The work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)

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

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

£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 3

1 Introduction 5

2 Authorised Testing Facilities 6 VOSA testing staff 7 VOSA’s deficit and fees 9

3 Enforcement 10 Operator Compliance Risk Score and other technology 10 Roadworthiness and drivers’ hours offences 11

4 VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners 13 Service levels 13 Monitoring bus services 14 ICT 14 Branding and independence 16

5 HGV Road User Levy Act 18 Enforcing the HGV Road User Levy 18

6 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 Q 4

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 Q 6

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 Q 6

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 real-time 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


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-traffic-commissioners.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/delivering-charging-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.


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.


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 SandersIain 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 Ev 37: Ev 39

7 VOSA 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 Ev w2: Ev w4

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

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 HC 78

Session 2012–13 Twelfth Report The European Commission’s 4th Railway Package HC 1001

Eleventh Report Land transport security – scope for further EU involvement?

HC 875

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 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

HC 558

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

HC 557

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

HC 11

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 HC 1609 (HC 1933)

Thirteenth Report Draft Civil Aviation Bill: Pre-Legislative Scrutiny HC 1694

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 HC 1185–I (HC 1754)

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 HC 683

First Report Drink and drug driving law HC 460 (Cm 8050)

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

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

HC 467

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

HC 421

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Transport Committee

on Monday 25 February 2013

Members present:

Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair)

Sarah ChampionJim DobbinKwasi KwartengKarl McCartney

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Jay Parmar, Legal and Policy Director, British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, JackSemple, Director of Policy, Road Haulage Association, James Firth, Head of Road Freight and EnforcementPolicy, Freight Transport Association, and Steven Latham, Senior Operations Manager, National FranchisedDealers Association, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome tothe Transport Select Committee. Could we have yournames and organisations, please?Jay Parmar: I am Jay Parmar representing the BritishVehicle Rental and Leasing Association.Jack Semple: I am Jack Semple representing the RoadHaulage Association.James Firth: I am James Firth from the FreightTransport Association.Steven Latham: I am Steven Latham representing theRMI, which is a retail motor trade organisation.

Q2 Chair: Mr Semple, in the evidence that you havealready sent to us you describe the relationshipbetween VOSA operators and the authorised testingfacilities—the ATFs—as “fundamentally flawed”.Could you tell us what you mean by that?Jack Semple: The current arrangement, which is partof the testing transformation programme that wasintroduced by the previous Government and carriedon largely as was by the current Government, is anissue that is frequently discussed by members and isof considerable concern, as in fact are all of VOSA’sactivities. If you are in the haulage industry, runningtrucks is your main business and, therefore,compliance and enforcement activities are veryimportant.In terms of testing, we had a system where VOSAwas completely in control of the location, the bookingand the carrying out of the test, apart from thedevelopment of designated premises towards the endof the previous system. That old system has beenchanged completely now with the introduction ofauthorised testing facilities, which are completely inthe private sector.We now have private sector premises that have acontract with VOSA, which is also their regulator—that is an uncomfortable relationship as well—whereby they may be maintaining the vehicles butthey have to run a booking system where they have toblock book a VOSA tester. In terms of the efficiencyand flexibility that VOSA can provide to this new set-up, we do not consider that can ever achieve anacceptable level of efficiency. We have an opportunity

Adrian SandersIain StewartGraham Stringer

to take the logical next step that we believe willincrease and improve investment in safety and thesafety culture within the industry. There is a realopportunity to open up the ability to test the vehicleat the statutory annual test to the private sector—toATFs—within a system of high-quality regulation,which is very important. The obvious regulator, Iwould guess, would be VOSA—but where VOSAdoes not itself test the vehicles.

Q3 Chair: Before we consider what might be doneto change things, I would like to get a fullunderstanding of what problems there are now or,indeed, if there are any improvements on the oldsystem. Does any other member of the panel want toadd to what Mr Semple has said or disagree withanything?Jay Parmar: I would not go so far as sharing Jack’sconcerns about it being “fundamentally flawed”, butcertainly it is an uncomfortable situation where youhave ATF owners who have to make, potentially, a£250,000 investment into a testing facility. They arewholly and totally reliant on VOSA for providing thetesters. Again, that removes the potential flexibilityand competitiveness for that particular ATF.Looking at the current regime critically, the concernwe have is the overdependency that an ATF ownerwill have on VOSA. Let’s not lose sight of whatVOSA is really about. It is there to enforce road safetystandards. It should not be an employer of testers.Alastair Peoples has already outlined in his statementsthat VOSA would like to see 75% of all testing carriedout in an ATF by next year. If that is realistically to beachieved, then we have to look at the current model,particularly in the areas where they are havingdifficulties in getting ATF interest. These areparticularly in the remote areas up and down the UK.We can start to look at making that business case moreattractive for an ATF owner by allowing them thatflexibility, where they have multi-skilled staff beingable to be deployed for a couple of hours to do thetesting and then they can do other work. That willgive the ATF owner that flexibility.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01Source: /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 beingable to get tests when they require them? Is thathappening now? VOSA does have targets, but it is notclear if they are being met.James Firth: I am hearing anecdotal evidence all thetime of operators having difficulty getting tests—of150-mile-round trips in order to find a test. VOSAtells us that it is responding to pleas from the ATFproviders when they feel they have a lack of resource.Our real concern, as Mr Semple was describingearlier, is that where previously all bookings weremade through VOSA and, therefore, failures ofbookings are monitored by VOSA directly. They donot now have full sight of all the managementinformation they need to be able to recognise if theremay be a problem. I have asked our membership anumber of times, “If you are encountering problems,you must let us know because we need to be able tolet VOSA know.” To be frank with the Committee,there has been very little real evidence coming in onthat score, but we do still keep hearing the stories. Mykey concern is that, if there is a problem, or if therewere to be a problem, I am not sure how well VOSAwill be able to have oversight of that.

Q5 Chair: But the information you have is anecdotalrather than from a comprehensive account of what isactually happening.James Firth: Yes, indeed.Steven Latham: We have a situation whereoperators—I do not represent operators but they dofeed back—often have to ring around to get a test. Wenow have 300 ATFs and 160 designated premises.Staff from 89 test stations have to go and facilitate thetests all round the country. Obviously, the allocationof the testers is probably quite difficult within thebody of testers they have. This is where suddenly oneATF is allocated its 21-axles test on one day butsomebody else wants to go to a different ATF. ATFsare growing. We have only been there since 2010, sowe are either going to have a shortage of VOSA’sown testers or we need to do something else, whichis probably what we are suggesting.

Q6 Chair: Will the expansion of the authorisedtesting facilities help the situation? I think VOSA hasplans to do that.Jack Semple: The expansion of ATFs will be heldback so long as VOSA’s monopoly of testing ismaintained. We won’t see the optimisation of whatcould be achieved. We have to be careful todifferentiate the fundamental flaws that are identifiedin the submission with the day-to-day practicalteething problems of the transfer, where we have clearwinners and losers among operators, and we have acost of change that was inevitably identified.James identified individual cases that we have raisedwith VOSA and have tried to resolve, but those areteething problems and day-to-day issues. Thefundamental flaw is in the relationship—the fact thatVOSA is putting itself between the ATF and theoperator. It cannot possibly have the flexibility torespond. The gateway reviews envisaged between 500and 1,500 ATFs. We are currently at about 300. Howis VOSA going to get round 500 to 1,500 ATFs

without a significant increase in resource? We havefailed to see the half-day slots that were indicated byVOSA. We have failed to see the night-time workingin some busy service that was highlighted as apotential from VOSA.VOSA is making slow progress in terms of trying toadapt to what is—for it—a much more complicatedand difficult position. Fundamentally, compared withwhat we could have, which is an encouragement ofinvestment and safety culture within the industry, thecurrent arrangement cannot be as satisfactory.

Q7 Sarah Champion: Forgive me; I am trying to getmy head round this. You are all making lots of pointsand I am trying to unpick how they interrelate. MrSemple, you talk about fundamental flaws. Are theyflaws that you are anticipating in that VOSA will nothave enough testers to go round, or are they flaws thatyou are seeing now? Mr Firth says that he is receivinganecdotal evidence of problems, but not actualproblems. If it was a real problem now, wouldn’t youhave floods of people complaining?Jack Semple: We have a number of members whoare ATFs already and many more members who areinterested in becoming ATFs—that is haulageoperators. They could test their vehicles at much lesscost than they have with VOSA and with much greaterflexibility. That would reduce the cost to the operatorwho is booking his vehicle in to test. We also thinkthat there would be a significant increase in thenumber of ATFs. There would be a greater willingnessby workshops to invest in upgrading their facilities sothat they could carry out their own tests.

Q8 Sarah Champion: But, if there are more ATFs,that would mean there needed to be less premisesowned by VOSA, saving them money. Is your fearthat they will not invest in more testers, or are youarguing that you want the whole thing to beprivatised?Jay Parmar: That is a really important point. We haveto make the distinction. Today, if you have an operatorthat wants to find a location to carry out the test, theyhave two choices. They either use the ATF that isavailable 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 aparticular ATF owner, one of the concerns that ourmembers are picking up is the difficulty in getting thatvehicle tested. There is no contractual relationship.One of the arguments would be to say that they thenhave to travel to the VOSA test site. That is going tobe much further away. You are quite right to identifythat the VOSA strategy is to start to close its owntesting sites. The choice an operator will have is goingto start to reduce increasingly as VOSA starts to movetowards 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 totravel further. It is contrary to VOSA’s own strategyof shorter distances. The cost of that is going toincrease as well.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o001_michelle_130225 Corrected Transcript.xml



Q9 Sarah Champion: But Mr Semple said that theyare looking to have between 500 and 1,500 within thenext few years. Wouldn’t that address that?Jay Parmar: I do not think that is going to addressthe issue, largely because, going back to the earlierquestion, you need to look at UK competitiveness.Those trucks need to be tested and maintained whenthe operator is not going to need them. Thatparticularly looks at the flexibility and the time of daythat these vehicles can be tested. Night-shift work, forexample, is one area that we are looking at; weekendwork is another area. With VOSA’s testers, there willbe restrictions as to what flexibility they can offer.We are trying to create those sorts of efficiencies andproductivity. The current model is not going toachieve and deliver that, no matter how many ATFsites are open up and down the country. You have tolook fundamentally at the relationship of the testingbeing carried out by the ATF owners’ own staff andnot be reliant on VOSA’s staff.If you look up and down the country, whilst there aresome trials going on by VOSA to look at homeworking, for example, again you are reliant on thatservice being sufficiently flexible to meet the peaksand demands that the industry needs. We do not thinkthat is going to be achieved in the current model.

Q10 Chair: Mr Parmar, you have referred to someproblems. Is that based on anecdotal evidence?Jay Parmar: No; that is our members ringing us upand telling us that they are having difficulties. Theyhave to wait two to three months for a test date for aparticular vehicle and they have to travel much furtherthan currently because the local VOSA test site hasbeen closed. They have to travel much further for thatflexibility. It is already costing industry a great dealof money without that difficulty. If you were to putsome figures on that, you could be running intomillions of pounds that it is costing industry now.James Firth: On that point we are also hearing thosesorts of tales. If you were an operator located nextdoor to a VOSA test site and it closed down, you arethen losing out. Of course, if—which is more likelywith there being more ATFs than VOSA stations—anATF opened next door to you, I do not think operatorswould be ringing us up and saying, “Oh, this isfantastic.” It would just be the way it is operating.I would make one point. I do not want to delve intoancient history, but I reflect on the fact that seven oreight years ago the industry was looking at year onyear double-digit percentage fee increases fromVOSA. The purpose of those increases was torefurbish the ageing testing estate. That was a modelthat was fundamentally flawed, if you like. It isimportant to recognise that on this issue VOSAlistened to industry; it saw that it had to change andthis is a transformation programme. We are movingthrough it at the moment, and there is a consultationopen from the Department for Transport on themotoring services agencies. It clearly indicates awillingness now to investigate new mechanisms fordelivering the tests. Certainly, the flexibilities thatATFs have brought—and we have to recognise thatthey have brought flexibilities—are constrained by thefact that the test examination has to be delivered by

Government-employed staff; I agree with Mr Sempleon that. It is now time to move on from that positionand realise the flexibilities that could be brought.

Q11 Karl McCartney: I want to pick up the pointthat Mr Firth mentioned about Government employeesand also examine what Mr Semple said. As aConservative I obviously welcome privatisation.However, a Government employee is independent.With regard to safety benchmarking, if all testers wereemployed by ATF operators—i.e. hauliers—how canyou guarantee there would not be the temptationmaybe to cut corners or do things that an independentassessor would not do?Jack Semple: I am very pleased that you have askedthe question.Karl McCartney: I was pleased to ask it.Jack Semple: There are still people who have perhapsspent 30 or 40 years within the industry and havegrown up with VOSA and the system as it has been.They find it difficult to conceive of a system that isdifferent, but we are already moving in that direction.At the moment, the good operator—the well-runworkshop, whether it be a franchise dealer, a third-party workshop or a haulier’s own workshop, and weare very keen that they are able to test as well—isalready the subject of a regulatory regime. They arealready assessing and inspecting the vehicle to thesame safety standards at least four times and in somecases six times a year. They are also maintaining thepaperwork.This is a point that is not always appreciated. For thecompanies that are doing that well, it is surely but ashort step for them to do the statutory annual test aswell within approved facilities. In terms of safeguards,a haulier who is already maintaining and testing hisvehicle to a standard has an immense amount to losewere he to abuse the system. For a start, he loses hisability to test his own vehicle in his own workshopand would have to take it somewhere else. In addition,were VOSA or somebody else to be the regulator, hisgood repute as a haulier is under threat, so whateverbenefit there might be in abusing the system—and thewell-run operators would not do that anyway—therisk to his core business is very considerable. I do notthink the issue would arise. It might arise on occasion,but in the main what a good haulier—and we aretalking about regulation of a high-quality system—hasto lose would far outweigh what he might gain. He isalready maintaining and assessing his vehicle 364days a year and doing it well within a regulatedsystem. What we are talking about is the 365th day—testing the vehicle and maintaining the paperwork.

Q12 Karl McCartney: You have just answered onbehalf of the well-run hauliers. I am not picking onroad hauliers at all, but in any industry I hope youwill admit that there will be some road hauliers whoperhaps are not as good as others. What safeguardswould you see whereby they would not be able tobuck the system and do something that your goodhauliers would never do?Jack Semple: No regulator worth his salt would givethem permission to do the annual statutory test. It is avery important point.




Steven Latham: I would point out that, as well ashauliers, there is a plethora of people involved inATFs, including a lot of truck dealers and independentworkshops. All of those have a very commercialinterest in it. These trucks and hauliers are regulatedto a standard. If they start producing substandardvehicles, they will be pulled over at a rate of knotsand will lose their customer business. They have tohave a very high standard.We know with the franchised dealers that they have astandard of first-time pass from preparation of over90%. We know that they are dealing with newertrucks, and I take on board that newer trucks run bybig professional operators always have a better teststandard. Outside the industry they will be regulatedby VOSA.You only have to look at the MOT system. You havea 40% fail rate on car and light vans and a 50% failrate on heavy vans, which is Class 7—3 tonnes to 3.5tonnes. This shows to me that the private sector isquite happy to fail vehicles and demand a highstandard of roadworthiness.

Q13 Chair: But don’t you think you would needsome kind of regulation if you moved into this newsystem? Mr Parmar, do you have any ideas on that?What would you need to make sure that standardswere right and public safety was observed?Jay Parmar: We must not lose sight of the road safetyoutcomes that we are trying to deliver here. Theearlier question about what controls and measures willbe in place is a valid one. The MOT scheme isdelivering good safety outcomes. The comment aboutcars and vans is a valid one. VOSA already overseesthe independence of those testers and they are subjectto audit. We do not see that changing in any way. Wesee that as VOSA extending its reach from cars tovans to heavy goods vehicles. Those independenttesters will be subject to scrutiny by VOSA. If theydo not meet those very high standards, then theywould lose their ability to carry out those tests.

Q14 Karl McCartney: Chair, this is a subject closeto my heart. At ATFs how much time do you thinkwill be given over to VIC checks for private vehiclesas opposed to road hauliers’ vehicles, if at all?Jay Parmar: The question about vehicle identitychecks is a very interesting one. I know it was thesubject of consultation. We think that needs to becompletely reviewed to see if it is valid in its currentstructure and format. There is no reason why an ATFowner, if it was prescribed, could not carry out thosetests if and when they are needed. I think the VICchecks could be carried out.

Q15 Karl McCartney: You will understand thattesting a large lorry, whether it is your own orsomebody else’s, is probably going to be moreeconomically beneficial than testing somebody’sprivate car that is maybe a Cat C vehicle.Jay Parmar: You are absolutely right. One of theconcerns we have is about the open access to a thirdparty being able to book and validly carry it out. Thatneeds to be subject to audit. The earlier point madeby James Firth about the booking system was a valid

one. We need to have a very open and accessiblesystem for anybody. You do not necessarily have tohave your vehicle maintained by that particular ATFowner to be able to take and get fair access.

Q16 Karl McCartney: Private individuals arehaving much the same experience as your anecdotalevidence for road hauliers. If you try and get a privatevehicle VIC checked, you will find it is six to eightweeks and you will have to travel a long way to getthat check done.Jay Parmar: That should be the subject of review aswell. We should have that access, whether it is an ATFor a VIC check. That needs to be looked at. Ourconcern around the third-party access is a particularlyvalid one. If you do not get your vehicle maintainedthere, can you simply turn up to get your vehicletested by that ATF owner? A large number of the ATFowners are existing designated premises, who aremaybe testing their own vehicles. It is a valid pointthat you make with regard to accessibility and fairnesswithout having to wait. It would erode your owncompetitiveness in getting your vehicle tested if thatwas not available.

Q17 Chair: Wouldn’t there be a possible problem ofhauliers testing their own vehicles?James Firth: I have to say that FTA members haveexpressed caution—I think that is the appropriateword—about operators potentially testing their ownvehicles. There was also the issue raised of testing avehicle that they have maintained—to use thecolloquialism, “marking their own work”. I am a littlebit nervous about making comparisons too closely tothe MOT scheme. I would prefer to look further afieldthan our industry. There are examples out there of howthis can be made to work better. We would lookperhaps to the aviation industry. I have to say I do notknow the airworthiness testing system in detail, but,as far as I can tell, you do not have to fly your planeto a plane test station and have a Governmentemployee check it over. There are lessons we canlearn. The cautions that Mr McCartney highlights arevery serious, but we go into this with our eyes openand not just gung-ho, saying, “We need this becauseit is cheaper and it is better.” We recognise that ithas to be done properly, with appropriate safeguardsin place.Chair: Public safety has to be paramount.James Firth: Absolutely.

Q18 Iain Stewart: I would like to raise the relatedtopic of the roadworthiness of foreign HGVs on ourroads. Is there cause for concern? If so, what shouldVOSA be doing about it?Jay Parmar: If you look at VOSA’s own statistics, theroadworthiness figures are converging. Foreignhauliers are certainly looking perhaps at stringentcontrols in other member states, which are beingapplied. If you look at VOSA’s own statistics, non-GB prohibition of roadworthiness is now at 14.2%compared with GB vehicles at 10.3%. When you thencompare and contrast that with the drivers’ hours andyou start to look at the 12.9% of GB vehicles versusnon-GB at 11.5%, you can start to see there is




convergence taking place. That is because over thelast four to five years VOSA has targeted foreignoperators and a strong signal has been sent. You arenow perhaps even seeing a behavioural change byforeign operators who are coming and using it; theyare not relying on smaller operators usinginternational companies to carry out their work.Again, it relates to the type of countries that they aretravelling through. In Germany, the federal roads arecharged at Euro 5. They are using more modern andnewer vehicles when coming to the UK as part of theirlong journey.

Q19 Iain Stewart: Is that a unanimous view in theindustry?Jack Semple: I would put a slightly different slant onit. In our written evidence, we recognise the gains thatVOSA has made from 2008 with the additionalfunding that it has had. However, anecdotally fromwithin VOSA, our indications are not only that thetargeting is much more effective in targeting UKvehicles, but also the severity of the infringementstends to be significantly worse with foreign vehicles.We have a broad concern—we would not restrict thisonly to foreign vehicles, but it is particularly the casewith foreign vehicles—that, for example, devicesaimed at falsifying the drivers’ hours record are notsufficiently prosecuted by VOSA. There is a realproblem there and to some extent a hidden problem.We have evidence from colleagues in Europe that theuse of magnets and similar devices is becoming morecommon rather than less common. It is a good twoyears now that the Central Motorway Police Groupfound that one in three trucks stopped in a three-month period were using magnets to falsify thedrivers’ hours record. That is a hugely serious offence.It basically means that it is almost impossible for theenforcers to know how many hours you have beendriving.

Q20 Iain Stewart: Is the solution to that that VOSAneeds more resources? Could it be an issue ofpenalties or their strategy? What is the solution?Jack Semple: VOSA, working perhaps with thepolice, has to be more consistent and effective intaking these drivers to court. The court needs to be abit more consistent in imposing adequate penalties. Atthe moment, as I understand it, because of the lack ofco-ordination, somebody who uses a magnet veryoften gets a £200 fixed penalty for not having afunctioning tachograph.In terms of VOSA’s funding, our concern is to ensurethat the funding is maintained going forward. Wewould like to engage more closely with VOSA infuture as to how the money is allocated.James Firth: When we are talking about non-GBoperators—we can all throw statistics back and forthwhen we are speaking—VOSA has a plethora ofstatistics. The thing that I draw out of it when talkingabout these statistics is that, for the domestic GBoperators, they work against the background of havingsome quite sophisticated targeting tools available touse. The main one is OCRS. They are getting betterat developing targeting tools for non-GB operators,but it is nothing like what they have for domestic

operators. We have to remember when comparingstatistics that there is a mechanical prohibition rateof 28% for HGV motor vehicles for the last year fordomestic and 31% for non-GB. While they sound likesimilar amounts, of course for GB that is for thosewhom VOSA would expect to be the worst, and forthe non-GB it is more like the average of the foreignoperator.The thing that could potentially make a big differenceto this—we are coming on to the Road User LevyBill later—is that the potential for the data that thatgenerates in terms of understanding which operatorsare in the country could be a tremendously powerfultool for VOSA to use in improving enforcement fornon-GB operators.

