility in addition to the statutory test fees payable to VOSA. This charge could be in the form of a fee for the use of the facilities (referred to as a “pit fee”) or could be included as an overhead in charges for other services which the facility provider was supplying to their customers.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 61

Current Practice In 2010, VOSA launched a new approach to providing test facilities, referred to as the Testing Transformation Programme (TTP). The aim was to make commercial vehicle roadworthiness inspections more accessible and flexible for operators by providing them at more locations and at more convenient times—in other words bringing testing closer to the customer. There is now a new generation of emerging non-VOSA test facilities known as Authorised testing Facilities (ATFs). Many ATFs, especially those provided by main dealers, have open access status, meaning they provide testing for anyone’s vehicle, including PSVs, which their facility can accommodate. Many ATFs can offer a menu of other services prior to test or after, which further minimises business downtime. Unlike DPs, ATFs have a formal contract with VOSA which sets out obligations on both sides—eg the ATF is required to guarantee a minimum income for each testing session (the “reservation fee”—to encourage efficient use of VOSA inspectors) and VOSA pays compensation if it fails to provide inspectors at the agreed times. The ATF contract also applies limits to the pit fee which ATFs may charge for the use of their facilities. ATFs can offer a “one-stop-shop” approach, incorporating preventive maintenance inspections and repairs as well as roadworthiness inspections, all of which can be managed more efficiently and cost-effectively. VOSA has supported the opening of 278 ATFs in addition to the remaining 88 DPs. The coverage of ATFs is shown in the attached map of Great Britain. A breakdown of test volumes (‘000s) by type of site is given below, together with the proportion tested in an ATF/DP. Year

09/10 10/11 11/12

Heavy goods (motor) vehicle Volume by site GVTS ATF/DP Total % 356 321 279

84 105 135

443 426 414

19 25 33

Heavy goods vehicle (trailer) Volume by site GVTS ATF/DP Total % 165 147 124

66 80 101

231 227 225

29 35 45

Public Service Vehicle Volume by site GVTS ATF/DP Total 49 45 39

34 38 42

83 83 81

% 41 46 52

Most customers seem pretty content with the concept of ATFs. 90% of service agents are satisfied with the testing process as a whole. And 96% of service agents and 89% of operators are satisfied with the overall quality of service provided at their main test location. The benefits of ATFs are: — For industry and customers: — Less vehicle “downtime”—less time spent taking vehicles from repair locations to VOSA and improved access to other services including immediate rectification of test failure defects; — Improved maintenance facilities through the use of ATF equipment and a consequent improvement in the pass rate of vehicles. The table below shows the more favourable pass rate at third party sites than for those owned by VOSA, resulting in a greater number of vehicles meeting the test requirements; — Improved access to testing—a greater number of sites where testing is available than was the case with VOSA’s network; — Reduction in the distance travelled—more sites closer to the point of vehicle repair; — Reduction in the overall cost of testing vehicles—shorter journeys, fewer journeys for those vehicles requiring a re-test; — For the UK public: — Less congestion, Better air quality, less noise and fewer greenhouse gases; — Reduced risk of accidents/incidents with vehicles travelling to test; — Less wear and tear on infrastructure; — For ATF operators: — Opportunity to reduce costs through maintenance and test of vehicles on-site; — Greater convenience with an in-house one stop shop for tests; — Opportunity to grow their business through additional add-on services.

Vehicle Type Heavy goods (motor) vehicle Heavy goods vehicle (trailer) Public Service Vehicle

GVTS 85.3 64.9 85.3

Pass Rate (%) No of additional vehicles ATF/DP meeting test requirements 87.3 88.9 93.5

2,693 24,249 4,444

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 62 Transport Committee: Evidence