Q21 Chair: Before we go on to the Road User LevyBill, does anybody else have further comments tomake about differential treatment between domesticand foreign HGVs in relation to infringements? I justwant to give you all the opportunity to tell us. We aretold that VOSA’s budget in relation to compliance hasbeen reduced and that that has caused some of theseproblems. Is that your impression?Jack Semple: The Committee is very well aware thatthere was a big increase in 2008. That principle ofincreased funding from the Government forenforcement has pretty much been maintained. We donot know what the plan is for the coming financialyear, but we fear a cut. Going forward, with proposalsfor increased liberalisation of cabotage rules, this isgoing to become more and not less of an issue.The key point is that we have foreign operatorsoperating in the UK who would not get a UKoperating licence because the traffic commissioners donot think they operate a sufficiently compliantbusiness. As long as that remains the case, we haveto ensure that we have adequate resources to enforceagainst foreign vehicles.

Q22 Chair: I would like to ask you about the RoadUser Levy Bill. On a number of previous occasionssome of you have given evidence to this Committeeand the previous Select Committee about theimportance of securing a level playing field. Do youthink that this new Bill will secure that?James Firth: It will help get to a more level playingfield, but, against the key issue of fuel dutydifferentials between GB and the average acrossEurope, it is not going to have as significant an impactas action against fuel duty might. None the less it willhelp and we fully support the Road User Levy Bill’senactment.

Q23 Chair: You sound a bit reticent. You have allbeen asking for this Bill for a long time. It has nowcome. Where are the problems?Jack Semple: I would agree with James. Basically, weare very supportive. It will not level the playing field.We have by far the highest duty level in Europe. Onan annualised basis, that can easily amount to £12,000a year cost advantage in terms of fuel duty for aforeign operator. None the less, in terms of theprinciple of doing what we can in this area within EU




rules and getting additional information forenforcement, our members are strongly behind it.

Q24 Chair: The Government have made anassessment about the net cost to British hauliers. Theyestimate that there will be very little, if any, additionalcost. Is that something that you agree with from yourown work?Jay Parmar: I would certainly go back to the originalprinciple behind the Bill, which is to create a levelplaying field. That is something we would certainlyagree with, together with our colleagues on the panel.But we have to be careful what we ask for. Theestimates by the Treasury’s own figures are that theyare expecting a gross revenue of around £40 million,with a net revenue of around £18 million to £23million. We then need to look at the actual cost ofrunning that scheme—the enforcement costs—whichI am sure we will come on to.Our concerns are largely around the reduced pollutioncertificate 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, thoughwe believe that some additional announcements willbe made in the budget. We have to make sure that weare protecting UK owners from losing the potentialRPC for greener trucks that they operate. We alsohave to look at the actual mechanism of claimingrefunds on the unused portion of the VED or Levypaid. We have raised that again through variousdiscussions, both in the Public Bill Committee andalso within the House. We question the Minister’sintentions of reducing the amount an operator canreclaim 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 thefull outstanding months due on a VED. When the Billbecomes law, they will be restricted to reclaiming theamount by the one-tenth methodology put in. If youput that into figures for our members, who dispose ofaround 20,000 trucks every year, we believe we aregoing to lose out by £2.7 million. While the Ministerhas given us assurances through the debates in theHouse, we have yet to see the details of thoseassurances and how they will be addressed. We haveto be careful that the bill does not start to imposeunintended costs on UK owners.

Q25 Chair: That is something we should all look atbecause the Ministers gave a very clear intention thatthe practicality needs to be looked at. What about therelationships and roles of VOSA, the trafficcommissioners and the Department for Transport? Doyou have any views on how those three organisationsare connected?Jack Semple: There was a very important documentlast summer—the framework agreement between thetraffic commissioners, the DFT and VOSA—which ishelpful and which goes a significant way to

recognising the importance of all three parties andtheir relative roles. It also highlights the importanceof fair competition in the role of the trafficcommissioner. We would like to see that restoredspecifically in the role of VOSA.It is important that the industry has confidence thatthe regulator, VOSA and the DFT are all workingtogether. I think we are making progress in thatdirection.

Q26 Chair: Does it have confidence on makingprogress towards that?Jack Semple: Reasonable confidence.

Q27 Chair: Do you all agree? Does the industry haveconfidence that VOSA, the traffic commissioners andthe Department are working together?James Firth: Yes; I believe that the industry doeshave confidence in that. The framework documentwas very important. For the trade associations thatwork closely with both bodies, we can see how thatrelationship is working. There is a difficulty foroperators outside in the industry understanding therelationship between the two bodies, particularly onthe issue where you have VOSA staff working for thetraffic commissioners and understanding the importantdifference there.As I mentioned, there is currently a consultation outon the motoring services agencies from theDepartment for Transport. While it does talk aboutredrawing the boundaries of responsibility for thevarious agencies, I notice that it did not touch onissues of the staff that support the trafficcommissioners and I wonder if that is partly becausethe DFT got its fingers burnt a little bit last year whenit tried talking about the independence of the trafficcommissioners in a VOSA fees consultation.Certainly, the trade responded strongly to that. I donot know if it is perhaps time to investigate whetherthe traffic commissioners should have staff that can beidentified as being separate from VOSA.Jack Semple: A very positive development has beenthe establishment of the commercial vehicle roadsafety compliance forum. That is chaired by theDepartment for Transport and brings back to theDepartment the responsibility and the activeleadership in terms of what compliance is all about. Ithink that has perhaps been unclear between itself andVOSA. That is a useful forum for moving forward inthis area as well.In terms of the traffic commissioners, we have madea lot of progress both on the statutory transparency ofwhat they do and the requirement to discuss with theindustry. In practice, we are seeing that as well. Weare keen to see a bit more of that from VOSA goingforward.Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for comingand answering our questions.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:36] Job: 030600 Unit: PG01



Witnesses: Kevin Warden, VOSA TUS Secretary, and Gary Washer, VOSA TUS Assistant Secretary, gaveevidence.

Q28 Chair: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome tothe Transport Select Committee. Can we have yourname and organisation, please?Kevin Warden: My name is Kevin Warden. I am amember of Prospect Union and I am also the VOSATrade Union Side Secretary.Gary Washer: Good afternoon, Chair. My name isGary Washer from the Public and CommercialServices Union. I am the VOSA Assistant TradeUnion Side Secretary.

Q29 Chair: What are your views about VOSA’sstrategy for improving arrangements for annualinspections? How do you think it is all working?Kevin Warden: When we gave evidence in 2008 wehad concerns about the plans as they were developing.Those concerns remain, I must admit, while theincrease in ATFs has come along. We are deeplyconcerned about the threat and the consequence ofprivatisation, and I heard what Mr McCartney saidin the previous session. While you will hear bits ofanecdotal evidence from us, we have some factualevidence as well.When you compare the vehicle testing of the lightschemes—cars and light goods vehicles—VOSAstrongly regulates that. It audits the systems and trainsand ensures that the testers doing that testing work doso to the right standards. Yet still, year on year, whenVOSA examiners go out and do random checks onrecently tested car/light vehicles, around 15% of thosevehicles year on year are found to have been testedincorrectly by the private sector. They are random. Ifyou begin to go down the road where VOSA targetsgarages where it suspects that the standards are notbeing applied, then that increases to around 25% ofvehicles tested by the private sector being given thewrong test result.We have to be absolutely honest here. That does notmean all of those vehicles are dangerous. It couldmean that some of those vehicles were passed by theprivate sector when they should have failed, and somewere failed by the private sector when they shouldhave passed, but they were given the wrong result atannual test. To convert that over to heavy goodsvehicles or to PSV vehicles, there is little to convinceus that putting that sort of privatised system in placewould not perhaps result in the same sort of abuse bythose doing the test.As well as being a union representative, I was avehicle examiner working for VOSA many years ago.This is an actual factual event: I visited a motorcyclegarage one year and watched a tester do a perfectdemonstration test on a motorcycle; unbeknown tome, the following day one of my colleagues went inand did what we used to call an incognito test, whichnow they call a mystery shopper test. A perfect testwas demonstrated to me, but the following day ittranspired that that vehicle did not even make its wayinto the workshop. The person who had proved to methe day before that they were absolutely competent todo the test just got on the vehicle, drove it down theroad, 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 sectorsometimes reacts, particularly in the current MOTscheme, when you introduce profit into safety.VOSA is trying and working its absolute hardest tokeep those standards high, but we get perfectexamples time and time again of competence one dayand then abuse shortly afterwards.

Q30 Chair: Where is the information you refer todocumented?Kevin Warden: VOSA produces those figures.Certainly, the 15% failure rate is something thatVOSA produces either through FOI or internally. Itwas always previously determined in reports thatVOSA did, but VOSA should be able to confirm thatthose figures are accurate.

Q31 Chair: What do you think would happen if staffdirectly employed by the authorised testing facilitieswere able to carry out the tests rather than VOSAstaff?Kevin Warden: Hearing the previous panel as welland the assurances that they were giving, it is quiteinteresting. When you introduce commercial pressuresinto vehicle and safety testing, our fear would be thatthat commercial pressure, particularly when you arelooking at commercial vehicles or PSV vehicles andthe lost capacity in financial terms of those vehiclesbeing off the road, has the likelihood of persuadingpeople to cut corners and to turn a blind eye to somedefects to ensure that that vehicle goes back on to theroad with an MOT certificate, albeit it would beinvalid.It was interesting to hear again what the previouspanel said and what the FTA have done. We includethis in our written evidence. They sent something like555 vehicles into franchised dealerships to beserviced. When those vehicles came out from service,they were inspected by the FTA’s own examiners and27% of those vehicles were found not to meet theminimum MOT standard.Again, we have to be really clear here. The MOTstandard is not a once-a-year standard to be attained.It is the minimum safety standard that every vehicleshould maintain on a day-by-day basis as it is beingused on the roads. People tend to think of the MOTas this huge once-a-year mountain to climb. It is theminimum standard that we test vehicles to. As I say,certainly within those vehicles that have come to ourtest stations, around 20% of those vehicles preparedstill fail. We are fearful in road safety terms. Weemphasise that our members are here and our staff arededicated to road safety. We are not here to try tomake a lot of money. You would not join the civilservice if you wanted to become a millionaire, I canassure you. I can show you my payslip and I amcertainly not a millionaire. Our people join because ofa dedication to road safety. The fears they have arethat road safety will be diminished if it is passed outto the private sector to undertake.



25 February 2013 Kevin Warden and Gary Washer

Q32 Sarah Champion: Mr Warden, I completelyshare your fears. When Mr Semple was saying howwonderful all companies were and of course theywould be great, I was thinking that that is great forthe 10% at the very top, but what about the peoplelower down the food chain, who are being hit by arecession 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 chiefexecutive for most of the day. We all pressed quitehard on his views on privatisation for the testing staff.He rebuffed those. What is your gut feeling? Do youthink that, in his mind, he is looking to secure the stafffrom this Government or do you think that the creepof privatisation is going to happen?Kevin Warden: Up until quite recently I have beenhaving one-to-ones with the chief executive as theTrade Union Side Secretary on a monthly basis. Thatis changing a little bit more recently, but we have beenhaving those meetings. I believe, with his hand onhis heart, Alastair—the chief executive—believes thatroad safety is best served by VOSA staff doing thetesting, albeit done at non-VOSA test sites such asATFs or DPs, if that is the best model to fit.From the trade union side point of view, we have beenwarning from day one that by allowing greater andgreater flexibility and access to sites—the argumentsthat trade associations were making, such as, “If theyonly have one or two vehicles to test, surely it wouldbe better just to allow them to test the one or twovehicles.” We have said this right from day one to thechief executive. He is not blind to it. In his heart, Ithink he is dedicated to road safety and to the publicsector undertaking those road safety checks. In reality,he sees the political pressure that is being put on tomove the physical element of testing out to theprivate 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 abouttesting and we talk about enforcement. Certainly fromthe point of view of a vehicle examiner and anengineer, and having worked for VOSA for nigh on aquarter of a century now, they are two sides of thesame coin. Testing is the first element of enforcement.It is proving by operators that they can maintain orpresent their vehicles to the minimum standard at leastonce a year to show that they can present that vehiclein that way.Those figures, as I understand it, also feed in to theoperator compliance risk score. By moving that out tothe private sector and asking an operator’s own fitterto do a test, that would go into the operator risk scoreto say that that operator was good, which would meanthat on the roadside there was less chance of thatvehicle being pulled in for a safety check. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a circular argument: thevehicles will always pass, because of that they will beless likely to be pulled on the roadside, and if they arepulled on the roadside, as a green operator it is lesslikely there will be a check on the vehicle.

Q33 Sarah Champion: Mr Parmar was talking aboutflexibility and weekends and evenings. It is extremelycommendable how flexible the testing staff have beento this point. Does that need for flexibility have any

concerns for you, or do you think that the staff wouldbe open to a more flexible working approach as theyseem to be embracing it?Kevin Warden: In the discussions we have had withVOSA, and this goes back three years, our doors areopen to talk about it. We spoke before about the shiftworkers—the high- risk transport initiative workers.When VOSA wanted to go down that route andintroduce shifts, that was quite a change for the civilservice from the way we had done it in the past. Ithad happened in other areas of the civil service, weunderstand, but we were open to discussion. Wenegotiated some terms. Staff have come in and havebeen working on those terms. We have recently beenin discussion about changing the shift patterns. We areopen to discussion on sorts of areas of greaterflexibility. Yes, we are open to discussion.The one thing that we are concerned about is allowingcurrent staff the opportunity to opt in or opt out of thenewer type of arrangements. I know that is causingsome consternation back at the agency because theyare looking at everybody moving on to this whollyflexible system. I heard one of the witnesses from theprevious panel talking about working from home orbeing deployed from home, as VOSA says. I joined25 years ago as a vehicle examiner and I was deployedfrom home pretty much every day of my workingweek. So this is nothing new, whether it isenforcement or going out testing.As I say, they can come and talk to us. VOSA begantentative discussions two or three years ago about anew contract. They were not the easiest, I must behonest. We are waiting now because of changes withinthe governance between the Department for Transportand VOSA. We understand that any discussions aboutchanges to contracts are going to be handled at DFTlevel. We are still waiting for the start of thosediscussions.Gary Washer: I want to pick up on the point from thelast Committee inquiry into VOSA back in 2009. Atthe end of that process, when the recommendation wasmade not to privatise the testing environment and thetesting system, we made it perfectly clear to theMinister at that time that we were very receptive andprovided evidence to him of the sorts of changes thatwe believed would go some way to providing industrywith what it wanted. That was extended testing timesand perhaps weekend and evening testing.As my colleague has said, at that time our door wasopen. All DFT and VOSA had to do was come andtalk to us. We were assured that we would be able tonegotiate on behalf of the staff in VOSA to enablethem to provide the sorts of things that industrywanted. Unfortunately, what has happened is that wehave continued down the same route that was beingproposed previously, which is a fundamental step-by-step process, and we have genuine concerns that itwill lead to the outsourcing and privatisation of thewhole testing scheme.

Q34 Chair: What could be done within the systemas it is now to improve flexibility and convenience forbusiness in wanting to test vehicles?Gary Washer: At the present moment—it wassomething highlighted by the previous witnesses—




VOSA has a problem with regard to resources. At thelast Committee hearing in 2009, even the chiefexecutive at that time, Stephen Tetlow, admitted thatto go forward in the way that they wanted wouldrequire an approximate 50% increase in testing staff.Since that time in 2009, we have had restrictions onpublic sector recruitment, which has made life verydifficult. Even now, today, VOSA is finding it verydifficult, mainly because of the financial issues andthe fact that the staff we would want to come in to beable to do that sort of work are simply not preparedto come in for the sorts of salaries and conditions thatwe are offering at the present moment. They muchprefer to work in main dealers and vehiclemaintainers, where they can earn far more.

Q35 Chair: What suggestions would you have toimprove the situation?Gary Washer: We need to look at how we get abalance and a mix. What we would suggest, as wehave done previously, is that we need a balance. Wehave had designated premises, and we were quitesurprised at Mr Semple’s evidence when he said thatDPs were new. They have been around for 30 years.We have been supporting designated premises andsending staff out for over 30 years.We believe that there are financial arguments, wherecompanies have looked at it and said, “It makesfinancial sense for us to do testing at our premises.”They became designated premises over the last 30years and VOSA has supported them by providingstaff to them. What we now have is, effectively,VOSA forcing industry to become ATFs. We have hadexamples relayed to us where existing designatedpremises are being told—

Q36 Chair: I am looking for some ideas of how toimprove the current system. We have heardsuggestions of another fairly fundamental change. Iwas wondering if you have any suggestions as to howto improve the way the system works for businesswithout a radical change.Gary Washer: We believe that the existing frameworkof having VOSA sites, supplemented by ATFs, DPs,or whatever you wish to call them, is a model thatworks. It has worked for the last 30 years. It meansthat people who have a VOSA station close to themcan get a test when they want it in a short period oftime. That would be good. We have VOSA effectivelyclosing off—

Q37 Chair: Would you then favour there beingadditional authorised sites to deal with the problem?Mr Warden, do you have any ideas on that? Thereclearly is some problem with how it is working atthe moment.Kevin Warden: Sure. The network of test stations thatwe have, and it was picked up earlier as well, is inneed of refurbishment. It is 40 years old and has hadvery little investment. We included a letter in thewritten evidence that we wrote to the then Minister,Mike Penning, setting out perhaps a new picture ofhow VOSA could look to meet the gap with industry.There would be a backbone of VOSA’s own teststations supplemented by ATFs.

One of the witnesses on the last panel spoke aboutpossible half-day testing. That, again, is somethingthat VOSA would be happy to look at from the VOSATrade Union Side point of view, but, of course, thatwill put up costs. If somebody has to travel out to onesite to do half-a-day testing and then travels toanother, you can only get two half-day testings in oneday without the additional flexibilities that a revisedcontract may bring. Again, we are open to discuss allthese opportunities, and particularly if it maintainsroad safety in the hands of independent and impartialexaminers who have no axe to grind; there is nocommercial pressure on them one way or the other.We are happy to look at how we can accommodatethat in the terms and conditions, as long as it is doneon a voluntary basis and people are not forced downthat route. We will work whichever way we possiblycan.

Q38 Chair: How do you view the current position onforeign HGVs? Is there still concern on safetystandards?Gary Washer: We would probably echo the previouspanel’s evidence inasmuch as, over the past few years,there does appear to have been a considerable shiftaway from the roadworthiness aspects of foreignvehicles and more towards traffic enforcement,drivers’ hours, cabotage and the interference withtachographs. From that point of view we would agreewith the previous evidence, and certainly it isevidence we find coming back from our ownexaminers themselves. From that perspective, we dothink that the quality of vehicles from foreign hauliersthat we are now seeing in this country is of a betterstandard, and it may well be for a number of thereasons previously given in evidence. But we are notfinding the numbers or the real horror stories that wedid four or five years ago. What we are finding is thatthere is more on the drivers’ hours, the cabotage andthe licensing side of things, which is fairly consistent.

Q39 Chair: What do you think could be done to dealwith that?Gary Washer: We would look at the introduction ofthe HRTI—the High Risk Transport Initiative—andthe shift-working staff that we had. We believe thatwas a good step forward. We are disappointed that theinitial funding given by the Department for that hasnow been withdrawn. It has been subsumed within thesingle enforcement budget. That is on a downwardtrend in terms of funding. It means that we certainlyhave not been able to expand the number of shift-working teams in the way that we would have hopedto have done had the funding continued. That ishaving a real, detrimental effect in terms of the cutsin the funding. It means that we cannot continue in theway we had initially started for that brief few years.

Q40 Kwasi Kwarteng: With regard to the HGVRoad User Levy Bill, you have mentioned foreignusers. Do you think that the Bill equalises or levelsthe playing field, as people have suggested?Gary Washer: I think it is still probably too early totell at the present moment. It will depend on what thefinal result turns out to be. We can probably echo




some of the concerns of the previous panel. Until wesee the final details, it is going to be a bit difficult toknow exactly. You may have the unexpectedconsequence element creep in relating to how youbalance things out to make sure that that level playingfield is maintained.One of the things we put in our evidence is that wesee an element whereby the revenue through thatpermit, or whatever it is going to be called, could beused, first, to administer the system and also toprovide a route for funding enforcement of thosevehicles coming into the country. By enabling VOSAto do that work, it would, first, enable us to make surethat we have accurate information very early on aboutthe vehicles coming into this country that are buyingthe permits or paying the levy fees. That means wethen have accurate information about those operatorsand those vehicles. If we have that data, thenobviously that is immediately made available to ourenforcement staff at the side of the road to be able totarget them.Kevin Warden: If I can add one little bit—Kwasi Kwarteng: Can I ask a follow-on questionafter you have done that?Kevin Warden: Again, the early signs are good, Ithink. Within VOSA we have had one meeting of aproject group to look at the project initiationdocument. That is a draft document and is still beingworked through. It may not come as a surprise to youthat one of the main questions in it that I asked was,“What funding is coming for this? Is it coming out ofVOSA’s existing funding?” If my memory serves mecorrectly, we were told that there are three lumps of£500,000 being made available to VOSA to get thesystem’s capital costs up and running. Early daysignals from our point of view are that it is going inthe right direction, but it is very early days.Kwasi Kwarteng: You have answered my follow-up.

Q41 Chair: You have commented in the writtenevidence you have given us that VOSA’s enforcementactivity is now mainly focused on offences subject toa fixed penalty notice. Could you tell us whatproblems that creates?Gary Washer: I would like to expand on that. Whilewe welcome the introduction of the fixed penaltiesand we think they are a useful tool, what we have seenover the years since their introduction is that there isan emphasis now on being able to deal with mattersat the side of the road by a fixed penalty very quicklyand very easily. What we don’t then get is the follow-up that happens with those operators afterwards. Thisis where we have concerns in a number of areas as aresult of that.First, that means we don’t use that information to goand follow up with the operators. It seems to us to beimposing a shift in targeting from the non-compliantoperators simply on to the drivers in the cab of thevehicles, and we are simply fining the drivers.Unfortunately, in this particular climate, we find that,if drivers are being targeted because they are non-compliant, they may be doing that because they arebeing put in a position of having to do so because ofthe 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 inquiriesmeans we are not looking at the systems the operatorhas. That means we are not getting the higher and in-depth information. It just seems unfair to us that weare placing the burden now on the lowest form ofemployee within the industry rather than on theunscrupulous operators behind them. Because we arenot doing those investigations and going forwardthrough prosecutions to magistrates courts, thenobviously those are not following through the conductproceedings to the traffic commissioners and publicinquiries.It also means that VOSA stands all of the costs ofissuing those fixed penalties. Because it is a fixedpenalty, that money goes directly to the Treasury. Westand all of the costs and have no ability to reclaimany costs, whereas, had we gone down the prosecutionroute through the magistrates courts or the Crowncourts, then we have the ability to reclaim all of ourcosts involved with that. We find that that is a bitshort-sighted and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is avery costly way to do it. It is done very quickly but isnot necessarily providing the best outcomes.

Q42 Chair: You refer to the graduated court depositprocess and talk about limitations there. Could youtell us more about that?Gary Washer: We have two systems. One is a fixedpenalty, which we are all fairly familiar with. Theother is a graduated deposit. This alludes also to theprevious panel’s evidence about interruption devices.We have this strange situation within the legislation atthe present moment, which is probably one of thefailings of the legislation. At the present moment, ifwe issue a graduated deposit for the most seriousoffences of falsifying or interrupting with vehicles, wetake a deposit off those drivers, specifically foreignnationals, so that they are then due to come back tocourt. Because of the requirements of our legalprocess, if we are unable to serve papers on thosepeople because they live overseas, they never comeback to court, and after a certain period of time theyare then able to claim the deposit back with interest.So we end up paying them more than we havecollected because they have offended and did notcome to court. It is a little perverse from ourperspective.

Q43 Chair: What can be done about that? It soundsa most incredible situation. It actually costs us moreif we try and prosecute someone who we think hascommitted an offence.Gary Washer: Obviously not every operator claimsthe money back, but that is a possibility. I think weneed to look at the legislation again and what is inthere to make sure that, if we are taking a graduateddeposit, it is a deposit against something. We perhapsneed to look at how matters can proceed if people failto respond to court papers in these particular cases.Obviously, that is something for the lawyers to lookat, but it is something that needs to be redressed.

Q44 Chair: Do we know how often this hashappened and how much we have paid out?




Gary Washer: I do not know, but I am sure VOSAwill be able to tell you how many deposits they havehad to repay.Chairman: We will ask them.Gary Washer: It is a situation that is incrediblyfrustrating. In some way it goes to the previousevidence as to why examiners, because they know thathappens, take it down to a lower level of offencewhereby they can deal with it by fixed penalty, albeitthe maximum. Obviously there is a financial penaltythere, but we have to work within the systems we haveat the moment.

Q45 Chair: You have also suggested that VOSAbudget cuts have affected the work of the trafficcommissioners. Can you tell us any more about that?Gary Washer: It comes back to the previous point wewere making about not being able to take theprosecution route for serious offences. What we havefound since the introduction of fixed penalties is thatmore and more matters are being referred directly tothe traffic commissioners. Again it comes back to thefunding issue. VOSA has a limited amount of funds.At the present moment, its legal budget is somewherein the region of £750,000 and that is capped.What we are now finding is that we have to providelegal representatives at more and more inquiries thatdeal with impounding, immobilisation and publicinquiries for conduct. Matters have not gone througha magistrates court or Crown court first. Previouslywe were just dealing with the matter of the trafficcommissioners dealing with conduct on the basis of

convictions. As those convictions have not happened,we now effectively have to prove those cases or theconduct of the operator in front of the commissioner.Unfortunately, because of the legal system fortribunals, we are not allowed to recover any of ourcosts. Again, we have to pay for a legal representativeto present the cases to the traffic commissionersbecause they are now being challenged in front of thecommissioners, whereas the operators wouldpreviously have done that in court. We now have tosuffer the additional cost of providing a legalrepresentative at those hearings and yet we cannotreclaim the cost of those representatives if the case iseventually proven.

Q46 Mr Sanders: What sort of costs are you talkingabout in a year? What is the figure?Gary Washer: Do you mean in individual cases oroverall?Mr Sanders: What is the amount spent on externallegal advice in a 12-month period?Gary Washer: The information we have is that theVOSA legal budget is about £750,000, and it isexceeded every year. It is difficult to break it downinto individual cases, but as that budget is brokenevery year then obviously the need is there. As wetarget more operators to try and get into more of thenon-compliant, obviously the implications of thoseinvestigations become more serious for the operatorand, therefore, they are defended more vigorously, sothe legal costs rise.Chair: Thank you very much.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml


Monday 22 April 2013

Members present:

Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair)

Sarah ChampionKwasi Kwarteng

________________

Examination of Witness

Witness: Beverley Bell, Senior Traffic Commissioner, gave evidence.

Q47 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to theTransport Select Committee. I am afraid we arewithout power at the moment. We are hoping it willcome on during the afternoon. Could you give yourname and position for our records?Beverley Bell: Beverley Bell, Senior TrafficCommissioner.

Q48 Chair: Thank you very much. Are you satisfiedthat the traffic commissioners are seen as independentwhen you share the same premises and the samesecretariat with VOSA?Beverley Bell: I think there is confusion amongst theindustry about who the regulator is and who theenforcement agency is. It is a constant distraction.Traffic commissioners constantly have to say toeverybody, “We are independent.” I think, if we werein a different building or buildings, and if we haddifferent e-mail addresses and our own identity, thatdistraction would go away. It also means there isalways the concern that, one day, somebody is goingto take a point of law and appeal on the basis that weare not actually independent of VOSA.

Q49 Chair: What would you like changed to makethe separation clearer? What about branding—whichyou have mentioned in your written evidence?Beverley Bell: Branding is one suggestion and onesolution, but in some respects it is a bit like putting asticking plaster over a wound that needs some stitches.Branding would make it easier, but it wouldn’t get ridof that constant problem and that constant distraction.We have been very mindful of the Motoring ServicesStrategy review. We have suggested in there, when wehave put in our response, that there might perhaps besome benefit in having an agency that is a regulatorand an agency that is an enforcement agency. Thatwould make it very easy and very clear to everybodywho came into contact with those agencies who didwhat. It would prevent that blurring of distinction.

Q50 Chair: How much do you think the problem isone of perception as opposed to reality?Beverley Bell: The two are inextricably linked. It is areality. The Nolan Transport case, which we havereferred to in our written submission, sets out quiteclearly that it is all very well having frameworkdocuments that we have worked very hard at, and itis all very well having administrative arrangements,but, if, in reality, our independence is beingundermined, then there has to be a better solution tothe problem.

Adrian SandersIain Stewart

Q51 Chair: Does the framework document as itexists 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 tobe a solicitor in private practice and it is like draftingup the consent order in divorce proceedings, saying“You have this dog and I’ll have that piece offurniture.” You then have to make it work, and that issometimes the difficulty. We are trying very hard tomake it work.I would just like to express my thanks to the DFTbecause it really seems to have been helpful to me andmy colleagues in trying to establish exactly who doeswhat within VOSA and within the Office of the TrafficCommissioner. We have regular tripartite meetingswith VOSA, the Department and me to try to sort outsome of those issues.

Q53 Chair: The Freight Transport Association saysthe fact that fees are raised by the trafficcommissioners but managed by VOSA raisesconcerns about how money is spent. What would yourcomment be on that?Beverley Bell: Yes. For the first time I have started tolook at the fee income and how it is spent. Again,there are some real stars in VOSA who have beenvery helpful to me and to colleagues in producing dataand accounts for us. For the first time, trafficcommissioners are able to look at how our ownlicence fee money is being spent, and it is very scary.It is quite clear—and I am not going to go into greatdetail today on the figures because they can beprovided separately—that more money is being spentthan is being received in fee income and also in otherareas of income. For example, we do driver conductwork on behalf of DVLA. We are overspending to ahuge extent. That would suggest that we are notcharging enough. I am not aware that anybody hasasked the question, “Why aren’t we charging enoughand what can we do to charge more?” It is a similarsituation with regard to other work that we do. I amlooking at that and at how the money is actually spent.

Q54 Chair: You have also made some commentsabout VOSA’s enforcement activities—Beverley Bell: Absolutely.Chair:—and how some changes in the way theyapproach enforcement have affected the work you do.Could you tell us a little more about that?Beverley Bell: Probably what I would say to themembers of the Committee is that, if you forget

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml


22 April 2013 Beverley Bell

everything else I have said to you today, I would askyou not to forget this. This is really what motivatestraffic commissioners to get up and go to work, andregulate the commercial vehicle industry, many ofwhom are compliant. Things have changed drastically,in my view, and in my colleagues’ view—because Ido speak for all my colleagues—over the past five tosix years. I was explaining it to the taxi driver on theway here. I said, “Please be quick; I’ve got to be atthe Transport Select Committee. How long will ittake?” He said, “Well, you know, you run transport,luv.” I said, “Yes, but I don’t.” He said, “Well, whatdo you do?” I said to him in a couple of sentencesthat commissioners grant the licence. VOSA checksthat they run properly, and, if they don’t, it sees thetraffic commissioners; and I explained our powers. Itis the middle bit—VOSA checking that they do itproperly—that concerns us.If you look at the statistics, in 2005–06, there were26,000, as near as damn it, weighing of vehicles. In2010–11 there were 2,600, as near as damn it. That isa tenth. Overloading prosecutions in 2011–12 were166. VOSA only prosecutes at over 30%. Your vehiclehas to be overloaded by more than 30% before thereis a prosecution, despite the fact that the Europeanregulations say that, if you overload by 20% or more,you commit a most serious infringement.In relation to unsatisfactory maintenanceinvestigations, in 2005–06, as near as damn it, therewere 15,000 maintenance investigations, of which40% were unsatisfactory. In 2010–11, there were4,500 maintenance investigations, of which 58% wereunsatisfactory. I am no mathematician, but, if you dothe maths, you will see that, due to the substantialnumber of reductions in maintenance investigations,we are potentially missing out on 3,500 unsatisfactorymaintenance investigations.All commissioners have grave concerns that VOSA isnot targeting the serially and seriously non-compliant.I am concerned about some of the aspects of its reportbecause it says that it is referring all convictions to usthat it brings to court. In its stats for the last year,2011–12, there were about 6,000 convictions that itsays were referred to us. That is not the case. A quickcall round my offices earlier today revealed in theregion of 650 cases referred to us.Where are the drivers’ hours referrals? Where are theserious investigations? It is the view of allcommissioners that this is not happening any more.We don’t get those serious cases brought to ourattention. It is easy for VOSA to target the softunderbelly of the nice but incompetent smalloperators. It is much more difficult to target andenforce the tough hard core of highly non-compliantoperators 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 heardfrom the trade associations. Indeed, some of them arehere today to hear what is said this afternoon. Youhave heard about the effect of non-compliance on faircompetition. Not complying saves operatorsthousands and thousands of pounds. Breaches ofdrivers’ hours are a very cost-effective way to cutcosts—work the vehicles harder and work the driversharder. The compliant operator just hangs their head in

despair when they see non-compliant operators, quitefrankly, getting away with it. That is without lookingat the effect on road safety, which I won’t bleat onabout because everybody knows the effects of notcomplying with road safety.I think you can tell from the length of time it hastaken me to answer the question that commissionersare very concerned that VOSA needs to be cohesive,structured, joined up, and engage with us early, to looktogether at how to root out the serially and seriouslynon-compliant. That is where we want VOSA tosupport TCs.

Q55 Chair: What you have just said to us isextremely serious and raises very serious issues aboutroad safety.Beverley Bell: Yes.

Q56 Chair: Is there any dialogue taking placebetween you and VOSA on those very serious issues?Beverley Bell: There is now, yes. We asked to be ableto engage with VOSA at a much earlier stage aboutits strategies for enforcement. Two of my colleagues,Sarah Bell and Kevin Rooney, are now working withVOSA to see how their five pillars are going to workin the real world and how their pillar of enforcementis going to work.

Q57 Chair: Has that produced any results?Beverley Bell: It is early days. As far as enforcementwas concerned, I was not clear on what the structureand the cohesive approach was, but I draw back frommaking any findings at this stage because it is earlydays.

Q58 Sarah Champion: Mrs Bell, on that whole area,my understanding is that VOSA has to pick up thecosts of any legal action that it takes.Beverley Bell: Yes.

Q59 Sarah Champion: Its budget, if it is notreduced, is not a key part of its expenditure. Do youthink the main reason it is not going forward withprosecutions is that it just cannot afford to, so it isgoing 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 toprosecute for the then Vehicle Inspectorate on thingslike drivers’ hours overloadings. The budget is about£750,000. There has been an overspend year on yearon year. I was fascinated to read one of the responsesto the VOSA document, which said that, more andmore, solicitors had to appear at public inquiries. Thatis absolutely not the case. Even on impoundings,which are party and party hearings where VOSA hasto be represented, often it does not even sendsolicitors then. We are often left to pick up the workthat maybe the solicitor would do.

Q60 Sarah Champion: £750,000 sounds like a verysmall amount of money to me.Beverley Bell: Yes.

Q61 Sarah Champion: Is it the case that, if itsbudget was increased, it might be able to prosecute

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-07-2013 12:42] Job: 030600 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/030600/030600_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript.xml



more? If it is looking at its bottom line and we areall making cuts, do you not think that is going to bea factor?Beverley Bell: It is for VOSA to justify how it sets itsprosecution budget. It doesn’t have to prosecute tobring cases to our attention. It can bring fixedpenalties to our attention; it can bring drivers’ hoursoffences to our attention. I am not sure that it is.

Q62 Sarah Champion: On those fixed penalties, doyou believe that the fines are enough of a deterrent?Beverley Bell: Commissioners have taken the viewthat the fine amount is not always sufficient to act asa deterrent. As I understand it, this is all part of aEuropean piece of legislation so we could notunilaterally increase the fines. I stand to be correctedon that, but that is my understanding.

Q63 Sarah Champion: But, if you could, wouldyour feeling be that they should be higher?Beverley Bell: Yes.

Q64 Sarah Champion: You mentioned the EU. Ihave in my head rather than in the briefing paper infront of me that, when we are prosecuting people fromthe EU, if they then go back to Europe and don’t paythe bill, we effectively have to pick up the legal costsbut cannot enforce them to pay the fines that arebeing levied.Beverley Bell: I have been trying to find out somemore about that this afternoon. Obviously you aregoing to have to ask VOSA because it does theenforcement, but I understand that it has had tochange its policy, especially when it comes tocabotage and combined transport enforcement,because of the problem of getting the money out ofthe foreign operators.

Q65 Chair: I would like to clarify what you weresaying before about the nature of the discussions youare having with VOSA, how it is addressing thecompliance issue and its impact on public safety. Thatis what you were talking about, wasn’t it?Beverley Bell: Yes.

Q66 Chair: Are these informal discussions, or dothey lead to any formal framework on how thingsmight operate in the future?Beverley Bell: I asked if the meeting was going to beminuted and notes taken. VOSA said, “No,” and Isaid, “Well, maybe it would be a good idea if we didtake some notes and we did have some action pointsarising out of it.” I think it is too early to say. We haveonly just got to the point where we are now a voicebeing heard by VOSA at the early stage to say, “Howare VOSA going to enforce, and how are we, ascommissioners, going to regulate?” We are really atthe start of that process. I can’t tell you whether it isgoing to be successful or not, but I can tell you thatwe are very keen to have the work brought to us andwe will deal with it; we will deal with the operators.

Q67 Chair: At what level are those discussionstaking place? Have they involved the chief executiveof VOSA?

Beverley Bell: I see the chief executive of VOSArarely. We have six-monthly or quarterly dates in thediary to have a catch-up on the telephone. That is notthe issue. It is making sure that the right people at theright level know what is needed. From ourperspective, we have two commissioners assigned tolook at this work. They will then deal with the peopleon the ground, who will formulate the policy and dothe work.I would also add that there is the recently formedCompliance 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 sortof forum where we could openly debate both therhetoric around enforcement and the practicalities.The DFT have taken up that mantle and I am verygrateful to them. They now chair regular meetingswhere we have VOSA, and they send their directorof compliance. They don’t send their chief executivebecause he is not operational enough. All the tradeassociations are represented, and I go on behalf of thetraffic commissioners. I have forgotten somebody veryimportant but I can’t just think who it is at themoment. Again, that is a very good mechanism to startto say, “What is VOSA doing to target the serially andseriously non-compliant?”

Q68 Chair: Has that process brought about anychanges, or are they just friendly discussions?Beverley Bell: No, they are not friendly discussions.They are good, clear, constructive debate. It is not atalking shop. There are action points and we look atwhat needs to be done. It really is too early to say. Ido feel we are in this new era, which is why I usedthe analogy before of the consent order. We have thedocument and we now have to make it work. We havegot to the stage where we now have a dialogue withVOSA. I just hope it listens. It is all very well talkingto people, but, if they don’t listen, we are not goingto be in a good place. I hope it listens.

Q69 Chair: What work is being done to improve theIT system that supports the processing of licences?Beverley Bell: Our IT system is antiquated and out ofsupport. It needs sorting out fairly quickly. Again, TCshave been approached early on to ask what we can doand what we need to make sure that the system thatwe have is as effective as it can be. That is part of amuch bigger IT modernisation programme that VOSAis going through.

Q70 Chair: What action is being taken to improveinformation sharing between Government agenciesand other organisations?Beverley Bell: Data handling is a real concern of alltraffic commissioners. When I started in post, Idiscovered that not everybody who was accessing datathat we own was legally allowed to do so. I raised itat the highest level. Two years down the line we havestill not resolved the data-sharing issues. We havemade progress and we are in the process ofnegotiating a data-sharing agreement between VOSAand the traffic commissioners, but we still don’t havethat in place.




The next target on my to-do list for data sharing is tomake sure that we have the proper processes in placeto share data with all of the police forces. Everythingis antiquated. There are agreements that go backseveral years that are now no longer fit for purpose. Itis a bit of a running sore.The problem is that I don’t have anybody to ask todraft the data-sharing agreements, so I have to go capin hand to nice people like David Coker in the DFTand say, “Help.” He is lovely and he helps. Then I goto VOSA and say, “Can you have a look at this?”, andsometime later I get a response. That is the reality.

Q71 Chair: This doesn’t sound a very constructiveway of doing things. Is this a systems failure? Are thestructures not there or are people not making it work?Beverley Bell: It is back to that running sore and thatdistraction of who prepares the data-sharingagreements for traffic commissioners. Should it beVOSA, which is in fact the enforcement agency butalso produces and provides to us our administrativesupport? Should it be the Department for Transport,because we are appointed by the Secretary of State forTransport? There is no clarity around who should dowhat for us. That has never really been sorted out. Ithas all been fudged in the past. For the first time, nowthat we as commissioners are trying to open all thesecans of worms and sort them out, we have theseproblems.

Q72 Chair: You have now raised two issues wherethere clearly are major failings with the way theagency is working or there appear to be implicationsof enforcement policies, and there is this exampleabout addressing how to apply the correct data. Is theDepartment brought into any of these issues toresolve them?Beverley Bell: Yes, absolutely. The Department iswell aware. These are the sorts of matters that wediscuss at the tripartite meetings. Things like datasharing are on the agenda all the time. You used theword “failings”. I am not necessarily saying it is afailing. I am saying that, in the past, there has beenno clarity about who does what for trafficcommissioners. For example, hopefully, we are aboutto sign a data-sharing agreement with a nicedepartment of the Department for Transport inHastings called BSOG. They deal with the bus serviceoperators’ 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 doit? I am not saying it is a failing. I am saying for thefirst time that we are getting hold of those knottyissues and trying to resolve them.

Q73 Chair: I want to turn now to bus transportissues. This is an issue that affects a lot of people andthere is obviously a great deal of concern expressedin relation to it. In your last annual report, youdescribed the changes to how VOSA monitors busservices as a “sea change”. Could you tell us whatyou mean by that?Beverley Bell: There was a change of policy by theDFT with regard to how bus punctuality andreliability should be enforced. Unfortunately, that

didn’t communicate through to traffic commissionersquickly enough. That was not anybody’s fault; it wasjust one of those things. VOSA then worked on a newproject to implement the new policy.I will be quite blunt here in my remarks. It is fair tosay that that bus compliance transition work was afailure. It grieves me to say it. We have effectivelylost 12 months. Commissioners are passionate aboutbus reliability and punctuality. It is the one thing thatwe really want to do effectively because it has suchrewards. We all feel that VOSA’s policy and the wayit implemented its policy was doomed to fail.We raised it with the DFT. Again, the DFT has beenincredibly helpful. A lady called Rachael Watson hascome to our assistance. She has had meetings withVOSA. She has been to Bristol to see how thingswork. She is actually going on a visit with VOSA nextweek to see how it works. There is a whole area ofchange that needs to happen very quickly because weare just not doing the bus cases that we want to.

Q74 Chair: What was VOSA doing wrong?Beverley Bell: In summary, it was giving highlycomplex work to vehicle examiners. In summary, itwas asking vehicle examiners to advise operators onhow to run reliable and punctual services.

Q75 Chair: It was asking the operators.Beverley Bell: No. In summary, it was asking vehicleexaminers, whose job it is to go and make sure thebrakes are working, to go to an operator, look at itssystems for running reliable services, to find if thosesystems were good or bad, and, if they were bad, toadvise the operator on how to run a reliable andpunctual service. That was the original plan. I thinkvehicle examiners are there—I am sorry if I am beingtoo blunt—to check vehicles. All the bus compliancemonitors were made redundant.

Q76 Mr Sanders: Who should have been doing thisjob?Beverley Bell: The bus compliance officers. VOSAhad 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 toperform is still a duty that had to be carried out.Beverley Bell: Yes. I would venture to suggest thatmaybe traffic examiners, who are more used tolooking at paper systems and procedures, would havebeen the ones to have done it. I am not being in anyway derogatory about vehicle examiners. They do afabulous job, but it seemed odd that the vehicleexaminers would be going out and looking at busservice reliability, which is a very complex area.