Annex 2 VOSA SUPPORT FOR THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS Background The role of Traffic Commissioner dates back to the 1930s. As part of the Department of Transport, they had locally based teams of support staff such as administrators, Mechanical Engineers and Traffic and Vehicle Examiners. 1994 saw the completion of the move of the teams (except admin support) across to the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI). In 2003, the TCs administrative support (Traffic Area Network) was split away from the Department for Transport and integrated with the VI to create the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). The purpose of the changes was primarily to improve efficiency and effectiveness—whilst ensuring concerns around the independence of TCs was dealt with. The new agency became a trading fund with the CEO as the Accounting Officer. In 2007, the operator licensing function was centralised in Leeds. Local administrative support to Traffic Commissioners is provided by VOSA. The operator licensing work and the administrative support to the TCs is paid for primarily through the fees that operators pay for their licences and for registration of local bus services. There is some additional funding from the DVLA for the driver conduct work the Traffic Commissioners carry out on their behalf. Functions of the Traffic Commissioners Traffic Commissioners (TCs) are appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.There is one less TC than Traffic Areas because the West Midland and Welsh Traffic Areas are served by a common Traffic Commissioner. Mrs Beverley Bell, the North Western TC is the Senior Traffic Commissioner. The TCs are responsible for the granting and issue of operator licences to operators of goods vehicles and public service vehicles. They also take regulatory action against the holders of licences when they fail to meet the standards required of them. Such action is triggered by VOSA providing the results of its enforcement actions—roadside examinations and assessments of operator’s systems. TCs are also responsible for registering local bus services and taking action against those operators who do not operate the services in accordance with their registered timetables. Traffic Commissioners also have responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State for considering the fitness of people who hold vocational driving entitlement for heavy goods vehicles or passenger carrying vehicles and those that are applying for the entitlement based on their conduct. Other responsibilities of the TCs include: dealing with appeals against local authority proposals to implement a Quality Partnership Scheme; chairing Quality Contract Scheme Boards when a local authority proposes making a scheme; imposing Traffic Regulation Conditions when asked by a local authority to reduce or limit traffic congestion or noise/air pollution. Traffic Commissioners will also rule on an application received from a person or company against the impounding of a vehicle being operated without the benefit of the appropriate operator’s licence. The Traffic Commissioner for Scotland also has responsibility for devolved issues involving the Scottish Parking Appeals Service and appeals against contraventions of bus lanes. This work is funded through recharging the relevant Scottish local authorities. Framework Agreement The Local Transport Act 2008 introduced changes to the way in which Traffic Commissioners engage with Government. The Framework Document—signed earlier this year—supports the drive to make the service provided by individual TCs more transparent, accessible and efficient, whilst ensuring fairness and trust, which lies at the heart of the licensing system. The Document also aims to assist operators in understanding those relationships. Organisational Structure The VOSA Chief Executive is the Accounting Officer with responsibility for the provision and performance of TC support staff. The Head of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTCAL) (a VOSA employee) is responsible for the provision of services to the Traffic Commissioners and reports to the Operations Director of VOSA. There are a total of 168.78 full time equivalents (fte) working to support the Traffic Commissioners, organised along the following lines: The Central Licensing Office—based in Leeds—deal with applications for new licences and applications to vary licences, as well as updating records for changes of address, etc. There are 82.17 full time equivalent (fte) staff in this office and they are structured into teams each with a defined responsibility of support they provide to Traffic Commissioners.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 63

The Offices of the Traffic Commissioner (OTCs)—see below—support the Traffic Commissioners in their regulatory functions regarding operators and drivers. This primarily involves processing cases for public inquiries, including carrying out administrative duties. The OTC locations and staffing are as follows: Traffic Area

Traffic Commissioner

Location

OTC staff

Scotland North Eastern North Western West Midland Wales Eastern South Eastern and Metropolitan Western

Joan Aitken Kevin Rooney Beverley Bell Nick Jones Nick Jones Richard Turfitt Nick Denton Sarah Bell

Edinburgh Leeds Golborne (Warrington) Birmingham Birmingham Cambridge Eastbourne Bristol

19 10 11.41 9.92 11.68 8.5 10.1

Volumes CURRENT LICENCES—2011–12 Total

84072 (GV)

9514 (PSV)

APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES AND VARIATIONS TO LICENCES IN 2011–12 Total

5762 (New GV)

7994 GV Variations

656 (New PSV)

998 (PSV Variations)

WORK OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS AND THEIR DEPUTIES ON PUBLIC INQUIRIES IN 2011–12 Total

713 (TCs)

972 (Deputy TCs)