Q79 Mr Sanders: Whose job would it be to take thatup and inform the Minister that this is happening?Beverley Bell: Commissioners have historically doneit through their annual reports. That is how,historically, we have made our concerns known. Ihave raised my concerns with VOSA and with theDFT in my capacity now as Senior through the




tripartite meetings that we have. That is why the DFTcame to our assistance.

Q80 Mr Sanders: Did you raise it verbally or didyou present a report?Beverley Bell: Both.

Q81 Mr Sanders: So that is somewhere within theDepartment’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 calledRachael Watson, who works in the Department forTransport, along with Anthony Ferguson, was veryproactive in saying, “We have a difficulty; let’s see ifwe can resolve it and let’s find some solutions.” Thatis where we are now. I didn’t do it by report; I did itby letter.

Q83 Mr Sanders: So it hasn’t actually been resolved.Beverley Bell: No. Like everything else at themoment, it is a work in progress.

Q84 Chair: Is there an issue about getting access toinformation? Are there confidentiality agreements thatstop you getting information about the performanceof buses?Beverley Bell: That is very interesting because I amin the process of redrafting the statutory guidancedocument. I notice that pteg said in their response thatthey felt that Commissioners should be given accessto performance monitoring reports by operators andon operators. I shall be dealing with that. I see noreason why there shouldn’t be any publication of dataon bus reliability and punctuality, whether that is fromthe transport authorities like Transport for GreaterManchester, Merseytravel, or whether it is by theoperators themselves.

Q85 Chair: What do you need to help you to enforcestandards of punctuality and safety in respect of thevehicle operators?Beverley Bell: With regard to punctuality, theCommissioners would like a clear definition of whodoes what within VOSA, who they report to, what theparameters are and how the money that the DFT givesto VOSA is spent. I would like that to be a tripartitedialogue between VOSA, the TCs and the DFT. It is;it is happening. I could almost come back for the re-run in a year and say, “That was a year ago. How arewe now?”You have asked me about safety. I am not undulyconcerned about the state of the fleet with regard towheels falling off. I am much more concerned aboutdrivers—tired drivers, drivers who are abusing the

hours, drivers who fall asleep at the wheel,enforcement of cabotage and enforcement ofcombined transport. That is what we are concernedabout.

Q86 Chair: Are you saying that you don’t haveenough information on that aspect?Beverley Bell: We don’t have the cases brought to usthat we used to have brought to us. We used to begiven cases that were what we would call good-quality revocation cases, if I am forthright. They arethe cases where it was likely that the operator wouldbe put out of business because it was fiddling thedrivers’ hours rules, fiddling the tachographs anddriving all the time. We don’t get those cases, but itstill goes on. That is what is so frustrating for us asregulators. It must be even more frustrating for theoperators who have to compete with them.

Q87 Chair: What has caused this change?Beverley Bell: You will have to ask VOSA thatbecause we don’t have any influence. Historically, wehave not had influence over what VOSA chooses todo in its enforcement. We have never been consultedabout it.

Q88 Chair: Presumably VOSA must be aware ofyour concerns.Beverley Bell: Yes.

Q89 Chair: What is their response?Beverley Bell: Their response is the five pillars thatare referred to in their business plan and to consultwith us at an early stage, but I don’t know what thestrategy is. I don’t know what the plan is. If I giveyou an example, in my traffic area, I get anonymousletters complaining about operators. It took fouroccasions before VOSA would even act on that. Therewere four occasions of me raising it. When eventuallyit came to my attention, drivers were tipping off thecards—in other words, falsifying their tachographcharts. If that had been left to VOSA, nothing wouldhave happened. I don’t want to single out one case.They do some fabulous work, but I don’t think theydo enough of it. I am saying too much; I am sorry.

Q90 Chair: When was the last time you raised thiswith VOSA?Beverley Bell: It is a constant theme. It is aware thatit is a constant theme. I say it at every event I go towith VOSA and I say it at every public event where Igive a presentation. I say, “I am sure VOSA will beworking hard to target the serially and seriously non-compliant.” It knows that it is a concern. That is whatthe compliance forum is all about with the DFT.Chair: Thank you very much indeed. You have givenus important and disturbing information.




Witnesses: Alastair Peoples, CEO, VOSA, and Stephen Hammond MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary ofState, Department for Transport, gave evidence.

Q91 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to theTransport Select Committee. Would you give yourname and position?Stephen Hammond: Good afternoon. I am StephenHammond, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary forTransport. Within my portfolio is the work of themotoring agencies.Alastair Peoples: Good afternoon. My name isAlastair Peoples. I am chief executive of the Vehicleand Operator Services Agency.

Q92 Chair: Mr Hammond, I understand that youwant to make a statement.Stephen Hammond: I would be grateful just to makea very brief opening statement, if that were possible.Thank you, Mrs Ellman.I am pleased that we are here this afternoon. I ampleased for your interest in the work of VOSA and forinviting Mr Peoples and me to give some evidence.Their work should be seen in the context of the newMotoring Services Strategy, which outlines broadreform proposals and sets out three key principles forthe future. Those are: first, putting customers andbusinesses at the heart of everything all the agenciesdo; secondly, rationalising the number of bodies andagencies that deliver those services; and, thirdly,working more closely and collaboratively withpartners to deliver those services. The response of therecent consultation that we did on that will bepublished in the summer.As part of the strategy, VOSA is part way through asuccessful change programme to bring testing closerto the customer. We now have over 300 non-VOSAtesting sites, and I anticipate that 85% of the tests willbe conducted outside VOSA premises by this timenext year.Since the Committee’s last inquiry, VOSA hasfocused its enforcement activity where it will makethe most difference to road safety. VOSA is gearingup to enforce the HGV Road User Levy Act. Thislegislation was passed through Parliament unamendedand enjoys strong cross-party support. It has beenwelcomed by the haulage industry. I anticipate thatthere is nothing to prevent the new scheme startingfrom April 2014, which will mean for the first timethat foreign vehicles will pay a contribution to takeaccount of the wear and tear they cause on the UKroad network.Finally, VOSA has reduced the deficit of £46.6million as of April 2010 to a deficit of £4 million asof March 2013. That is a big saving over a three-yearperiod, while making no overall increases in the HGVand PSV testing fees since 2009. I am aware that theTSC visited a VOSA facility in February. I trust thatthat was an informative visit and that you wereimpressed by the effectiveness and dedication of thestaff. We look forward to answering your questionsthis afternoon.

Q93 Chair: Thank you very much. We have justheard some evidence from Beverley Bell, SeniorTraffic Commissioner. She has just expressed great

concern to us about the way in which VOSA goesabout its enforcement activities and the lack ofinvolvement of the traffic commissioners. She hasgreat concern about the areas covered, amounting to aproblem in relation to public safety in general. MrPeoples, are you aware of this issue?Alastair Peoples: I don’t recognise the issue. For thepast number of years we have been very successful insetting up a targeting regime that is benchmarkedwithin Europe. It is something we call the OperatorCompliance Risk Score. It has been very widelyaccepted within the industry as targeting those mostin need of our attention at the roadside. We will belooking very closely at the evidence of what impactsmost in terms of road safety, and we have beenworking very closely with stakeholders at all levels,whether it is within the Department or the industry, interms of identifying and highlighting the approach thatwe would have.It is of some concern that Mrs Bell has raised thisbecause there is no evidence that I have found thatthat is the case.

Q94 Chair: Are you telling us that you are not awareof a major issue and major concerns from the trafficcommissioners in relation to VOSA activities?Alastair Peoples: The traffic commissioners havenever raised those concerns with me. In terms of oureffectiveness, we are looking at much greater targetingof areas that we believe impact most on road safety.It is fair to say that the industry and those thatrepresent the industry recognise that we are targetingthe most serial of offenders in terms of the roadside.It is not the only thing that we do. Clearly there iseducation and training required, but, in terms of ourtargeting, we firmly believe that we are targeting thosethat require most attention from VOSA.

Q95 Chair: Minister, are you aware of this issue—of this major concern being expressed by the trafficcommissioners?Stephen Hammond: Like Mr Peoples, they havenever raised that issue with me in terms of their majorconcern. I am aware of the targeting regime thatVOSA have. I am aware of what they are trying to doand their scores. I am aware of their approach incertain cases in going straight to red with certainoperators, but the traffic commissioner has not raisedthat concern, certainly with me, since I have been inpost.

Q96 Chair: How would you describe yourrelationship with the traffic commissioners?Alastair Peoples: I would describe it as businesslike.In terms of my relationship with Mrs Bell, I feel it isvery cordial. I don’t have much day-to-day discussionwith the traffic commissioners themselves. I workthrough Mrs Bell, who is the Senior TrafficCommissioner. It is fair to say that, in workingthrough some of the issues that we have had, it hasnot always been a marriage made in heaven, if I canuse that phrase. I am the accounting officer for the



22 April 2013 Alistair Peoples and Stephen Hammond MP

agency and for the budget held by the trafficcommissioners. That accountability brings with itsome responsibility in terms of managing publicmoney.I want to pay some credit to Mrs Bell for moving thetraffic commissioner audit to one that has just beenannounced, which is a reasonable audit, where she hasspearheaded moving things forward to a point whereI am now much more content as accounting officer interms of my responsibilities.

Q97 Chair: Let me ask you about the AuthorisedTesting Facilities and the system that you are nowoperating. How do you see the system at the moment?Do you think it is working satisfactorily, or do youintend to make any changes, whoever would like toreply?Stephen Hammond: I will start off and, if Mr Peopleswants to join in, he can. Like you, I have seen thesystem in operation. I have had a chance to examinethe records since the system has been in place. It iseffectively VOSA managing a very successful changeprogramme. It is bringing testing closer to the people.It is not privatisation; it is a contract arrangement. Sofar, it is impressive that, in the three years since theyhave moved this process, there have been no issueswith non-compliance of VOSA staff in terms ofattendance at these ATFs. The key thing is to be clearthat, at these ATFs, it is VOSA staff who areundertaking these tests and that they are the keepersof quality.Alastair Peoples: I would add to that. This ATFstrategy is not in isolation in terms of being just agood thing to take testing closer to the customer. Itwas meeting a real need within the agency. Ministerspointed out the deficit in which the agency found itselfand the considerable amount of money that would beneeded to refurbish the VOSA estate. Old thinkingwould have been to increase fees and refurbish theestate, much of which predates the motorway networkand is in any case in the wrong place. New thinkingwould 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 forthem, both in terms of financial payback and, moreimportantly, the business opportunity it gives in termsof 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 hasbeen nearly exponential has been fantastic. We arenow at 300 ATFs. Indeed, since you visited, there havebeen 17 more ATFs that have come online. We arenow looking at some 85% of all our work being donewithin 12 months. That is fantastic in terms of realbusiness benefits. There are 320 more sites than wehad ourselves, without adding any additional burdento the test fee.

Q98 Kwasi Kwarteng: I have a question for theMinister. Clearly, there is a slight mismatch in termsof the evidence the Committee has heard. Does thatconcern you in terms of the channels of informationfrom VOSA to your Department? Are you satisfiedthat the communication is working well?

Stephen Hammond: Are we now going back to thetraffic commissioners and the evidence you haveheard on that?Kwasi Kwarteng: Yes.Stephen Hammond: Of course the trafficcommissioners also have an open line to myDepartment. I attended the opening of one of the newtraffic offices less than six weeks ago in Cambridge. Ihad a chance to speak for at least half an hour withthe traffic commissioner there at their new premises.Again, all I can say is that I hope the trafficcommissioners will use the opportunity to make theirconcerns known to me.

Q99 Sarah Champion: Minister, when we spoke tothe industry, they supported the idea of the ATFsemploying their own staff rather than VOSA staff totest vehicles. Do you think the system should beliberalised further?Stephen Hammond: At the moment I am keen toensure that we get to the target number of ATFs open.I am not persuaded that that is the right step at thisstage, partly because I want to ensure that the qualityof testing is maintained and is as rigorous as it hasbeen—and it is because we know the VOSA staff arethere. That might be something to look to in thefuture, but it would obviously require oversight tomaintain the quality that we expect. It is notsomething that I anticipate discussing in the near term.

Q100 Sarah Champion: Mr Peoples, we have heardanecdotal evidence of people facing long delays ingetting appointments. What can be done to overcomethat?Alastair Peoples: There are a number of things. Thisis now moving the booking itself to the 300 ATFsdirectly. It is a bit like the MOT model where theydeal directly with the ATF. One of the things that havejust gone live on gov.uk is how to find your nearestATF. You can put in your postcode and find out wherethe nearest ATF is. We give contact details and thetype of test that they conduct. There is then anopportunity for you to go and book directly with theATF. We also operate a contact centre, so, again, ifyou dial the VOSA number, you go through to ourcontact centre in Swansea. They will give you thenearest ATF, but they will also tell you what the firstavailable booking is at a VOSA test site beside you.

Q101 Sarah Champion: I am particularly concernedwith more rural and outreach areas. Are you going toset targets for distances so that people only have totravel, say, an hour before getting to a site?Alastair Peoples: We currently work with a notional30-mile, 60 minutes, for 90% of customers. On thebasis that we have now provided 324 additional sites,it is our contention that people will have to travel lessand not more. In those rural areas where there maynot be particular take-up in ATFs, we still have ourown test sites. We have an opportunity to keep those,or, as we do in some of the rural sites in Scotland, wecan enter into agreements with operators. There is onein Fort William where we rent a lane one day a weekfrom them. There is another one where we own a sitein Portree. We use it one day a week and we rent it




out to one of the major bus companies four days aweek. There are lots of different opportunities wherethere is not particular take-up in ATF to ensure thatthere is provision of service as close as we can makeit.

Q102 Sarah Champion: I can see that that is greatfor the 90%, but 10% are probably in the ruraloutlying areas and they are probably the smalleroperators. Is there any certainty you can give themthat they won’t be giving up a whole day trekking toone of these centres?Alastair Peoples: That is the case at the moment inmany cases because distances are greater in thoserural areas. Quite often, operators have to travel quitelarge distances. I am anticipating that that will not getany worse, and, indeed, with ATFs, it is going to geta lot better for them.

Q103 Sarah Champion: Is there any evidence oflarger operators not opening up their testing sites tocompetitors?Alastair Peoples: The way we are looking at this atthe moment is that it is entirely voluntary whetheryou become an ATF, whether you have open accessor whether you provide third party. As we went toFord, they recognised that they may decide to openthis up to trusted third parties. For many operators thisis a saving for them. They have enough work just todo it themselves. I am very content that the vastmajority of the sites that we have are open access.Clearly, in any future provision of service in terms ofwhere we close down VOSA sites, we do verysensitive market analysis to look at where the sitesare, 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 havewhen we are putting a submission to the Ministerproposing that we should cease testing in anyparticular site.

Q104 Chair: What kind of information do you haveabout how this new system is working? What kind ofrecords do you keep?Alastair Peoples: We have a number of records. First,we know how many vehicles are going through onany particular day. We know the pass/fail rate. Weknow the reasons for failure of each examiner. Thatinformation is exactly as we capture at our ownVOSA test sites.

Q105 Chair: What about people who wantappointments for testing? Do you have any records ofhow many people are kept waiting or for how long?Alastair Peoples: No. It is a bit like the MOT schemefor cars. The booking with the ATFs is entirelybetween the ATF and the operator.

Q106 Chair: When we are given anecdotalinformation that people are kept waiting and there areproblems, you do not have comprehensiveinformation on that.Alastair Peoples: We do not have comprehensiveinformation on that, but we still have the VOSAnetwork and the VOSA contact centre. On our website

you can book a test either with a VOSA site or goingthrough the contact centre.

Q107 Chair: But you do not have information toknow that.Alastair Peoples: Not specifically on the ATFs, no.

Q108 Chair: Minister, can I just confirm that you arestill committed to a national network of VOSA testingfacilities as well as the private sector ones?Stephen Hammond: The case will be whether or notthat is necessary given the roll-out of up to 85% oftests at non-VOSA sites. We will ensure that thereis provision for testing where it is required, but weobviously won’t duplicate what VOSA are putting inin terms of the ATFs.

Q109 Chair: What does that mean in relation to yourposition now? Are you committed to a national VOSAsystem now, or have you not yet taken the decision?The last time we were told by your predecessor that anational VOSA system would be retained.Stephen Hammond: There is a national VOSAsystem retained in that the work is being done. Whatyou are talking about is whether I am committed to anational network of VOSA sites. I am saying to youthat the roll-out of ATFs is currently at something like65% 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 meetwhat Mr Peoples has described as his test in terms ofavailability. Some of those will remain in the publicsector, but the bulk of the sites, as you can see, willbe ATFs that are in the private sector.

Q110 Chair: What work is being done to facilitatenight-time working?Alastair Peoples: Is this in relation to enforcementor testing?Chair: Testing.Alastair Peoples: At the moment, we get in touchwith the ATF operators every three months and askthem what provision of service they want for the nextthree months. We try and match whatever the criteriaare with the resource that we have. In the main, mostof the work is between six in the morning and eightat night. We hear a lot that people want 24/7 working.When we go and talk to them about exactly what theywant, it is a future tense thing. “We would like to havethat capability. We would like to have that facility.”I can give you a small anecdote. I was out recently ata new ATF operator who is just building a new site.He was working 18 hours a day. When I asked himwhy he didn’t open 24 hours a day, he said that, whenhe is doing repairs in the middle of the night andsuddenly he finds that he needs to fit an expensivepart, generally speaking the transport manager of theowner of the vehicle does not want a call in the middleof the night to see whether he wants to spend themoney. This will fit maybe own-account operators.We are very happy to talk to anyone about theprovision that they have. We are committed to tryingto ensure that we match resource with demand,whatever time of the day it is.




Q111 Chair: Would test fees increase if people hadto work unsociable hours?Alastair Peoples: There is an element of cross-subsidisation here. We don’t want to give a particularservice at a lower cost to one operator. In terms ofwhere we want to take testing, we are looking atproviding that flexibility through a potential change ofterms and conditions. We hope that will have thebenefit of fitting the demand from the ATFs with theresource available from the staff. It will allow peopleto choose whether they want to work longer days andhave fewer of those days working in an attempt tomatch the resource from the ATFs with the demand.Our overall aim is to give the ATF operator whatthey need.I would say that sometimes they are asking for aresource that they cannot use. When we are talking topeople about the next three months, what we arelooking at are the last three, six or nine months andhow they have used the resource. There is a dangerthat people will ask for so much that we are drawingresource from one of their competitors because theythen tend to cancel that resource at the last minute. Itis a fine balance of matching demand with resourceand looking for expertise.

Q112 Chair: Are you expecting fees to go up?Alastair Peoples: I am anticipating that, overall, thestrategy will keep the fees neutral—as I have said, wehave not increased our fees for the last three years—with no significant increase over the next two years. Iam looking at the ATF strategy either keeping fees asthey are or the potential in real terms to reduce themover a period of time.

Q113 Chair: How do you deal with foreign HGVs inrelation to drivers’ hours?Alastair Peoples: We have a targeting system forforeign vehicles. When we stop foreign vehicles wedo a complete check. We are looking not just atdrivers’ hours but roadworthiness issues. I wonder,Chair, if you are alluding to the issue of graduateddeposits here in terms of how we deal with them.

Q114 Chair: I am asking you a question. I knowthere are a number of issues, but I am asking how youdeal with the specific issue of drivers’ hours. We havehad a number of representations.Alastair Peoples: We will look at the tachograph anddraw down the information stored on the tachograph.Our examiners are trained to analyse those. We arelooking for evidence of non-compliance with thedrivers’ hours. We are now finding some issues inrelation to tampering. There may be elements of fraudin that as well. We have a particular way of dealingwith the fraud elements of that. We look at the charts;we identify the driver, and we draw that down and doour own analysis against the relevant legislation.

Q115 Chair: We have been told that a number oftrucks are using magnets to falsify drivers’ hours. Isthat something that you are addressing?Alastair Peoples: It is. This is becoming moresignificant now. The issue around drivers drivinglonger has a real competitive advantage for some

operators. We are finding some very sophisticatedmeans of tampering with the tachographs. Ironically,the electronic tachograph was introduced to try anddo away with the fraudulent element of the waxedtachograph charts. We have found that it has spurreda whole new industry in terms of manipulation.Our examiners are well trained in looking for anyabnormalities in the record. We are unique in Europein having live real-time access to a European-widedatabase in terms of use of magnets. We are very wellaware of that. We also now have the sophistication ofusing an endoscope to look inside gearboxes andsmall compartments to check and see whether or notthere are any magnetic devices found. Where we dofind them we take the appropriate action, whichusually involves the police. We also potentiallyprohibit the vehicle and put that same informationonline as soon as we can, so it is open not only to therest of our examiners but for roadside examinationsEurope-wide.

Q116 Chair: Are you satisfied that you have enoughpowers to deal with issues from HGVs?Alastair Peoples: Yes, we are satisfied. We work withthe primary enforcement agency, which is the police.If there are any issues in terms of things that we can’tdeal with, we will call down on the police potentiallyto arrest the individual there and then.

Q117 Chair: You have mentioned accessinginformation on a cross-European level. Are yousatisfied that the systems are there to enable you todo that?Alastair Peoples: We are the only enforcement bodyin Europe that has real-time access to this at theroadside. You can go on to the website and accessthat, so we are ahead of the game on that one at themoment.Stephen Hammond: It is also fair to say that a newgeneration of tachographs has come in since last year.Alastair Peoples: The third generation is trying toaddress this further element of magnets and magneticeffect. It will be non-ferrous material. Hopefully, itwill try and address the issue of magnet tampering.

Q118 Chair: Do you think the traffic commissioners’independence is undermined by their close associationwith VOSA?Stephen Hammond: As you know, Mrs Ellman, thereare three things. As Mr Peoples has already said, heis the accounting officer for them; so there is thatelement. We are all aware that they have statutoryindependence in terms of the traffic commissioners’operations. Although the staff that are in trafficcommissioners’ offices are employed by VOSA, theyare responsible to or they effectively work for thetraffic commissioner.I am also aware that this issue has been raised. I havespoken to Mr Peoples about it on at least oneoccasion. I am clear that the statutory independence isthere for the traffic commissioner. Where I think thereis 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




commissioner to be done by VOSA staff. Those areat a very low level.I have also looked at where the new relocation of thetraffic commissioners’ offices have in some casescaused concerns. I visited Cambridge and I have alsolooked at the one in the south-west. It is clear theyhave separate entrances and the buildings are properlydesignated 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 ifthe independence of the traffic commissioners was notguaranteed by law or, operationally, they were notseen or perceived to be independent. I believe thatthey are seen to be independent by the vast bulk ofthe industry and by their operations.