1685

Currently licence applications are reduced from recent levels. Whilst this has reduced the volumes of work on this specific activity, it has not reduced the volumes of work on variations and other activities—and in fact the volumes of those are increasing. This is presenting challenges in funding the licensing activities. Delegation and Statutory Guidance and Directions It is impracticable for the Traffic Commissioners to personally make all decisions in the exercise of their functions. Staff in the OTCAL are therefore awarded delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of the Traffic Commissioner for certain functions or within certain parameters. This delegation is granted under the terms of the Deregulation and Contracting-Out Act 1994. Delegation is awarded to named staff once the Traffic Commissioner is satisfied that they are competent to fulfil the role and make decisions on their behalf. The work carried out under delegated authority is regularly and routinely audited by OTCAL managers with the results available to Traffic Commissioners. Certain functions, such as calling a public inquiry, are not delegated. Bus Punctuality Enforcement VOSA’s bus punctuality work for Traffic Commissioners is funded by the Department and the Scottish Government rather than through fees. The approach to this work changed in 2011 following the recommendations of the Bus Punctuality Working Group, formed from stakeholders to develop a more effective punctuality regime. The changes required VOSA to move away from an enforcement role which focused solely on proving an operator was at fault into one that focused on facilitating improvement, promoting prevention and taking a more proactive approach to punctuality issues. The shift in approach also reflected new powers of Traffic Commissioners to hold local authorities, as well as operators, to account for the poor punctuality levels. In practical terms, this has seen VOSA moving the work from a small dedicated team of around 16 bus compliance monitors, into the mainstream activities of around 65 enforcement examiners, who for part of their time provide a greater physical presence on the ground and a higher skill level, for a similar level of funding. The new approach has meant that VOSA activities are: — Concentrated on undertaking visits to operators and local authorities, investigating complaints as well as providing an educational and advisory role. — Aimed at promoting, and facilitating, partnership working between operators and local authorities. — Allowing partnerships to resolve issues between themselves where possible, but following up to ensure that this is happening. — Continuing to take an enforcement role and referring the more serious cases to the Traffic Commissioner, particularly where other avenues for improvement have failed.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 64 Transport Committee: Evidence

— — —

Carrying out monitoring exercises where required, for example where evidence is required to support a public inquiry. Checking (and investigating where necessary) operator processes and records for making claims for Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG). Taking a wider view of a bus operation beyond punctuality, eg drivers’ hours systems, checking that appropriate processes are in place ensuring the roadworthiness of vehicles etc.

It is still relatively early days to measure the success, or otherwise, in this area of work. However, over 500 bus operators have received a visit from a VOSA examiner since the introduction of the new scheme. Information provided by VOSA following investigations into claims for Bus Service Operator Grants has contributed to savings made by the DfT. Annex 3 HEAVY VEHICLE ENFORCEMENT Purpose and Role VOSA carries out enforcement of regulations covering the operation of heavy and other commercial vehicles—goods and passenger carrying—both GB operated vehicles, and non-GB vehicles operated on GB roads. The primary driver for this enforcement is the support of the regulation of Operator’s Licensing across Europe—with the focus for enforcement of GB operators in support of Traffic Commissioners in discharging their regulatory duties. The particular rules that VOSA enforce largely focus on road safety—but do also cover other objectives on protecting the environment, ensuring fair competition, protecting employees, protecting government revenue and, in a very limited way, reducing vehicle crime. In 2011–12 — — — —

VOSA carried out at the roadside and operators premises: approx. 80,000 mechanical checks of HGVs; approx. 11,600 mechanical checks of PSVs; approx. 100,100 HGV drivers hours checks; and approx. 8,400 PSV drivers hours checks.

Scope of Enforcement The main areas that VOSA has enforcement responsibility for are: — Drivers’ Hours (and use of tachographs). — Vehicle Roadworthiness. — Vehicle Loading—weight and load security. — Operator Licensing (including Cabotage and Combined Transport rules). — Related scheme enforcement—Tachograph Calibration Centres, Tachograph Repair Scheme, Road-Speed-Limiter Scheme. — Working Time Directive. — Bus punctuality. — Other operator licensing requirements—also including driver conduct, transport managers, licence conditions & undertakings. — Other policy priorities—Drivers’ Certificate of Professional Competence, PSV Accessibility Regulations, Bus Service Operator Grant, Lorry Road User Charge, Driver Licensing. In addition to the enforcement of heavy vehicles, VOSA does have a limited responsibility—with limited funding—for in-use enforcement for other commercial vehicles—including Light Goods Vehicles, Taxis, Agricultural Vehicles and Mobile Plant (often collectively grouped under the LGV heading). Approach to Enforcement VOSA’s enforcement strategy for enforcement is focussed on changing the performance of the highest risk operators. The delivery of the strategy consists of the following five key elements—targeting the worst offenders and helping other operators improve: Targeted checks of vehicles in use VOSA conducts checks of vehicles in service—with the primary purpose of delivering deterrence to offending, but ensuring that best efforts are made to target the non-compliant; This predominately involves stopping the vehicle to check roadworthiness, drivers’ hours and licensing aspects.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 65