Q120 Chair: The memorandum of agreementbetween VOSA and the traffic commissioners was dueto be finalised by the end of the 2012–13 financialyear. That has not happened. What is going on?Stephen Hammond: There are still ongoingdiscussions about one or two of the elements insidethat memorandum of understanding. Some of that isto do with the resources, and some, as Mr Peoples haspointed out, is to do with the audit and the movementof the audit process.

Q121 Chair: What about branding of thecommissioners? Would that help?Stephen Hammond: The commissioners are branded“The Office of the Traffic Commissioners”. That isbranded on their buildings as you go in. The buildingsare not branded VOSA buildings; they are branded“The Office of the Traffic Commissioners”.

Q122 Chair: Do you think this whole issue ofindependence and whether they are independent—whether it is perception or reality—is anything thatshould cause you concern?Stephen Hammond: Mrs Ellman, I am aware of theissue and I keep it under review. So far, the trafficcommissioners have not come to me and said they areconcerned that the balance is now wrong. Of courseit would be of concern to me if I thought that theindependence of that office had been altered.

Q123 Chair: Mr Peoples, do you think this is a bigand serious issue?Alastair Peoples: To pick up on your point aboutperception and reality, Chair, this is more a perceptionthan reality. I can certainly look the Committee in theeye and say that I have never attempted in any way tointerfere with her judicial authority, nor have I anyevidence of any of my staff doing that. The staff whowork in the Office of the Traffic Commissioner workfor the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. The workis ring-fenced for the traffic commissioner and theywork under the delegated authority of the trafficcommissioner, which can be withdrawn at any time.We try and do everything that we can to ensure thatthat independence is there—and visibly there. Anytime that we can get any evidence, even of theperception, 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 visitoryou get a VOSA pass. Once we heard that, we veryquickly moved to a separate Office of the TrafficCommissioner pass. As we become aware of anything,no matter how small it is, we try and resolve itbecause we are aware of the sensitivities in this. ButI have absolutely no evidence that their independenceis in any way being impeded by anything that VOSAdoes.

Q124 Chair: Are you saying that you are not awareof any major ongoing issue?Alastair Peoples: I am not aware of any majorongoing issues in terms of their independence, no.

Q125 Chair: What about the fact that the trafficcommissioners no longer have a say in VOSA’sstrategic 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. Thereare a number of forums where they have a say in this.It is very clear in terms of that independence that youtalked about to ensure there is clear blue waterbetween what they do and the enforcement role thatVOSA does. We are well aware of that, and there area number of opportunities for the Senior TrafficCommissioner, for my staff and the Department to gettogether to look at what we are doing strategically. Wealso agree with the Department on what ourenforcement strategy for the next year is in theagency’s business plan. We also agree with theDepartment, who have access to the trafficcommissioners, in terms of how we spend the non-feeelement of our budget, which is the singleenforcement budget. That looks at things like foreignoperators, limousines or whatever. There are a numberof opportunities for them to make their voice knownwithout affecting that independence that we talkedabout earlier.

Q126 Chair: Again, I want to make sure I understandyou correctly. Are you saying that, as you see it, therearen’t any issues that are not being dealt with?Alastair Peoples: That is exactly how I see it. Thereare ample opportunities, either directly to me, throughthe sponsorship department or through some of thosemeetings, for the Senior Traffic Commissioner tomake her voice heard and the concerns, if there areany, of her colleagues.

Q127 Chair: This is not the information we weregiven just before you came into this meeting. Minister,perhaps you want to comment. The evidence we haveheard this afternoon before you came to give yourown evidence is really very much at odds with theimpression that you are giving now. We had theimpression before that there were major ongoingproblems that have not all been resolved. Does itconcern 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 thinkthe traffic commissioners guard and value theirindependence very highly. Their perception may be asyou say; I think the reality is somewhat different. The




element for me is that, where I am made aware,directly or indirectly, of any issues around that, I amvery happy to address them, either directly with theSenior Traffic Commissioner or through thesponsoring department. Quite often I do meet withMrs Bell and colleagues in the Department to dealwith those ongoing issues, regardless of whether theyare 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 amaware that, since original evidence was submitted, theframework document has been submitted to theCommittee, which should, I hope, give someconfidence about the clarification of the relationship.The relationship and the independence are there instatute. As a result of what you have just said, I shalllook tomorrow to see where that might be. As we saidearlier, I have had a number of conversations—notonly with Mr Peoples but with Mr Peoples andothers—to ensure that the statutory guidance andstatutory obligations of the traffic commissioners aremet.

Q129 Sarah Champion: I know we have focused onperception. Perception is in many cases moreimportant than the reality; it is what people deal with.One of the other things that we discussed with MrsBell was about enforcement. Her view—and she hadthe data to back it up—was that VOSA may betargeting smaller operators, who were easy pickings,at the expense of going for bigger prosecutions andactions against the larger operators. Do you think thatis a fair comment? Is that something that yourecognise?Alastair Peoples: I have not seen the evidence thatshe produced, but certainly it is very likely that thenumbers she has taken are from our effectivenessreport. The Operator Compliance Risk Score, whichis seen as a benchmark throughout Europe and highlylauded by the industry as targeting the right people,targets those operators, large or small, that pose thegreatest 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. Thecriteria of OCRS are well known and look atroadworthiness. There is a formula for working outexactly what that is on the basis of annual test or oneach roadworthiness encounter at the roadside.

Q130 Sarah Champion: Your trade union suggestedthat cuts to VOSA’s enforcement budget were leadingyou to curtail some enforcement activity. Is that thereality?Alastair Peoples: In terms of cuts to VOSA’senforcement activity we are a trading fund, so thefunding of enforcement from the fee depends on thenumber of people who apply for annual tests. If thereis less money coming in, then we have to look at howwe spend that. The single enforcement budget hasbeen maintained for this year. There has been no cuton that, although we were looking at what the impactof cuts would be over time.

In preparing for this, we looked at the number offront-line staff. The number of front-line staff,whether it is vehicle testers on the testing side orexaminers, is broadly the same as 10 years ago. Wehave much better tools in terms of ANPR weigh-in-motion sensors. We look at targeting through theOCRS. There is much greater use of intelligence. Isee no significant cut on the enforcement budget at all.

Q131 Sarah Champion: It is admirable that you areobviously using technology and getting a lot moresophisticated to keep the prosecution level up, but, ifyour enforcement budget was higher, would you beable to prosecute more people and therefore would ourroads be safer?Alastair Peoples: I need to be careful here. As a goodchief executive we can always use more resources, butit does take careful planning. In terms of the tradingfund, the money that I would need to provide thoseresources will have to come in through fees. That isunlikely to happen.On the single enforcement budget we have some moremoney, primarily for the levy but also looking at lightgoods vehicles and limousines. We have to plan thisbecause the resource generally buys staff and we haveto procure them, train them and get them up to speedat the roadside. It is not the answer to everything.What we have planned for this year is the full andeffective use of that resource. If we were going tobring in additional resource, it is going to take somelong-term planning. It cannot just be turned on andturned off. At the moment, I think we are making verygood 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 themoment. In the last year we have recruited an extra19, 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 thetechnology is impressive, they understand the need forpersonnel—and that is also being addressed.

Q132 Chair: Does VOSA have adequate resourcesto ensure compliance with the measures in the HGVRoad User Levy Act?Alastair Peoples: I believe we have. We have beenworking with the Department very closely since theBill was passed. We have been looking with theDepartment in terms of setting up the system. TheDepartment has given us £500,000 for looking at acapital budget for investment on ANPR and thedatabase, and also £500,000 in terms of looking at thestaff resource to get the scheme up and running. Wehave already been funded to the same extent of£500,000 in running costs next year. We have beenhighly involved in setting up the scheme and lookingat the resources required, both in terms of setting upthe scheme and running it next year. That will give usthe equivalent of eight full-time staff. We look at thisin terms of whether that would be appropriate. Wewill be building this resource into the normalenforcement that we do at the roadside.

Q133 Chair: Do you have enough powers as well?




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

Q134 Chair: There is a £200 fixed penalty notice. Isthat enough to deter non-compliance? A small foreignoperator might reckon it is worth paying that and notcomplying.Stephen Hammond: You are right, but it is ajudgment of how many times in the UK people arenot complying. On a two-day trip, if you did notcomply, the £200 fine would not be satisfactory. Don’tforget that there are cameras being placed that VOSAis confident will pick up 95% of the movements, sothe longer the trip, the bigger the risk. The £200 is adeterrent. I recognise it is not a full deterrent but it isa deterrent.

Q135 Chair: The Government have said they wouldlike to use automatic number plate recognition to helpenforce the levy. Is that going to happen?Stephen Hammond: Yes, it is. I should also havepointed out in answer to your previous question that,although the £200 is the fixed penalty notice, weresomeone not to comply on more than one occasion,the vehicle can be impounded, which is my pointabout the longer trip. Equally, I should havementioned that people can be taken to court and therewould be a maximum fine of up to £5,000. You areright that we are using ANPR. It is going to bestrategically placed, particularly around the busier portentrances and indeed at Ashford, which I believe youhave seen. As I say, that is why I am confident that95% of the movements will be picked up.

Q136 Chair: The Government have also said thatthere will be a website for drivers to check that thelevy has been paid. How far has that been developed?Stephen Hammond: As I said, the scheme will startin April of next year. At the moment we are in theprocess of ensuring that the contract is being let. Ihope that we will be able to announce that before thesummer recess.

Q137 Chair: Can information found from the HGVRoad User Levy be used for enforcement purposes?Stephen Hammond: My understanding is that, as webuild up a knowledge base with intelligence, it will beused in a similar way. It will also be able to be used

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

Q138 Kwasi Kwarteng: I want to ask about theHGV Levy. Is that something that you feel will berolled out successfully? Are there any pitfalls orbanana skins on the way that you have identified?Stephen Hammond: You will be aware that the Billwent through the House, and prior to that and duringits passage we had to give a number of reassurances.The first reassurance, of course, was that we couldenforce it. You have heard today from my answer, andat the evidence session we gave to the Bill, that VOSAis confident, as are the Government, that we canenforce it.Secondly, we had to look at what we would need toput in place to make it work. That is the contract forthe foreign operator payment system that Mrs Ellmanhas just referred to, as is ensuring that there is enoughknowledge. We also had to ensure that we were ableto introduce simultaneous introduction for the UK andforeign 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 UKvehicles—will pay no more than they pay now.I am clear that we are rolling out the process, as wesaid, in terms of meeting the milestones and thetimelines we need to get the contracts let, to get theextra enforcement in place to ensure that foreignvehicles know that there is an obligation upon them.They will be able to pay the levy either via a dedicatedwebsite, by telephone or in person at points of sale.We are clear that that is being made known to themas well. At this stage I don’t anticipate that there areany obstacles to the roll-out in April of next year.

Q139 Mr Sanders: Would you normally read all ofthe evidence of these sessions, because I wouldstrongly recommend the evidence that was given to usbefore you entered the room? I would perhaps suggestthat you call in the previous witness to inform yourselfof some of the allegations that were made and theinconsistencies we heard about.Stephen Hammond: I hope you noted earlier that Isaid I was concerned that you had heard that and Iwas already intending to do something about it.Chair: Thank you very much for coming andanswering our questions.

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


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 itsmembers 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 webelieve VOSA is able to improve the arrangements for vehicle test sites and secondly to raise our concernswith 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 commercialvehicles. 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 areall united in their support for the industry and its ability to provide affordable, sustainable and safe roadtransport.

2.3 BVRLA Members adhere to a mandatory Code of Conduct which helps to ensure customers receivehigh level of professional standards across and quality assurance. The Code is fully backed by an independentaudit 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 toensure that the location a heavy goods vehicles (“HGV”) can be tested is closer to the point of maintenanceand inspection.

3.2 To ensure this objective is truly effective, HGV operators, owners or maintainers, as applicable, willneed to make the necessary investment to develop their premises into ATFs. Under this arrangement VOSAwill need to ensure that it is able to supply testing staff at levels that are sufficient to meet the ATF owner’stesting 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 thescheme 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 andoperators, as it will, for example, be unable to provide testers during periods of high demands and on a day ortime required by the ATF owner. This mismatch between demand and supply of HGV testing requirements islikely to erode VOSA’s key objective and will undermine growth in the number of ATF sites being availableacross the UK. Unless this is situation is carefully rebalanced then we believe it will lead to a reduction intesting 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 thisproposal it was suggested that the Department for Transport should adopt the testing model currently availabletoday for motor cars and light commercial vehicles where roadworthiness test is carried out by approvedindividuals 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, butwill help to foster healthy growth of ATFs sites across the UK. The success of this approach will be supportedby the fact that ATF owners will be in direct control of the time and day the tester is available to meet fullysatisfy the testing needs. Despite VOSA’s best efforts, we do not believe this level of flexibility can berealistically 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 andaudited 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 economyas 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 safetyperspective especially as GB-registered trucks are already maintained to a high standard and annual test failurerates, both before and after minor rectification, are at a record low level.



3.8 It should also be noted that due to the stringent procedures in place of a full mechanical inspection of aHGV every six to eight weeks, then the annual roadworthiness test in effect an audit of the inspection andrectification process for HGVs. If one of the key objectives of the ATF approach by VOSA is to help bringthe location of the vehicle test closer to where the vehicle is being inspected and maintained, then unfortunatelywe do not believe this is being delivered today. We say this as some of our members are reporting to us thedifficulties they are experiencing in being able to book and find an ATF site which is able to meet their needslocal 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 withits strategy of closing its testing sites and there is a poor take up and growth of “open” ATF across the UK. Itis therefore time for the industry to be given, and to accept, unequivocal responsibility for high standards ofmaintenance. 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 bothto reputation and of putting at risk a customer’s good repute. Moving towards a system similar to that of carsand 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 theprivate sector, with standards monitored and enforced by an independent body such as VOSA as opposed tothe 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 tothe issue of non-compliance by foreign hauliers. We say this as we feel there is a real threat that foreignhauliers will simply find it cheaper to take the risk of being caught and then pay a fine rather than pay theproposed £10 daily charge.

4.2 We do not believe that the proposed £200 penalty is set at a sufficiently high enough level to deter non-compliance by foreign haulier operating on UK roads. At this level we believe there will be a high percentageof foreign hauliers who will take the risk of being caught rather than pay the daily charge. BVRLA has as aconsequence given oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee recommending that a penalty is raised to £1,000to 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-fencedenforcement budget to help ensure a high level of compliance. It is vital that VOSA are visible to help reducethe threat of non-compliance. The department will also need to recognise that if the enforcement budget wasto be substantially increased, then the overall net revenues would be reduced further. This of course wouldbring into question the overall cost benefit of introducing the scheme and move the dynamics from a financialcontribution 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 believethe Government’s primary objective of delivering a fairer arrangement for UK HGV owners or operators willbe 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 doso through the Reduced Pollution Certificate (“RPC”). The RPC enables the truck owner to obtain discountagainst the cost of their VED which we explain below is likely to be eroded through the introduction of theHGV 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 willbe replaced with grants of the same economic value. However, we believe that doing so could leave some UKHGV owners being exposed to the prospect that the proposed grant system may be incompatible with EuropeanState Aid rules which describe the rules for providing “de minimis” aid. We have calculated the direct financialloss 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 claima refund on whole used months of the Levy when they either take the vehicle off the road or is sold. Clause 7restricts the vehicle owner to only be able to claim 1/10th of the annual HGV levy paid. This moves away theprinciple of a taxpayer being able to claim a refund on their road tax for any unused whole months. This willnormally 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 unusedportion of the Levy could cost our industry £2.7 million per annum, which is broadly equivalent to the amountof 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’sown 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


4.10 We also note that the proposed charge will, when paid by foreign hauliers, bring in an estimated grossrevenue of £40 million and net revenue of £18–23 million each year. Whilst we appreciate the uncertainties inaccurately estimating such figures, we wish to express our concerns over the cost effectiveness of the schemeand indeed question whether the proposed scheme will be effective enough to help to secure the Government’sprimary 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 impactthe proposals will have both VOSA and UK businesses and that it urges the Department for Transport toensure the necessary amendments are made to the Bill to ensure the proposals are broadly cost neutral to theUK 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 levelof compliance the scheme will not be successful. VOSA will need additional budget to fund resources toenforce the HGV road user charge.

5.2 Therefore the effect on VOSA if the department want the charge to be successful will be significant asVOSA will need to ensure there is permanent resource available at UK Ports to ensure foreign hauliers aredeterred from avoiding paying the charge.

5.3 We would also suggest that any penalty or fines raised from non-compliance are hypothecated towardsVOSA’s enforcement budget and not to the Exchequer.

5.4 We would therefore urge the committee to make the necessary recommendations to the Departmentfor Transport to help ensure the enforcement is both effective and implemented in a way to send a cleardeterrent message.

6. Closing Comments

6.1 We trust our comments add value to the scrutiny of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and inparticular that the committee makes the necessary recommendations to help strengthen the ATF scheme andthat it fully recognises the impact the introduction of the HGV Road User Levy could have on VOSA’slimited 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 holdsa position of great importance within the road haulage industry. Its work affects all firms licensed to operatevehicles above 3.5 tonnes gross weight, their managers and drivers. Following the development of theDepartment for Transport’s testing transformation programme, VOSA also affects companies with AuthorisedTesting Facilities (ATFs).

VOSA basic role in enforcing high standards of operation and supporting the Traffic Commissioners iswidely understood and supported across the professional road haulage industry, although that support has comeunder some strain. The Road Haulage Association has concerns relating to all VOSA major activities relatingto road haulage and trucks. Much of this concern was set out in an RHA policy document published duringsummer 2011 following extensive comment and discussion from members: Safer operation and fairercompetition in road haulage. (Appendix A.)

In summary:

Annual testing: The current model—in which VOSA is both regulator and contractor to ATFs and amiddle-man between the ATF and the operator having its vehicles tested—is fundamentally flawedand will remain so, even if detailed improvements to contracts and work practices are achieved. Thegovernment should end VOSA’s monopoly of carrying out annual testing of trucks and open thatactivity widely to the private sector on the basis of a high quality licensing system. Such a measurewould 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 greaterevidence of effective action against serious offenders and those who have a persistent pattern ofoffending. We believe priorities need to be refocused. We are hopeful that some of these issues willstart to be addressed by the Department for Transport through the new Commercial VehicleCompliance Forum, which it chairs.

Central Licensing Office, Leeds: We have concerns over the service levels being delivered by theLeeds 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 thatscarce 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.



Standards of operation of foreign vehicles: Standards remain unacceptably low, affecting both roadsafety and fair competition. We understand that not only are foreign vehicles more likely to be non-compliant than UK vehicles, for which enforcement is more effectively targeted, the offences tendto be significantly more serious. We are pleased that the principle of increased enforcement resourcesestablished by the three-year High Risk Traffic Initiative announced in 2008 has been maintained bythe present government. (The RHA lobbied strongly for increased resources in 2007/8 and the issuewas highlighted by the committee.) This increased funding has enabled VOSA to make a significantimpact on the activities of foreign operators in this country and we commend VOSA for that. Someof 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. TheRHA generated some controversy elsewhere in the EU when it called last summer for mandatory jail terms forthose involved in falsification; nonetheless, members strongly believe that this level of deterrent is required inrespect of both foreign and UK operators.

Progress towards a common understanding and, particularly, harmonised enforcement of drivers’ hours andother 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 strainedand less open than is desirable. The two should, we believe, have a close working relationship based on a clearunderstanding of the role and responsibilities of each partner, VOSA as enforcer and provider of administrativesupport, the TCs as regulators. The position of the TCs has been strengthened, we believe, by the creation ofa the statutory role of Senior TC appointed by the Secretary of State by the legal requirements put upon theTCs 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 ministerslast year, has provided a positive basis for co-operation. It states that the TCs lie at the heart of a fair andproportionate licensing system and that the purposes of Goods Vehicle is to properly manage risks to roadsafety and to support fair competition. VOSA’s proper role in supporting the TCs is especially relevant inrespect of examining operations at the roadside and at depots; and in providing administrative support throughthe Central Licensing Office in Leeds.

The developments in 2012 have established a foundation for the development of an appropriate, closerrelationship 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 strongsupport that it received from all sides during the Ways & Means Debate and the support and recognition of theroad 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 thatresources be made available on a continuing basis. Enforcement of the levy, and the broader enforcementbenefits 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 theactivities of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). As the regulatory enforcement agency for roadfreight, 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 orproviding the transport of freight both domestically and internationally, to or from the UK. Our membersinclude 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. FTAmembers operate over 200,000 commercial goods vehicles on the roads in the UK; which is approximatelyhalf of the UK fleet of goods vehicles. FTA members also consign around 90% of goods moved by rail andaround 70% of goods moved by air and sea.

3. Since the Committee’s inquiry was launched the Department for Transport has published a consultationon the Motoring Services Strategy. This review could have significant implications for VOSA; the Association



will be discussing the consultation with members shortly and would be happy to provide a further addendumto this submission following that consultation if it would be useful.

Compliance Enforcement of Non-UK Operators and the Impact of the HGV Road User LevyBill

4. The VOSA effectiveness report1 appears to indicate that the roadworthiness standards of the averageforeign vehicle are broadly equivalent to those of the worst domestic vehicles. In 2010–11 VOSA stopped63,157 UK vehicles and 90,894 non-UK vehicles. The prohibition rate for UK vehicles was 29.5% and fornon-UK vehicles was 34.8%. However it is important to note that the agency has an array of tools at itsdisposal for targeting domestic vehicles—including the Operator Compliance Risk Score—where it does notfor foreign vehicles, hence the non-UK average is equivalent to the part of the UK fleet expected to be high-risk. The equivalent average value for the UK fleet can be derived from the Fleet Check which stops arandom sample of domestic vehicles. The sample was much smaller (5,586) but demonstrated a prohibitionrate of 11.1%.