Where possible use is made of technology to enable checks to be made remotely—particularly for weighing, vehicle over-speeds and potentially drivers’ hours—and in the longer term this should enable some infringements to be dealt with fully automatically without significant VOSA intervention. All vehicle checks are targeted towards those operators believed to most likely to be non-compliant to minimise disruption to the compliant. Checks are conducted across GB to provide national deterrence, with a large proportion of checks being conducted on routes where there are high volumes of traffic (and hence high numbers of non-compliant vehicles). Action is taken to ensure that non-compliance is dealt with and any significant road safety is mitigated before a vehicle or driver continues their journey. Where possible, checks are made highly visible, and the results of them publicised to maximise their deterrence value. Targeted Follow-up Investigations For GB operators, information from in-use checks (in GB or abroad), complaints, intelligence, Traffic Commissioners and/or other sources are used to prioritise operators to be visited “follow-up” investigations. Such investigations, which increasingly do not involve a physical visit where only minor infringements have been detected, are to determine the effectiveness of an operator’s systems for managing compliance of the various areas that VOSA enforces. The results of the follow-up work results in one or more of the following actions: no further action; advice provision, referral for further investigation, application of a sanction and/or provision of information to the Regulator (The Traffic Commissioner) for them to consider what they wish to do. VOSA has a clear and systematic approach to the deployment of its more specialist investigative efforts— ensuring that these are directed towards the most serious offenders. Application of Sanctions or Other Interventions VOSA has a range of interventions available to the different entities that it conducts enforcement on—to ensure that improvement is best achieved and that regulatory efforts can be best focused on the worse offenders. For drivers, these are primarily dealt with by fixed penalties—including the taking of deposits for those without a satisfactory GB address. Repeat and serious offenders are reported to Traffic Commissioners such that they can consider any driver conduct aspects. For operators the current range of interventions available to VOSA is quite limited. For minor infringements these are dealt with by providing education and advice. Where failings in an operator’s systems are found these are reported to Traffic Commissioners to enable regulatory action. VOSA will take prosecution action where there is evidence of operator involvement in fraudulent activities. In the longer term VOSA is working with DfT and TCs to consider whether there are any actions that it can take to deal with operators that have failings that will complement the Traffic Commissioner regime and better and efficiently achieve improvements in performance—and this could include the issuing of conditional offers to operators for minor offences (effectively a fixed penalty) and/or ensuring there is an appropriately high cost to non-compliance. Reporting for Potential Regulatory Action The results of all that VOSA does in relation to drivers, operators and transport managers are collated and presented to regulators. For GB based entities this is to the Traffic Commissioner—enabling them to make decisions on what regulatory action they wish to take. Information on offences found for non-GB EU operations is fed through to the home member state. Provision of information, through partnership working, to improve compliance VOSA provide clear information on legal requirements and how they apply—primarily through the internet. This will be done in a style that is readily understandable by the majority of GB vehicle operators—in plain English. These explanations of regulatory requirements are agreed with the main bodies representing the trade. VOSA will work with the trade to support them in providing information on how to comply with the law— including on best practice systems for managing compliance. This information is primarily now provided online—and covers key areas such as Drivers’ Hours and Roadworthiness. In recent years VOSA have produced a number of tailored “guides” for specialist industry sectors that have suffered from particularly poor compliance rates—including Horseboxes, Limousines and (currently under preparation) Recovery Vehicles.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Ev 66 Transport Committee: Evidence

In its day to day enforcement activities VOSA examiners provide advice on potential areas for noncompliance and direct drivers, operators or transport managers to where further information may be available. Enforcement—Current Focus This section provides a brief note on the primary activities being improved in enforcement: Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS)—This is the primary tool that VOSA use to target vehicles at roadside. The system was originally built to cover GB Operators only, but in recent years has been expanded to cover non-GB Operators—the data for that being built up from our checks on the vehicles. Whilst these systems have been recently enhanced we believe that there is still scope for further improvement to be made—this being important in ensuring that our roadside check efforts are best directed to deal with at risk vehicles—and that the burden on the compliant is minimised. Our efforts in the short term will concentrate on the addition of further data sources to the scoring mechanism—from both within VOSA and without. This is particularly of value for the “traffic” (drivers’ hours and overloading) where the current data set is relatively limited. To that end changes have recently been made to how we record the outcomes of operator investigations to enable these to be included in the OCRS in the future. Other future changes may include the addition of some offence types not currently included in OCRS, the results of larger volume analysis of operator’s tachograph charts and the inclusion of the results of operator assessments conducted from organisations outside of VOSA. GB Operator Prioritisation—VOSA currently have a wide range of views of an operator’s performance that can be used to help operational managers determine where best to direct their efforts towards in terms of further investigating an operator’s compliance management systems— with a view to providing information for Traffic Commissioners to determine any necessary regulatory action. It is important that VOSA directs its efforts towards the “right” operators—those that appear to be presenting the highest risk to road users as informed by the results of roadchecks (be that serious offences and/or repeat less serious offences), intelligence or direction from Traffic Commissioners—to ensure that Traffic Commissioners are presented with information on these operators, rather than those that perhaps have less serious failings. To that end, VOSA is improving the way that information is collated and presented internally to ensure that there is a systematic and clear process for prioritising these “follow-up” activities. This will ensure that VOSA does investigate the “worst” operators and that Traffic Commissioners have the results of such investigations. Road-check Sites—The majority of VOSA’s road checks are conducted at government owned sites around the country. Whilst in the longer term there are aspirations that an increased proportion of our checks may be able to be conducted at non-government owned sites (for example at motorway service areas) it is recognised that for higher volume check-sites these are unlikely to be able to be provided by such means—and therefore it is assumed that VOSA will need to retain a reasonably substantial network of its own sites. At the same time it is noted that the current network of sites does not fully match current and projected heavy vehicle traffic flows—and that some adjustments are required to the network to ensure that. Therefore VOSA have in place plans to add four new sites to the network—which are strategically placed and have modern facilities suitable for conducting high quality, high volume vehicle checks. Those sites are planned to be cover the following routes (which are all gaps in our current network or ones where our current facilities are inadequate): A75 from Stranraer ports (Glenluce), M3/A34 (Chilcomb), A14 from Felixstowe and Harwich ports (Elmswell) and M20 from Dover and the Channel Tunnel (Ashford). It is intended that all four of these sites will be commissioned in 2013. In parallel to delivering these new sites VOSA are reviewing the legacy network of check-sites with a view to ensuring that it is focused around areas of significant high risk heavy vehicle traffic flow—and this is resulting in some rationalisation of these facilities. Compliance from the Record & “Back Office” Analysis—VOSA recognised that its roadside checks can only ever deal with a relatively low proportion of heavy vehicle journeys and whilst it is working to ensure that it maximises road-check numbers and the targeting of those, it is also working in a number of ways in making use of technology to increase the number of enforcement “touch points”. One area of focus is around moving towards being able to conduct a level of enforcement “from the record” Efforts so far have concentrated on using data from VOSA’s Weigh-in-Motion sensors (located at nine locations on the strategic road network) to detect overloaded vehicles remotely and to make compliance interventions from that data. It is still early days in this project and there are a number of technical difficulties that still need resolving, but we believe we can have a production service available shortly. In addition we expect to set up similar services to deal with vehicles travelling above their set speed and for other areas that can be detected remotely. In parallel to the work to enable us to deal with offences remotely we are also conducting work to establish a function to process bulk data in a “back-office” environment to support our front-line activities. In particular it is intended to use this for tachograph analysis (primarily of digital records) which will better inform our view of operators to help us direct any further enforcement activities—as well as having positive benefits in meeting EU obligations for numbers of tachograph charts checked.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]

Processed: [17-07-2013 12:47] Job: 030600 Unit: PG03

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 67

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras—VOSA uses ANPR cameras in a number of applications to help it target at-risk vehicles. One of the main applications is a network of fixed cameras that support its key strategic sites. These cameras currently operate as stand-alone pieces of equipment, and this does not make them as easy to operate as could be possible—and VOSA therefore have plans to link these to its network. This will ensure that they have access to the most up-to-date databases, and will also make collection of data to use for enforcement from the record or other back-office analysis purposes much more straightforward. It is also a key enabler to the checking of compliance with the HGV Levy requirements—which will be delivered later in 2013 (covered in a later section). Interconnection—As part of the new EU legislation VOSA is building a link between its own systems and those of its EU counterparts. This is to enable information that VOSA has on infringements on foreign vehicles to be notified to the home authority and vice versa—and will build on the work already conducted on establishing the national registers across the EU. This interconnection will better facilitate other member states taking action where their operators do not meet the requirements—and should also better enable VOSA to understand which member states are better enacting their regulatory responsibilities. December 2012

Supplementary written evidence from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) (VOSA 02B) CORRECTED TABLE—PAGE 9 OF THE MEMORANDUM Pass Rate (%) Vehicle Type Heavy goods (motor) vehicle Heavy goods vehicle (trailer) Public Service Vehicle

GVTS

ATF/DP

No of additional vehicles meeting test requirements

85.3 84.9 85.3

87.3 88.9 93.5

2,693 4,042 3,444

June 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 07/2013 030600 19585

PEFC/16-33-622