5. FTA believes that this demonstrates that foreign vehicles remain the greater roadworthiness liability onthe UK’s roads and continues to express its concern at the discontinuation of the High Risk Traffic Initiativein 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 meetits obligation to interlink its national register of operators with Brussels2. This means that the flow ofenforcement data will be only one way in the first instance. This will be to the detriment of UK operatorsabroad, since enforcement agencies are more likely to target operators on whom they have targeting data thanthose 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 benefitrestricted licence holders by reducing the likelihood of the latter being targeted for enforcementchecks.3

6. The administration of the HGV Road User Levy will make the activities of foreign vehicles in the UKmore visible to the Department for Transport and to enforcement and planning authorities, but the success ofthe scheme will be heavily dependent on effective enforcement. One of the principal challenges with foreignvehicle issues is that very little is known about their numbers, frequency of visits and duration of stay. Thelast official survey was undertaken in 2009. The Levy will provide a self-funded monitoring mechanism tomake foreign vehicle activity visible and measureable.

7. Reliable monitoring of foreign vehicle activity is essential for effective enforcement of the currentrestrictions on cabotage (domestic journeys undertaken by foreign vehicles). The European Commission isproposing the abolition of these restrictions as early as 2014. The implementation of the Levy will quantifythe availability of foreign vehicles in the UK and the scale of threat they pose to safety on UK roads andcompetitiveness of domestic operators.

The Government must not supply data on UK operators to the interconnected EU database until such a timeas it is satisfied it will receive reciprocal data from other member States, and UK companies operating abroadare not significantly disadvantaged against operators from Members States who have not satisfied therequirements of the Regulation.

The Government must take the opportunity provided by the HGV Road User Levy Bill to develop its targetinginformation on non-UK operators.

The Testing Transformation Programme

8. FTA supports the principle of the Testing Transformation Programme (TTP) which should reduce theoverall 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 bookingsystem. The industry has a Service Level Agreement with the Agency which, for test availability at VOSAsites, states:

VOSA is committed to providing test appointments as close as possible to the requested date, andhas a target to offer to offer 85% of tests, booked at least 10 days in advance, an appointment atthe 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% ofannual tests are booked without VOSA’s involvement the Agency has no sight of booking fulfilment successlevels; the Agency does recognise that the existing Service Level Agreement is no longer relevant and needs1 VOSA Effectiveness Report 2010–11, table A1.242 Regulation EC 1071/2009 Article 163 Fees for HGV and PSV testing and operator licensing for 2011—Consultation Report, VOSA, p7, 3.3.94 Service Level Agreement between the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and Operators and Providers of goods vehicles,

trailers and passenger carrying vehicles, January 2008



to be reviewed. It states, however, that its market research indicates that there are no difficulties with accessto test bookings but FTA is receiving anecdotal reports of “2–3 month” lead times and “30 mile journeys” tofind a test slot. The Association is appealing to its members to provide specific evidence where difficulties areexperienced, but the concern remains that if there is a problem now or in the future VOSA might not be ableto detect it.

10. VOSA has always insisted that cessation of testing at VOSA test stations will be preceded by markettesting 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 unnervingfor 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 stationclosure process in order to give a better certainty of market for new providers opening up; the Agency hasclearly listened to their requests. FTA remains concerned that if the Programme is artificially acceleratedresulting in an undersupply of test availability in a region, for the reasons outlined above VOSA may not knowabout it until it is too late.

VOSA must establish an effective mechanism for monitoring actual test booking availability and fulfilmentacross all test sites.

VOSA must continue to ensure that the commitment that VOSA test stations will not cease testing until privatecapacity 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 TrafficCommissioner describing the relationship between traffic commissioners and the Department for Transportpublished in July 2012. The situation whereby Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) staff work for theindependent Traffic Commissioners but are employed through contracts with VOSA is confusing and often notrecognised 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 foraccessing VOSA services such as their encounter5 and test history reports and test booking services at VOSAtest stations. It is understood that this is due to restrictions imposed by data protection regulation but that aproject is underway with VOSA, OTC and the Cabinet Office to overcome these problems and hopefullyprovide 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 theTraffic Commissioner. However the fee is managed by VOSA, included in the agency’s accounts and thereforeit is the Chief Executive of VOSA who is accountable to Parliament for its management. The Associationstruggles to identify exactly how industry’s licence fee is being spent—in particular how it is used to servicethe Agency’s standing debt. At a time of low margins and huge commercial pressures for businesses, confidencethat 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 asa mechanism for targeting VOSA’s resource towards vehicles most likely to pose a risk to road safety. Withthe developments to the scoring parameters introduced in October 2012 VOSA adopted several of FTA’sproposals for improving the system. FTA welcomes this, but the October changes did also create someunwelcomed developments which are addressed below.

16. There is no question that OCRS has streamlined VOSA’s enforcement effort, but it must be emphasisedthat OCRS informs the decision to inspect a vehicle, not necessarily the decision to stop a vehicle. In 2010–1111.5% of vehicles stopped by VOSA at the roadside were waved on without inspection.6 This is most likelybecause in a large proportion of cases the decision to inspect a vehicle is made after it has been stopped ratherthan as part of the stopping process. This is known as a “sift”. Operators become frustrated that their vehiclesare subjected to the inconvenience of being stopped (often having to wait for a vehicle examiner to becomeavailable) 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 registeras a clear encounter and thereby impact positively on their score. This is now better understood although notwidely recognised by industry (FTA continues to communicate understanding of the stopping process to itsmembers). Few operators would wish VOSA to expend its time and resource examining vehicles which theyexpect to be compliant.5 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.6 VOSA Effectiveness Report Heavy Goods Vehicle Motor Fleets 2010–11, Table A1.24. 20,737 stops out of 180,374 were “sifts”.



18. What is apparent is that the Agency needs to better incorporate the decision to inspect a vehicle in thedecision to stop. The long-term aim should be that the agency does not stop a vehicle unless it already knowsit wants to undertake an inspection. This will require all checking sites to have ANPR facilities upstream ofthe stopping officer. This proposal obviously carries with it a significant capital investment. However, a numberof other government agencies deploy ANPR—most notably DVLA; FTA believes VOSA must work withDVLA and other agencies to establish the effective strategic deployment of the Government’s enforcementtargeting resource.

19. The 2012 changes mentioned above included the establishment of “Trigger Indicators”, offencesconsidered so severe that an operator’s score becomes red and stays red for a fixed period of time irrespectiveof the underlying baseline OCRS score (described as “Straight to Red”). These include some of the MostSerious Infringements (MSIs) identified in annex IV of Regulation EC 1071/2009. While the importance ofMSIs should not be understated—their detection at the roadside already leads, by law, to an investigationculminating in the requirement for the Traffic Commissioner to question an operator’s repute—it would seemthat the level of compliance required for an operator’s score to recover from such an encounter so that theStraight to Red override takes effect, is so great that VOSA may find itself inspecting a significant number ofvehicles 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 thatthe new parameters are now more accurate however it seems that single—and perhaps isolated—incidents arehaving a significant impact upon scores. Again, this may be misguiding the targeting of VOSA’s enforcementresource. 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. Unforeseenbenefits have also become apparent since its introduction; most notably as a tool for an operator to betterunderstand its own compliance risk. Uses included internal reporting to the board of directors, holdingmaintenance providers to account and engaging drivers and staff more closely in their responsibilities to thecompany’s operator licence. Indeed, VOSA has identified a correlation between those operators who haveaccessed their scores and reports through the online self-service system and low compliance risk. FTA hasidentified OCRS as potentially the single biggest driver of compliance improvement in recent years, and thisis undoubtedly welcome.

22. An additional use for the score has been in the letting of contracts: a potential customer may require thata bidder discloses its OCRS banding colour as part of the bidding process. This may then be reviewed as aperformance indicator as part of the contract—the contract potentially being jeopardised by a detrimentalchange in banding colour. This is a practise which VOSA has always warned against stating that the OCRScolour 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 toinfluence local authorities and public bodies where it can, it has no influence over the contents of a contractbetween two private companies.

23. A number of FTA members have started now to suggest that a road safety risk element to a commercialcontract could potentially be a significant driver of road safety improvement. Commercial business showingan interest in road safety compliance should be embraced. The time has come for VOSA to consider how itcan provide guidance to industry for including a road safety element to commercial contracting and its ownresponsibilities to that process.

VOSA must commit to the long term aim to create the infrastructure to be able to use targeting data toidentify 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 compliancerisk. VOSA must abolish the Straight to Red process for Most Serious Infringements and review the mechanismfor calculating the Overall Traffic Score, as it creates the risk of directing enforcement resource towardsvehicles which would be expected to be compliant.

VOSA must consider its role in assisting industry in its obvious desire to include a road safety complianceindicator in contract letting.

Managing Industry Trust

24. The Traffic Commissioners are always keen to emphasise the importance of trust in the operator licensingsystem. This level of trust extends also to the enforcers: industry must trust that VOSA will pursue non-compliance in a firm, fair and transparent way. Central to maintaining this trust is the feeling of partnershipworking 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 amacro level through surveys, but at a local level through interactions between VOSA staff and operators’ staffand 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 specificallyidentified for fear that this may be held against them in some way in future. FTA has discussed this issue withVOSA on a number of occasions; and has been assured that that no such “retaliation” exists, that VOSA’s



targeting is purely based upon the variety of tools it uses for assessing road safety compliance risk (theseinclude the professional opinion of the stopping officer). FTA accepts VOSA’s position on this, but is concernedthat significant sections of the industry seem reluctant to move from the view that one does not questionthe enforcer.

26. This issue will become even more important as ATFs become more prevalent. The new working levelrelationship between VOSA and ATF staff required to make Testing Transformation a success will be relianton 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 seriouslyconsider how it can overcome this barrier to a more productive relationship with the industry. The Associationlooks 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 motordealer 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 theNFDA Van & Truck division who wish to respond to this inquiry as all of it’s members are involved in heavygoods 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 VOSAservices for industry and the consumer:

Our members (franchised truck sales and service dealerships) cover large geographical areas and theconsensus is that they are generally pleased with the ATF concept. They would, however, havepreferred full “privatisation”, thus allowing the dealerships/site owners to directly employ the testingstaff, 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 thedealership/site owner as this would release full potential value to the ATF investor and enable thetest facility to have the flexibility of better asset utilisation. Additionally, the inevitable result ofextended 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 toshare opinion and look for common areas of approach as the ATF issues develop; the Road HaulageAssociation, Freight Transport Association, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and British VehicleRental 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 meetthe demands of dealer customers and transport operators who expect a service 24/7, due to the costsincurred by an operator for any time a truck is off the road. Members would request a move to allownight and weekend testing to alleviate this.

Secondly, the total privatisation of Heavy Goods Vehicle testing at ATFs was discussed. It wasevident that the RHA and FTA did not have any objections and BVRLA and SMMT do not objectin 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 testersbeing employees of the ATF, thus allowing operators expectations to be met by facilitating a dealer facilitythat is both a one-stop-shop and can also offer 24/7 service to fleet operators. We believe the aboverecommendations would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of VOSA services for both industry andthe consumer.

January 2013



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 orimplement most of the recommendations in the report produced by this Committee’s 7th report of session2008–09, and we have seen a continual divergence from the path set out in the written Ministerial Statementof 3 July 2008.

1.2 It is most disappointing that DfT/VOSA’s seems to have totally ignored the recommendation that “VOSAbe required to retain a significant network of sites in order to maintain adequate coverage for annual testingthroughout 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 oncedid, compliance with driver’s hours, licensing and documentation remain a major cause for concern. Theintroduction of Fixed Penalties and Deposits was seen as a way of dealing with many of these issues, but theprovisions of the legislation still cause many problems, and the practical application of these has, in ouropinion, produced an undesired detrimental effect on road safety. VOSA staff are also unable to deal withoffences 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 themajority 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 toincrease 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 casesVOSA has been left with long and expensive leases on these sites. Additionally some VOSA staff are travellingbetween VOSA Test Stations to test vehicles with the associated additional cost and time inefficiency of sucha 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 testfee such as simulating a load for the purpose of the brake performance test. We question what will happenwhen 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 forcommercial operators and garages to be allowed to “self test”. The current DfT consultation on MotoringServices Strategy reinforces our concern and that the use of ATFs is the back door to full privatisation oftesting provision.

1.10 DfT have removed the funding for the shift working from VOSA’s single enforcement budget andthereby not only stopped any further expansion of this work, but reduced its capability to continue the progressalready 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 believethat this does not happen.

1.12 Despite the fact that all, or most, of VOSA costs can be recovered from the defendants via the courtsafter a successful prosecution, VOSA is still persisting with working practices that encourage more and moreoffences to be dealt with by examiners by way of fixed penalty notices. Not only does this unfairly targetdrivers, who are often placed under increased pressure by their employers, but also means that VOSA isoperating at a financial loss, as it has to both stand the costs and then not receive the money from thefixed penalty.

1.13 There has also been a significant reduction in VOSA’s legal budgets, with Traffic Commissioner’shaving to now deal with unproven evidence to determine whether or not an Operators repute still exists. Theresult of this is that additional costs for Solicitors or Barristers mean that the financial costs are now given veryserious 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 UserLevy scheme and ring fence the income as a funding stream for VOSA’s roadside enforcement activities. Thiswould also allow for the correct non-UK vehicle Operator information to be collected at source and madeavailable to VOSA enforcement staff at the roadside.



2. Introduction

2.1 This written submission is made by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Trade Union Side (VOSATUS), 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. Webelieve that promoting road safety is the overriding objective for VOSA and should underpin all its activitieswhether they be enforcement, testing or other.

2.2 The VOSA TUS welcomed Committee’s 7th report of session 2008–09, but is disappointed that VOSAand the Department for Transport have failed to action or implement most of its recommendations. We suggestthat 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 writtenMinisterial Statement on 3 July 2008. VOSA did not take up the additional funding that had been madeavailable 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. TheVOSA TUS wrote to the then Minister, Mike Penning, setting out what it believes is both a suitable and viablealternative to VOSA’s current plan. A copy of that letter is attached at Annex A to this submission. The VOSATUS believes that VOSA has no strategic plan other that the Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples, being on recordas working towards VOSA having no Test Stations. The VOSA TUS questions whether this is cost effectiveagainst social or economic criteria (see below). VOSA has said that the direction it is taking results fromfinancial difficulties. These financial difficulties were caused primarily by poor management at seniormanagement level (DfT and VOSA) at that time and things should by now have changed. Our concern is thatfinancial 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 GraduatedFixed Penalties and Deposits, the VOSA TUS believe that there has been a change in the type of offencesdetected. It is our belief that the mechanical condition of the foreign fleet does not seem to be causing theconcerns they once did. This may be due, in part, to the wider European economic situation as our membersreport that many smaller operators no longer conduct this type of international work, into the UK. It is alsotrue that the age profile of foreign vehicles has improved, and more and more modern vehicles are nowbeing used.

3.2 The standard of compliance with driver’s hours, licensing and documentation however remain a majorcause for concern. The introduction of Fixed Penalties and Deposits was seen as a way of dealing with manyof these issues, but the provisions of the legislation still cause many problems. For example if a falsificationof drivers hours records is detected VOSA are often left having to refund the graduated deposit that has beentaken 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 fixedpenalty for the “nearest appropriate” offence, as this ensures that the financial penalty imposed on the driveris non-refundable.

3.4 VOSA staff also suffer from the present legislation which restricts them to only dealing with offencesthat 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 amajor problem, meaning that staff have to try and target these vehicles once they have moved out onto theroad network. This means it is not only more difficult to locate the vehicles, but you have to find somewhereto safely stop and inspect them. This often leads to a lack of suitable facilities for the driver if a problemis detected.

3.6 The access to the ships manifests, to enable better targeting, mentioned in the Select Committee’s 7threport of 2008–09, has only been introduced in one location, covering the whole country. This means that theinformation is only available during normal working hours, so outside of these times staff suffer from the samelack of information highlighted in 2009.

3.7 VOSA also suffers from the lack of access to intelligence gathered by many other Governmentdepartments, notably HMRC and DWP. Whilst there is good liaison between the United Kingdom BoarderAgency, and the Police, there is a biased flow of information with data going from VOSA onto the PoliceNational Computer (PNC) with no reciprocal arrangement resulting in VOSA experiencing severe restrictionsin 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 inregards to licensed Operators and their transport managers. This has yet to become operational. As a resultdifficulties are experienced with other EU states taking appropriate action following the UK passing informationto them.



4. Arrangements for Vehicle Tests

4.1 DfT and VOSA have failed to implement most of the recommendations contained within thisCommittee’s 7th report of 2008–09. It is most disappointing that DfT/VOSA’s seems to have totally ignoredthe recommendation that “VOSA be required to retain a significant network of sites in order to maintainadequate coverage for annual testing throughout the UK”. Since that recommendation was made a number ofVOSA Testing Stations have either closed or have ceased testing and there are plans for more to follow in thenear 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 asworking towards VOSA having no Test Stations. As detailed in Section 1 of this submission, the VOSA TUSwrote 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 timestations (the Isle of Wight). To justify its action, VOSA continues to publish and promote highly misleadingfigures on the number of new ATFs. VOSA regularly reports on the number of ATFs which are operational butforgets to mention that the majority of them were previously Designated Premises (DP) where tests had beenpreviously been conducted. The reality is that of the 284 ATFs VOSA quote as new sites, 164 were in factpreviously 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 millionsof pounds of marketing and “hard sell” by VOSA, together with “dirty tricks” such as deliberately reducingtesting capacity at its own sites and allowing overtime to be worked on Saturdays to test at ATFs but not at itsown 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 (albeitthere has been one inter departmental “swop”), so no financial return has been achieved. In some cases VOSAhas been left with long and expensive leases on these sites, from which they have been unable to negotiate arelease. At the same time VOSA has to pay the additional time and travel costs of its staff travelling to non-VOSA Sites. Additionally some VOSA staff are travelling from a VOSA Test Station that has ceased testingto another VOSA site that remains open, with the associated additional cost and time inefficiency of such apractice. Given the additional travel costs and overtime payments required to service ATFs, or to send VOSAstaff to work at other VOSA locations (the cost of which we do not believe is covered by the test fees VOSAreceives) it could be argued that the public sector is subsidising the private sector providers. In fact with VOSAlooking to decrease the test fee for testing at ATFs, recovery of the full cost of testing at ATFs is somewhatquestionable. As a result we question how such arrangements meet the Trading Fund requirements that VOSAare required to operate within.

4.5 The VOSA TUS has also received reports of ATFs charging for services which are covered by the testfee such as simulating a load for the purpose of the brake performance test. We question what will happenwhen 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 additionalstaff to test the same volume of vehicles at non VOSA sites. Such recruitment has only just begun and, weunderstand, has not been as successful as VOSA would have liked. This may be as a result of the currentGovernment policies on recruitment into the civil service and public sector pay and terms & conditions. Theimpact of the lack of staff, and VOSA’s inability to provide ATFs with the level of support they had beenpromised has in part been a driver for the creation of an “ATF Operators Association” who believe they havea “tester allocation crisis” on their hands as having invested in facilities they are understandable concerned thatVOSA 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 forcommercial operators and garages to be allowed to “self test”. The current DfT consultation on MotoringServices Strategy reinforces our concern and that the use of ATFs is the back door to full privatisation oftesting 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 garagewould have failed an annual test. The National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA) has also conductedresearch showing that over the last five years for which data is available between 42.8%–50% (with a steadyincrease year on year) of Class 7 (smaller commercial vehicles with GVW between 3.0 and 3.5 tonnes) havefailed their annual test. This research adds to the work undertaken by VOSA when assessing the quality of theUK’s light vehicle testing scheme which is undertaken in private garages and where around 15% of vehiclesrechecked were found to have been incorrectly assessed with the final decision on the vehicle’s condition beingincorrect. 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 owndriving Examiners, the VOSA TUS believes similar commercial pressures would come to bear on thoseundertaking vehicle tests which would have a detrimental affect to road safety in the UK.



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 penaltynotices 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 budgetand thereby not only stopped any further expansion of this work, but reduced its capability to continue theprogress 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 theUK licensed vehicle Operators are not being dealt with as they have in the past, given that follow upinvestigations now rarely take place and the subsequent prosecutions do not happen. Whilst reports aresupposed to be sent to the Traffic Commissioners in regards to these offences, we believe that this does nothappen and has therefore resulted in a reduction in the number of Public Inquiries and disciplinary action onthe licence holders. Thirdly, given the limitations of the Graduated Deposit legislation it makes it almostimpossible for the most serious of offences committed (falsification of driver’s records) by a GB driver withno traceable UK address to be taken to court. This is compounded by VOSA then being required, after aspecified 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 aless serious offence, for which they can prohibit the vehicle and impose a fixed penalty. Because of this thereis also a tendency to deal with GB drivers in the same way, thereby ensuring equal treatment for GB and non-GB drivers. However the long term impact of this is that less information on the serious offences makes itsway 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 courtsafter a successful prosecution, VOSA is still persisting with working practices that encourage more and moreoffences to be dealt with by examiners by way of fixed penalty notices. Not only does this unfairly targetdrivers, who are often placed under increased pressure by their employers, but also means that VOSA isoperating at a financial loss, as it has to both stand the costs of all the work involved and then not receive themoney 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 inVOSA’s legal budgets. Firstly, more of the work that is directed to the Traffic Commissioners to hear at PublicInquiry, is done so without having first gone through a Magistrates (or Crown) Court process. This means TC’shave to now deal with unproven evidence to determine whether or not an Operator’s repute still exists, whereasin 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 seriousconsiderations 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 thecomments in section 5 above the detrimental financial impact of fixed penalty’s, it does appear that this levycould easily be ring fenced to provide an income stream for VOSA’s roadside enforcement activities and couldbe 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 seemappropriate 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 EUcountries systems, as part of an existing EU project, it would again seem sensible to see how this could beused to allow EU vehicle Operators to purchase/pay for their Road User Levy charge. By enabling VOSA tooperate this system it would also allow for the correct vehicle Operator identification information for non-UKOperators to be collected at source, verified as correct and then for this to be available to all enforcement staffat the roadside. This would ensure that any infringements then detected would be attributed to the correct non-UK 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 meetingwas helpful and provided the opportunity for an open and frank first exchange. We appreciate your invitationto meet again in the near future together with your offer of regular half yearly meetings and would like throughthis letter to formally accept.



During our meeting we said we would write to you setting out both our view of the Testing TransformationProject (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 thefeasibility study into the privatisation of heavy vehicle testing (and other elements of VOSA’s work) duringthe mid to late 2000s. The PSC planned for the closure and disposal of 30 to 35 VOSA Goods Vehicle TestStations (GVTS).The money raised from the site disposals would be used to develop a strategic testinginfrastructure by modernising the remaining 30+ GVTS network (the “safety net” or “backbone” (or possiblythe option B which you mentioned at our meeting). Additionally the Government made available around £64million over a three year period to both assist with the modernising of VOSA’s testing facilities as well as tosupport 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 mainreason for the size of the of deficit is as a result of a massive financial injection into an e test booking systemfollowing its release in a totally unfit state together with the cost of the privatisation feasibility study, for whichwe understand VOSA had to meet staff salary, accommodation and associated expenses as well as the cost ofengaging market research company MORI and consultants Deloittes and PwC costs. We do not believe eitherof these costs was planned for nor had a funding stream.

We understand that the incoming Chief Executive, Alastair Peoples’, presented an estate strategy to DfTofficials, 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 ofmoving all testing to non VOSA sites. Targets were set to move to 33%, 66% and 85% of tests being undertakenat 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 thoughstill to dispose of the VOSA GVTS network as demonstrated at the 8 September TTP Board where DfTofficials stated that “Whether ATFs are an end state or half way house, all testing will be done at ATFs”. Thisstatement reinforces our view that DfT is undertaking an estate disposal exercise. The outcome of the validationreports 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 travellingpublic.

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 receivedminimal investment during that time. We further appreciate the network was mainly built on availableGovernment land and while it may have been reasonably located for the road network of the late 1960s it isnot, 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 beopportunities 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 havethe ability to present their vehicle for test at a totally independent and impartial site where they are treatedequally and fairly should they operate one or one hundred vehicles. This is a view shared by the TransportSelect 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 byco location with sister DfT agencies at key strategic locations. There seems little sense in having three or fourDfT Agencies covering the cost of owning and renting sites when with a little foresight and investment colocation 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 atstrategically located sites. From a VOSA perspective the sites could, if ideally situated, also be utilised forenforcement activities, so allowing “enforcement” examinations to take place in safe and welfare friendlylocations and where more comprehensive examinations, including vehicle’s brake performance, could takeplace. 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 properlyorganised project to bring the departments agencies together into co located sites, over say the next eight to 10years, would allow the cost to be spread across a number of years which would be manageable even with ahugely reduced DfT budget expected after the Comprehensive Spending Review. Of course the disposal value



of existing sites, both VOSA’s and other DfT Agencies, would be available to part fund a network fit for the21st 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 onestop 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 competitionor 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 WardenVOSA 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 OperatorServices 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 inits submission. This is not repeated here except where it is useful to do so to explain a point. This contributionfrom TCs concentrates primarily on HGVs, PSVs and roadside enforcement. VOSA’s work in relation to busservice reliability has been inquired upon by the Select Committee quite recently. However, we will be happyto 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 inthe Local Transport Act 2008, amending the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. Each TC is separatelyappointed 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 operatingindustry. VOSA provides TCs with day to day support in the form of estate, ICT and staff. But VOSA is alsothe enforcement body. TCs depend on VOSA’s Vehicle Examiners (VEs) and Traffic Examiners (TEs) toconduct investigations on our behalf and provide us with the key evidence on which we challenge operatorsand 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 factsand 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 isapplying to a TC for the return of a vehicle that has been detained by VOSA. Those proceedings are adversarialand 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 aresult of the Department for Transport pooling all vehicle agency enforcement funding in to what is known asthe Single Enforcement Budget. This was done to simplify financial accounting arrangements, reducing thenumber of individual “contracts” and transactions. An unintended consequence was the loss of the formalMemorandum of Agreement between the Department and VOSA. This Memorandum set strategic and volumetargets, involving TCs in that process. The memorandum covered all VOSA’s enforcement spend, not just thatfrom general taxation and provided by the Department. In simplifying financial arrangements, an importantcontrol structure was lost.

8. VOSA’s Business Plan target in relation to enforcement and compliance relates to the effectiveness ofindividual 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, businessor up to two PSVs as ancillary to their main business. The result is that VEs and TEs focus on vehiclesbelonging to small operators who actually use their vehicles relatively little. Targeting and selection does notconsider broader road safety benefits beyond the individual vehicle stop. As a result, investigation of systemic



failures that would in the past have led to action against an operator’s licence and so have a far greater overallimpact on road safety has reduced significantly.

9. A primary objective of operator licensing is to ensure fair competition, and so remove incentives to benon-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’ hoursinfringements. Competition issues now appear undervalued within the Agency. As an example, the number ofHGVs in GB weighed has dropped from 26,802 in 2005–06 to 2,652 in 2010–11 (the last year for whichfigures 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 wereundertaken with 58.5% being found unsatisfactory. TCs understand that maintenance investigations can beresource intensive and need to be targeted appropriately. The increase in the percentage of those foundunsatisfactory is an indication of good targeting but the fact remains that over a five year period an operatorhas 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 generallysee predominantly smaller operators for whom operating vehicles is not their core business. The contributionmade by TCs to the compliance of the wider commercial vehicle fleet is not being optimised. During thisperiod of emphatic shift in resource allocation by VOSA, overall fleet compliance in mechanical terms asmeasured by VOSA’s own random fleet compliance surveys has worsened, with 10.4% of vehicles stopped in2005–06 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 roadsideinspection 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-locatingthe collection of the annual operator licence enforcement fee with the HGV annual test fee. The central focusof the consultation was to reduce the number of transactions and so the administrative burden associated withcompliance. There were secondary fairness issues, particularly relating to operators who used hire vehicles andin relation to trailer operation. Neither the consultation nor the following implementation proposed any strategicshift 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 feesresides with TCs according to s45 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and s52 of thePublic Passengers Vehicles Act 1981 and they are charged for prescribed purposes. The continuation fee is forthe ongoing supervision of the licence including interventions by VEs and TEs. The collection of this elementhas 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 relatingto how the money is allocated. The streamlining happened in a similar timeframe to the introduction withinthe Department of the Single Enforcement Budget and that further blurs lines of accountability and legislativeauthority. Administrative simplification has had an apparently unintended consequence of a conflict betweenstatute and policy.

15. VOSA has been highly progressive in technology terms in relation to roadside enforcement and systemssuch as online annual test bookings. These systems were implemented at a time when IT costs were very highand now account for a significant proportion of the Agency’s costs. In contrast, the operator licensing IT systemwas built over ten years ago and is now out of support. It appears on the face of it that operator licensing maybe 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 reinforcedby an increasing number of appeal court cases, including the Upper Tribunal, most recently in the impoundingcase 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 bedamaged or destroyed by actions which, directly or indirectly, intentionally or inadvertently,undermine or give the appearance of undermining the independence of Traffic Commissioners. Whilethe verbal support may come from the highest level it can be damaged or destroyed by action at thelowest level.”

17. VOSA’s Business Plan for 2012–13 includes a Key Target: “Determine 85% of goods and PSVapplications unopposed and not requiring a public inquiry within nine weeks of the date of receipt of theapplication 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 operatorsbelieve that VOSA is the issuing authority for an operator’s licence when, in fact, it is staff employed byVOSA but working within individually delegated authority from TCs and under Statutory Guidance from theSenior Traffic Commissioner who actually perform that function.



18. This lack of clarity of identity and purpose becomes more significant when a TC is exercising a regulatoryrole, and it becomes quite stark when a TC is making a judgement over whether to return a vehicle that hasbeen impounded by VOSA. An applicant in such a process will almost certainly turn up for their impartialhearing at a building carrying a VOSA sign. They will be given a VOSA visitor’s badge. In the lift and thecorridor, they will see VOSA-branded material aimed at the staff responsible for hosting their independenthearing.

19. The reality is that TCs make independent judicial decisions and this has been confirmed by the appealcourts. The issue is one of perception. Much could be overcome, firstly by way of a clear statement of theroles of VOSA and TCs for the benefit of the industries we regulate, and then by backing this up with brandingand presentation. The key target in VOSA’s business plan confuses the Agency’s role in the provision ofadministrative 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 withactions. Staff processing applications and administering licences under delegation from TCs need to beidentified as the TC’s staff. This includes appropriate Office of the Traffic Commissioner email addresses, andpublic buildings that clearly identify, internally and externally, with the regulator rather than the enforcer. Thereare 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 staffwho work for them is ripe for a review. It may well be that the Agency needs a more sophisticated managementstructure for those staff who work for TCs. This is not ground-breaking. It must be addressed before thewarning 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 afundamental 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 TransportCommittee

RE: THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS’ CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRANSPORT SELECTCOMMITTEE 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 trafficcommissioners’ contribution to the Transport Select Committee inquiry in to the work of VOSA, sent to youon the 21 December.

An investigation into this mistake revealed the cause to be a simple drafting error, for which I offer my mostsincere apologies.

Please find enclosed the amended version of the traffic commissioners’ original submission, now detailingthe 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 nowgenerally see predominantly smaller operators for whom operating vehicles is not their corebusiness. The contribution made by TCs to the compliance of the wider commercial vehiclefleet is not being optimised. During this period of emphatic shift in resource allocation byVOSA, overall fleet compliance in mechanical terms as measured by VOSA’s own random fleetcompliance surveys has worsened, with 8.9% of vehicles stopped in 2005–06 having a defectthat 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 roadsideinspection means that VOSA’s enforcement work is not delivering best value.



Wri

tten

evid

ence

from

the

Veh

icle

and

Ope

rato

rSe

rvic

esA

genc

y(V

OSA

)(V

OSA

02)

TH

ET

RA

NSP

OR

TSE

LE

CT

CO

MM

ITT

EE

’SR

EPO

RT

(HC

39)

INT

OT

HE

EN

FOR

CE

ME

NT

AC

TIV

ITIE

SO

FT

HE

VE

HIC

LE

AN

DO

PER

AT

OR

SER

VIC

ES

AG

EN

CY

(VO

SA)—

2012

UPD

AT

E

Mem

oran

dum

No

1

Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

reco

gnis

eth

atth

eus

eof

The

driv

ing

them

eof

the

Test

ing

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

Prog

ram

me

(TT

P)V

OSA

isre

spon

sibl

efo

ren

suri

ngth

atth

ere

isan

adeq

uate

netw

ork

ofpr

ivat

ese

ctor

site

sm

aybe

help

ful

isto

take

test

ing

toth

ecu

stom

er,

with

the

obje

ctiv

e,w

here

test

ing

faci

litie

sac

ross

GB

.O

urst

rate

gy,

via

the

TT

Pre

mai

nsth

atof

incu

ttin

gco

sts

and

ensu

ring

that

poss

ible

,of

mov

ing

vehi

cle

test

ing

clos

erto

the

plac

ew

here

taki

ngte

stin

gcl

oser

toth

ecu

stom

erth

roug

ha

netw

ork

ofA

TFs

prov

ided

oper

ator

sre

ceiv

ea

flexi

ble

annu

alve

hicl

em

aint

enan

ceis

carr

ied

out.

The

prog

ram

me

isno

tpr

oper

tyby

the

priv

ate

sect

oral

low

ing

for

the

ceas

ing

ofte

stin

gat

itsG

oods

test

ing

serv

ice.

How

ever

,we

lead

,so

itis

not

ale

adin

gob

ject

ive

tore

duce

the

VO

SAes

tate

per

Veh

icle

Test

ing

Stat

ions

(GV

TSs

).In

man

agin

gth

etr

ansi

tion

from

belie

veth

atan

ym

ove

tow

ards

seth

roug

hcl

osin

gex

istin

gte

stin

gst

atio

ns.

How

ever

,it

isex

pect

edG

VT

Ssto

Aut

hori

sed

Test

ing

Faci

litie

s(A

TFs

)w

ew

illon

lydo

this

whe

reco

mpl

ete

priv

atis

atio

nof

test

site

sth

atby

incr

easi

ngth

epr

ovis

ion

ofth

ird

part

yow

ned

site

sth

ere

isad

equa

teal

tern

ativ

epr

ovis

ion.

wou

lddi

spro

port

iona

tely

affe

ctau

thor

ised

toho

sthe

avy

vehi

cle

test

ing

VO

SAw

illbe

ina

posi

tion

Sinc

eth

ela

unch

ofth

eA

TF

cont

ract

inFe

brua

ry20

10th

enu

mbe

rof

smal

ler

oper

ator

sw

hoha

vefe

wer

tore

duce

the

size

ofth

eV

OSA

test

ing

esta

te.

But

,V

OSA

test

ing

AT

Fsha

sgr

own

rapi

dly

with

275

inop

erat

ion

asat

Nov

embe

r20

12.

Our

reso

urce

s.W

efu

rthe

rbe

lieve

that

stat

ions

wou

ldon

lycl

ose

whe

nit

was

assu

red

that

ther

ew

asev

iden

cesh

ows

that

they

serv

ing

all

type

sof

cust

omer

sin

clud

ing

smal

ler

cert

ain

area

sof

the

coun

try

wou

ldsu

ffici

ent

alte

rnat

ive

test

ing

capa

city

inth

em

arke

t.In

sodo

ing

oper

ator

s.A

sat

Nov

embe

r20

12,

5G

VT

Ssha

vebe

encl

osed

,8

have

bele

sspr

ofita

ble

and

coul

dV

OSA

will

bees

peci

ally

min

dful

ofth

epo

sitio

nof

smal

lce

ased

test

ing,

9ot

hers

have

gone

part

time

and

46si

tes

cont

inue

toco

nseq

uent

lybe

unde

r-se

rved

byop

erat

ors.

And

,it

ispl

anne

dth

atV

OSA

shou

ldre

tain

atle

ast

som

eop

erat

efu

lltim

e,O

urco

ntin

ued

effo

rts

toen

cour

age

the

open

ing

ofm

ore

the

priv

ate

sect

or.T

here

fore

,we

ofth

eex

istin

gte

stin

ges

tate

over

the

next

few

year

sin

orde

rto

AT

Fs,

inpa

rtic

ular

byta

rget

ing

thos

epa

rts

ofth

eco

untr

yw

here

earl

yre

com

men

dth

atV

OSA

been

sure

ther

eis

suffi

cien

tte

stin

gca

paci

ty.

take

upha

sbe

ensl

ow,

lead

usto

belie

veth

atat

leas

t75

%of

test

ing

will

requ

ired

tore

tain

asi

gnifi

cant

Ince

rtai

nlo

catio

nsit

mig

htbe

com

eap

prop

riat

eto

tran

sfer

exis

ting

beat

non-

VO

SAsi

tes

byA

pril

2014

.G

iven

the

succ

ess

ofou

rA

TF

netw

ork

ofsi

tes

inor

der

toV

OSA

test

ing

stat

ions

toth

epr

ivat

ese

ctor

.In

such

case

sth

est

rate

gyto

date

our

long

term

targ

etis

ane

twor

kof

AT

Fsth

atre

mov

esm

aint

ain

adeq

uate

cove

rage

for

busi

ness

driv

ers

wou

ldre

mai

nth

esa

me—

ieto

brin

gte

stin

gan

dth

ene

edfo

ran

yG

VT

Ss.

How

ever

,if

desp

iteou

rbe

stef

fort

sw

ear

ean

nual

test

ing

thro

ugho

utth

eU

Km

aint

enan

cecl

oser

toge

ther

.If

test

ing

stat

ions

wer

etr

ansf

erre

dto

unab

leto

enco

urag

eth

eop

enin

gof

suffi

cien

tA

TFs

inal

lar

eas,

we

will

and

tosa

fegu

ard

VO

SA’s

role

asth

epr

ivat

ese

ctor

,V

OSA

expe

ctth

atth

isw

ould

only

bead

dres

sed

cons

ider

alte

rnat

ive

deliv

ery

mod

els

such

asth

ere

ntin

gof

vehi

cle

the

inde

pend

ent

enfo

rcem

ent

ona

site

bysi

teba

sis,

unde

ra

leas

ew

ithre

stri

ctiv

eco

vena

nts

serv

icin

gba

ysfr

omth

epr

ivat

ese

ctor

orth

esa

leor

leas

ing

ofex

istin

gag

ency

.w

hich

,am

ong

othe

rth

ings

,ob

liged

the

less

eeto

cont

inue

toho

stG

VT

Ssto

oper

ate

asA

TFs

.te

stin

gon

aba

sis

whe

reit

will

beop

ento

all.

Thi

ssh

ould

prov

ide

furt

her

assu

ranc

eof

avai

labi

lity

ofte

stin

gfa

cilit

ies

for

all

type

sof

cust

omer

s.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

The

Com

mit

tee

ackn

owle

dges

that

Aco

nseq

uenc

eof

TT

Pis

that

VO

SAsh

ould

need

todo

muc

hle

ssFe

ech

ange

sfo

ran

nual

test

ing

sinc

eA

pril

2009

have

been

reve

nue

neut

ral

fees

for

annu

alte

stin

gm

ust

refle

ctst

atio

nm

oder

nisa

tion

than

has

been

the

case

inre

cent

year

s.It

isre

stru

ctur

es—

ie0%

gene

ral

incr

ease

.H

owev

er,

som

ein

divi

dual

fees

have

the

cost

sof

prov

idin

gth

isse

rvic

e.th

eco

stof

stat

ion

mod

erni

satio

nth

atha

sbe

ena

maj

ordr

iver

for

chan

ged

with

out

incr

easi

ngth

eto

tal

fee

bill

tocu

stom

ers.

As

aH

owev

er,c

hang

esin

fees

mus

tbe

abov

ein

flatio

nfe

ein

crea

ses.

com

pari

son

from

Apr

il20

09un

tilO

ctob

er20

12th

eC

onsu

mer

Pric

efa

iran

dab

ove-

infla

tion

incr

ease

sIt

isex

pect

edth

atif

the

TT

Pis

succ

essf

ul(i

eth

ata

sign

ifica

ntIn

dex

(CPI

)ha

sin

crea

sed

by12

.8%

(fro

m11

0.1

to12

4.2)

mus

tbe

just

ified

wit

hre

alpr

opor

tion

ofte

sts

shif

tto

bein

gca

rrie

dou

tat

non

VO

SAsi

tes)

,T

here

stru

ctur

esha

vebe

ento

mov

eto

war

dsfe

esin

whi

chth

eco

stof

impr

ovem

ents

inse

rvic

es.A

mov

ean

dth

atV

OSA

isab

leto

disp

ose

ofa

sign

ifica

ntnu

mbe

rof

itsV

OSA

’sgo

ods

vehi

cle

test

ing

stat

ions

(GV

TS)

are

met

byth

ose

who

use

tow

ards

priv

ate

sect

orin

volv

emen

tex

istin

gsi

tes,

that

this

wou

ldre

duce

asi

gnifi

cant

cost

pres

sure

,an

dth

em;

the

extr

ast

aff

cost

sof

send

ing

insp

ecto

rsou

tto

AT

Fsw

illbe

met

shou

ldre

duce

cost

san

dth

eref

ore

resu

ltin

low

erV

OSA

test

ing

fees

than

wou

ldbe

the

case

ifV

OSA

byth

ose

usin

gth

ese

site

s.T

his

proc

ess

isst

illin

com

plet

eas

ther

eis

still

we

will

belo

okin

gfo

rm

uch

reta

ined

anex

tens

ive

GV

TS

netw

ork,

and

had

toco

ntin

ueth

eso

me

cros

ssu

bsid

yof

GV

TS

user

sfr

omth

ose

who

take

vehi

cles

toA

TFs

.gr

eate

rfle

xibi

lity

inth

enu

mbe

rspr

ogra

mm

eof

site

mod

erni

satio

ns.

VO

SApl

ans

toco

nsul

ton

apa

ckag

eof

fee

chan

ges

bysu

mm

er20

13,

and

tim

esof

test

slot

sav

aila

ble

Inad

ditio

n,th

roug

hT

TP,

VO

SAis

inne

gotia

tions

with

the

TU

Sto

whi

chw

eex

pect

toin

clud

epr

opos

als

tore

mov

eth

ere

mai

ning

cros

sbe

fore

any

futu

refe

ein

crea

ses

are

secu

rem

ore

flexi

ble

wor

king

arra

ngem

ents

with

itsst

aff

tosu

ppor

tsu

bsid

yby

wid

enin

gth

edi

ffer

entia

lsin

fees

that

VO

SAch

arge

sfo

rte

sts

prop

osed

.th

epr

ovis

ion

ofm

ore

flexi

ble

test

ing

arra

ngem

ents

,an

din

crea

sing

atA

TFs

and

itsow

nte

stfa

cilit

ies

avai

labi

lity

over

alo

nger

wor

king

day.

The

prop

osed

pack

age

isal

soex

pect

edto

incl

ude

our

first

gene

ral

incr

ease

infe

essi

nce

2009

.T

hege

nera

lin

crea

sew

ould

beap

plie

daf

ter

diff

eren

tial

chan

ges

men

tione

dab

ove.

How

ever

the

prop

osed

gene

ral

incr

ease

sar

eex

pect

edto

beco

nsid

erab

lylo

wer

that

the

12.8

%ch

ange

inC

PI.

Loo

king

ahea

dV

OSA

have

prov

isio

nal

plan

sth

atco

mpl

imen

tth

esu

cces

sful

roll

out

ofm

ore

AT

Fsan

dad

dres

ses

conc

erns

that

have

been

rais

edre

gard

ing

flexi

ble

depl

oym

ent,

trav

elto

and

from

the

AT

Fs,

ane

wap

proa

chto

the

time

ate

ster

can

been

gage

don

site

and

agr

eate

rfle

xibi

lity

onth

een

dof

day

proc

esse

sto

ensu

reth

efu

llpr

ogra

mm

eof

wor

kbo

oked

isde

liver

ed.

Ear

lyso

undi

ngs

with

sele

ctst

akeh

olde

rsin

dica

teif

thes

ene

war

rang

emen

tsar

epu

tin

plac

eth

eyw

ould

beco

nten

tw

ithth

eof

feri

ngfr

omV

OSA

.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

wel

com

eth

eus

eof

targ

etin

gT

heO

pera

tor

Com

plia

nce

Ris

kSc

ore

(OC

RS)

syst

emha

sbe

ena

As

outli

ned

inou

r20

09re

spon

se,

OC

RS

isa

mos

tus

eful

way

tota

rget

mec

hani

sms

such

asth

eO

pera

tors

high

lybe

nefic

ial

tool

inpr

ovid

ing

VO

SAa

met

hod

tofo

cus

onve

hicl

esat

road

side

chec

ks.

We

have

cont

inue

dto

build

onth

eC

ompl

ianc

eR

isk

Scor

ein

orde

rto

oper

ator

sof

feri

ngth

ehi

ghes

tri

skto

road

safe

ty.

How

ever

,V

OSA

effe

ctiv

enes

sof

OC

RS—

revi

sing

the

way

scor

esar

eca

lcul

ated

tom

ore

allo

cate

reso

urce

sm

ost

effe

ctiv

ely

also

carr

you

tra

ndom

insp

ectio

nson

oper

ator

sw

itha

bette

ref

fect

ivel

yid

entif

yri

skof

non-

com

plia

nce

asw

ell

asex

tend

ing

the

and

toap

preh

end

succ

essf

ully

com

plia

nce

reco

rdto

ensu

reth

atst

anda

rds

are

mai

ntai

ned,

and

that

syst

emto

impr

ove

the

cove

rage

ofno

n-G

Bop

erat

ors.

thos

em

ost

likel

yto

beno

n-th

eO

CR

Sda

tais

upto

date

and

mea

ning

ful.

The

OC

RS

data

base

As

in20

09w

ear

eco

ntin

uing

tous

eot

her

trig

gers

for

stop

ping

vehi

cles

com

plia

nt.H

owev

er,t

heO

CR

Sis

not

used

inis

olat

ion

inte

rms

ofta

rget

ing

mec

hani

sms.

The

whe

reap

prop

riat

e—in

clud

ing

wei

ghin

mot

ion

sens

ors—

toge

ther

with

mec

hani

smis

just

one

aspe

ctof

inte

llige

nce

mar

ker

syst

empr

ovid

esV

OSA

with

info

rmat

ion

onvi

sual

indi

cato

rssu

chas

the

load

ing,

man

ner

ofdr

ivin

gor

mec

hani

cal

enfo

rcem

ent

and

VO

SAsh

ould

not

spec

ific

activ

ityof

both

driv

ers

and

oper

ator

s.O

ther

tech

nolo

gyco

nditi

onof

the

vehi

cle.

rely

onth

issc

ore

alon

ew

hen

such

asW

eigh

inM

otio

nSe

nsor

s(W

IMS)

,co

uple

dw

ithA

utom

atic

targ

etin

gve

hicl

esfo

rin

spec

tion

.N

umbe

rPl

ate

Rec

ogni

tion

(AN

PR)

syst

ems,

aler

tex

amin

ers

toov

erlo

aded

vehi

cles

.V

OSA

have

also

been

tria

lling

the

use

ofsp

eed

guns

topr

ovid

ein

form

atio

non

spee

dlim

iter

and

frau

dule

ntta

chog

raph

reco

rdin

gof

fend

ing,

the

resu

ltsha

vebe

enpr

omis

ing,

and

the

prac

tical

intr

oduc

tion

ofth

ede

vice

sis

now

bein

gas

sess

ed.

And

inde

ed,

one

ofth

em

ost

pow

erfu

len

forc

emen

tai

dsis

the

use

ofvi

sual

indi

cato

rs;

ala

ckof

anop

erat

ors

licen

cedi

scin

the

win

dscr

een

ofa

vehi

cle,

ora

gene

rally

unro

adw

orth

ylo

okin

gve

hicl

e,ca

nbe

easi

lysp

otte

dw

ithou

tth

eus

eof

expe

rteq

uipm

ent.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

The

Ope

rato

rsC

ompl

ianc

eR

isk

OC

RS

has

been

oper

atio

nal

inV

OSA

sinc

e20

05–0

6,an

dits

VO

SAre

cogn

ises

that

the

purp

ose

ofO

CR

Sca

nst

illbe

mis

unde

rsto

od;

Scor

eis

ava

luab

leto

olfo

rpu

rpos

eis

asan

enfo

rcem

ent

tool

prov

idin

gri

skin

form

atio

n.fo

rex

ampl

eby

oper

ator

sw

hen

bidd

ing

for

cont

ract

sor

byth

ose

seek

ing

enfo

rcem

ent

purp

oses

,but

itV

OSA

agre

esth

atth

esy

stem

shou

ldno

tbe

rega

rded

asan

toar

rang

elo

cal

auth

ority

cont

ract

ssu

chas

scho

oltr

ansp

ort.

Whe

nsu

chsh

ould

not

bere

gard

edas

adi

rect

indi

cato

rof

over

all

oper

ator

qual

ityan

dco

mpl

ianc

e.It

has

neve

rm

isus

eha

sbe

com

ekn

own

toV

OSA

,st

eps

have

been

take

nto

ensu

reth

atin

dica

tor

ofop

erat

orre

liabi

lity

orbe

enpr

esen

ted

asan

yki

ndof

leag

ueta

ble

and

ther

ear

ese

vera

lth

eco

rrec

tob

ject

ive

ofth

eda

tais

pres

ente

dN

ever

thel

ess,

awar

enes

sof

qual

ity

for

unre

late

dpu

rpos

es.I

fpi

eces

ofco

mm

unic

atio

nw

hich

expl

ain

the

obje

ctiv

eof

OC

RS

and

OC

RS

inth

ein

dust

ryha

sdo

nem

uch

todr

ive

good

beha

viou

r—in

OC

RS

scor

esar

em

ade

avai

labl

eto

how

itw

orks

;in

clud

ing

info

rmat

ion

onV

OSA

’sw

ebsi

te,

artic

les

inpa

rtic

ular

inre

spec

tof

oper

ator

sbe

tter

man

agin

gth

eir

mai

nten

ance

—th

ird

part

ies,

VO

SAne

eds

tobe

VO

SA’s

‘Mov

ing

On’

mag

azin

efo

rop

erat

ors,

and

pres

enta

tions

tow

hich

gene

rally

they

out-

sour

ce.

Tosu

ppor

tsu

chop

erat

ors,

VO

SAha

ssu

reth

atit

indi

cate

sth

elim

its

for

trad

eas

soci

atio

ns.

How

ever

,it

isac

cept

edth

aton

occa

sion

the

mad

eav

aila

ble

addi

tiona

lda

tato

indu

stry

onth

efa

ilure

rate

sof

thei

rho

wsu

chsc

ores

shou

ldbe

used

,sy

stem

has

been

mis

unde

rsto

odan

dm

isre

pres

ente

dby

othe

rsas

ave

hicl

es—

whi

chha

sen

able

dth

emto

bette

rm

anag

eth

eir

mai

nten

ance

and

how

toin

terp

ret

them

ratin

gsy

stem

,an

dV

OSA

will

take

the

oppo

rtun

ityto

rem

ove

any

cont

ract

ors.

VO

SAw

illco

ntin

ueto

wor

kw

ithin

dust

ryto

mak

eits

data

appr

opri

atel

y.am

bigu

ityan

dfu

rthe

rem

phas

ise

the

purp

ose

ofth

eO

CR

Ssy

stem

mor

ew

idel

yav

aila

ble

inan

effo

rtto

cont

inue

todr

ive

posi

tive

beha

viou

r.in

ane

wO

CR

Sgu

ide

whi

chis

curr

ently

inde

velo

pmen

t.In

resp

ect

ofth

eav

aila

bilit

yof

Ope

rato

rs’

risk

scor

es,

thes

ear

eon

lyac

cess

ible

onth

ew

ebsi

teto

the

indi

vidu

alop

erat

orw

hose

scor

eit

is,

and

then

only

via

ase

cure

acco

unt.

VO

SAdo

esno

tpr

ovid

ein

form

atio

non

OC

RS

toth

ird

part

ies

and

has

noin

tent

ion

ofpu

blis

hing

the

data

.T

hene

xtst

epis

tofu

rthe

ren

hanc

eth

eO

CR

Ssy

stem

byin

clud

ing

the

new

lyin

trod

uced

grad

uate

dfix

edpe

nalti

esin

toth

esc

orin

gm

echa

nism

,as

this

sche

me

both

refle

cts

offe

nces

dete

cted

atth

ero

adsi

de,

and

the

seri

ousn

ess

ofth

eof

fenc

ede

tect

ed—

rath

erth

ana

sing

lesc

ore

for

each

offe

nce.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

The

num

ber

offo

reig

n-re

gist

ered

New

legi

slat

ion

cam

ein

tofo

rce

earl

ier

this

year

whi

chha

sV

OSA

has

used

the

new

pow

ers

exte

nsiv

ely

sinc

eth

eir

intr

oduc

tion,

heav

ygo

ods

vehi

cles

onB

rita

in’s

intr

oduc

edne

wsa

nctio

ning

pow

ers

enab

ling

VO

SAto

deal

mor

epa

rtic

ular

lyon

fore

ign

HG

Vs

for

road

wor

thin

ess,

driv

ers’

hour

san

dro

ads,

part

icul

arly

from

the

new

eref

fect

ivel

yw

ithdr

iver

sof

fore

ign

regi

ster

edve

hicl

es.

Gra

duat

edta

chog

raph

offe

nces

.T

here

has

been

ano

ticea

ble

impr

ovem

ent

inth

ese

EU

Mem

ber

Stat

esis

risi

ng.T

hey

fixed

pena

lties

are

now

issu

edfo

rth

em

ajor

ityof

offe

nces

and

thre

eke

yar

eas

for

fore

ign

HG

Vs

assa

mpl

edth

roug

hth

efle

etco

mpl

ianc

ebr

ing

unac

cept

able

leve

lsof

non-

driv

ers

with

out

asa

tisfa

ctor

yad

dres

sw

ithin

the

UK

are

requ

ired

tosu

rvey

.D

etai

lsar

egi

ven

inM

emor

andu

mN

o.2

with

the

cave

atth

atit

isco

mpl

ianc

ew

ith

basi

cro

adsa

fety

mak

ean

imm

edia

tefin

anci

alpe

nalty

depo

sit

paym

ents

.T

hese

too

earl

yto

say

whe

ther

ther

eis

afir

mlin

kbe

twee

nth

etw

o.st

anda

rds.

We

reco

gnis

eth

atth

epo

wer

sha

vepr

ovid

eda

mor

eco

nsis

tent

,no

ndi

scri

min

ator

y,G

over

nmen

tan

dV

OSA

cann

otap

proa

chto

the

sanc

tioni

ngof

driv

ers.

Pow

ers

toim

mob

ilise

have

spec

ifica

llyta

rget

fore

ign

also

com

ein

tofo

rce

this

year

,en

ablin

gth

eat

tach

men

tof

anop

erat

ors,

but

itis

impe

rati

veth

atim

mob

ilisa

tion

devi

ceto

vehi

cles

unde

rpr

ohib

ition

.Pr

ior

toth

eth

eG

over

nmen

tw

orks

inte

nsiv

ely

intr

oduc

tion

ofth

ese

new

pow

ers,

inm

any

case

sth

ese

proh

ibite

dto

iden

tify

way

sto

impr

ove

vehi

cles

wou

ldha

veab

scon

ded

inan

unro

adw

orth

yst

ate,

orw

itha

enfo

rcem

ent

and

com

plia

nce

tired

driv

erat

the

whe

el.

Inde

ed,

ther

ear

eal

read

yin

dica

tors

that

amon

gfo

reig

n-re

gist

ered

heav

yth

ese

new

enfo

rcem

ent

mea

sure

sar

ebe

com

ing

anef

fect

ive

good

sve

hicl

es.

dete

rren

tto

fore

ign

driv

ers,

asV

OSA

have

star

ted

tose

ein

crea

ses

inco

mpl

ianc

ein

fore

ign

base

dtr

affic

,pa

rtic

ular

lyin

resp

ect

ofdr

iver

s’ho

urs

rule

s.T

heta

rget

ing

info

rmat

ion

offo

reig

nre

gist

ered

traf

ficis

bein

gim

prov

edw

ithth

ede

velo

pmen

tof

anO

pera

tor

Com

plia

nce

Ris

kSc

ore

(OC

RS)

data

base

whi

chw

illop

erat

eve

rym

uch

inth

esa

me

way

asth

ecu

rren

tsy

stem

,bu

tw

illpr

ovid

ein

form

atio

non

thos

eno

nG

Bop

erat

ors

who

are

repr

esen

ting

the

high

est

risk

toro

adsa

fety

.V

OSA

have

aSe

cret

ary

ofSt

ate

Key

Targ

etto

intr

oduc

eth

isno

nG

BO

CR

Sda

taba

seby

the

end

of20

09–1

0.T

heD

epar

tmen

tco

ntin

ues

topr

ess

the

Eur

opea

nC

omm

issi

onan

dot

her

Mem

ber

Stat

esto

incl

ude

vehi

cle

regi

stra

tion

mar

ksin

the

natio

nal

regi

ster

for

oper

ator

s.T

his

wou

ldgr

eatly

aid

targ

eted

enfo

rcem

ents

ofno

n-U

Kve

hicl

eson

UK

road

s.A

grea

ter

unde

rsta

ndin

gof

the

curr

ent

activ

ities

ofno

n-U

Kve

hicl

esw

illbe

avai

labl

ew

hen

the

Dep

artm

ent’

sFo

reig

nV

ehic

leSu

rvey

isco

mpl

eted

late

rth

isye

ar.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

are

plea

sed

tose

eth

eT

heG

over

nmen

tin

vest

men

tof

£24m

over

a3

year

peri

odto

The

HR

TI

fund

ing

was

subs

umed

into

othe

rD

fTfu

ndin

gfo

rG

over

nmen

tan

dV

OSA

init

iati

ngin

trod

uce

aH

igh

Ris

kT

raffi

cIn

itiat

ive

(HR

TI)

has

mea

ntth

een

forc

emen

t—an

dV

OSA

has

cont

inue

dto

rece

ive

fund

ing

for

doin

gsc

hem

es,s

uch

asth

eH

igh

Ris

kre

crui

tmen

tof

over

100

extr

afr

ont

line

staf

fde

dica

ted

toro

adsi

deen

forc

emen

t(i

nad

ditio

nto

that

fund

edfr

omfe

es)—

whi

chin

part

icul

arT

raffi

cIn

itia

tive

(HR

TI)

,whi

chen

forc

emen

tw

ork.

The

sene

wst

aff

are

mak

ing

asi

gnifi

cant

24/7

has

been

focu

sed

onfo

reig

nve

hicl

een

forc

emen

t.T

here

have

been

som

eco

ncen

trat

ead

diti

onal

fund

ing

and

pres

ence

felt

atpo

rts,

and

onth

ero

adne

twor

k,w

itha

focu

son

redu

ctio

nsin

fund

ing,

but

VO

SAha

sm

aint

aine

dits

focu

son

fron

tlin

est

aff

reso

urce

son

thos

eve

hicl

eshi

ghri

skdr

iver

san

dop

erat

ors

onan

inte

rnat

iona

ljo

urne

y.T

heac

tiviti

esw

here

poss

ible

,to

min

imis

ean

yim

pact

son

thes

eim

port

ant

that

pose

the

grea

test

risk

toro

adco

ntin

uatio

nof

the

HR

TI

fund

ing

isbe

ing

revi

ewed

with

inth

efu

nctio

ns.

safe

ty,o

ften

fore

ign

regi

ster

edco

ntex

tof

the

Dep

artm

ents

com

preh

ensi

vesp

endi

ngre

view

.ve

hicl

es.I

tca

non

lybe

righ

tth

atre

sour

ces

are

conc

entr

ated

whe

reth

eyar

em

ost

likel

yto

save

lives

.T

his

isa

sign

ifica

ntst

epin

the

righ

tdi

rect

ion,

but

we

are

conc

erne

dw

heth

erth

enu

mbe

rof

addi

tion

alst

aff

isad

equa

te,a

ndw

eur

geth

eG

over

nmen

tan

dV

OSA

tota

keim

med

iate

acti

onif

itbe

com

escl

ear

that

mor

est

aff

isre

quir

edfo

rsu

chsc

hem

es.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

wel

com

eth

ein

trod

ucti

onof

Fixe

dpe

nalty

and

finan

cial

pena

ltyde

posi

tle

vels

wer

ese

tso

that

DfT

has

cons

ulte

dab

out

incr

ease

sto

fixed

pena

ltyno

tices

and

finan

cial

the

Gra

duat

edF

ixed

Pen

alty

,th

eyw

ere

broa

dly

com

patib

lew

ithex

istin

gfix

edpe

nalti

esfo

rde

posi

ts,

incl

udin

gth

egr

adua

ted

pena

lties

.T

hech

ange

sw

ere

prop

osed

toF

inan

cial

Pen

alty

Dep

osit

and

sim

ilar

offe

nces

.H

owev

er,

both

thes

ean

dot

her

key

aspe

cts

ofth

ebe

impl

emen

ted

in20

13’

Imm

obili

sati

onSc

hem

es.W

esc

hem

ew

illbe

incl

uded

inth

epo

st-i

mpl

emen

tatio

nre

view

ofth

eA

sno

ted

abov

eth

eG

FPD

sche

me

can,

onth

ew

hole

,be

cons

ider

eda

belie

veit

will

enha

nce

VO

SA’s

sche

mes

sche

dule

dfo

rM

ay20

10.

Aco

mm

itmen

tw

asm

ade

both

sign

ifica

ntsu

cces

s—an

dce

rtai

nly

give

sus

the

abili

tyto

prov

ide

aab

ility

topu

nish

and

dete

rno

n-in

Parl

iam

ent

and

inth

eIm

pact

Ass

essm

ent

tore

view

the

sche

mes

sanc

tion

toth

edr

iver

sof

fore

ign

vehi

cles

,so

met

hing

that

was

larg

ely

not

com

plia

nce

amon

gno

n-U

Kon

eye

araf

ter

impl

emen

tatio

n.po

ssib

lepr

ior

toits

intr

oduc

tion.

oper

ator

s.H

owev

er,t

hefin

esar

eA

requ

irem

ent

exis

tsun

der

Enf

orce

men

tD

irec

tive

2006

22/E

Cth

atH

owev

erth

ere

are

som

ear

eas

that

coul

dbe

impr

oved

abou

tth

esc

hem

e,sm

all

and

we

reco

mm

end

that

all

mem

ber

stat

esm

ust

chec

k2%

ofal

lda

ysw

orke

dby

driv

ers.

mos

tno

tabl

yin

enab

ling

VO

SAto

deal

mor

eef

fect

ivel

yw

here

ther

eis

ther

esh

ould

bein

crea

ses

soth

atT

his

will

incr

ease

to3%

by1

Janu

ary

2010

.ev

iden

ceth

atdr

iver

sha

veco

mm

itted

driv

ers’

hour

sof

fenc

eson

ath

ere

isa

real

leve

lof

dete

rren

ce.

prev

ious

day.

DfT

are

plan

ning

toco

nsul

tsh

ortly

onth

ene

cess

ary

The

Gov

ernm

ent

and

VO

SAm

ust

legi

slat

ive

chan

ges

toen

able

this

.co

ntin

ueto

expl

ore

way

sto

The

sche

me

isal

sole

ssef

fect

ive

atde

alin

gw

ithth

em

ore

seri

ous

stre

ngth

enV

OSA

’sab

ility

toof

fenc

es—

such

asta

chog

raph

man

ipul

atio

nor

fals

ifica

tion

ofre

cord

s—th

een

forc

eve

hicl

ean

ddr

iver

s’ho

urs

corr

ect

cour

seof

actio

nre

lies

upon

polic

esu

ppor

tto

arre

stof

fend

ers

tost

anda

rds

amon

gfo

reig

nop

erat

ors

appe

arin

cour

t(a

sju

stta

king

ade

posi

tag

ains

ta

late

rsu

mm

onse

dco

urt

onU

Kro

ads.

appe

aran

cein

evita

bly

resu

ltsin

the

driv

erfa

iling

tocl

aim

and

the

depo

sit

rem

ains

onho

ldin

defin

itely

).It

isal

sow

orth

men

tioni

ngth

atth

eSc

ottis

hG

over

nmen

tha

veno

tim

plem

ente

dth

esc

hem

efo

rth

epo

lice

inSc

otla

nd—

desp

itesi

gnifi

cant

pres

sure

from

DfT

,M

inis

ters

and

VO

SA—

thus

resu

lting

indr

iver

sbe

ing

deal

tw

ithdi

ffer

ently

depe

nden

ton

whi

chen

forc

emen

tau

thor

ityis

deal

ing

with

offe

nces

.V

OSA

issu

egr

adua

ted

fixed

pena

lties

and

take

depo

sit

paym

ents

,w

here

asth

epo

lice

wou

ldpr

osec

ute

for

the

sam

eof

fenc

es.

Thi

sis

sue

ispa

rtic

ular

lyap

pare

ntw

hen

mul

tiag

ency

chec

ksin

volv

ing

both

VO

SAan

dth

epo

lice

are

bein

gca

rrie

dou

t.

At

Eur

opea

nle

vel,

VO

SA’s

The

com

men

tsof

the

Com

mitt

eear

eap

prec

iate

d.V

OSA

are

VO

SAco

ntin

ueto

wor

kw

ithot

her

enfo

rcem

ent

bodi

es—

and

prov

ide

enfo

rcem

ent

wor

kis

seen

asa

invo

lved

onm

any

leve

lsw

ithE

urop

ean

colle

ague

s,an

dac

tivel

yin

put

toE

Cdi

scus

sion

s—to

prom

ote

best

prac

tice

inen

forc

emen

tan

dm

odel

ofbe

stpr

acti

ce.W

een

gage

inen

forc

emen

tgr

oups

such

Eur

oC

ontr

ole

Rou

te,

TIS

POL

ensu

reth

e‘G

Bvi

ew’

perm

eate

sw

idel

y.V

OSA

has

rece

ntly

been

fund

edco

ngra

tula

teV

OSA

onth

isan

dch

air

the

digi

tal

tach

ogra

phco

mm

ittee

for

CO

RT

E.

byth

eE

Cto

lead

api

ece

ofw

ork

(TR

AC

E)

tode

velo

pa

cons

iste

ntac

hiev

emen

t.V

OSA

has

wor

ked

with

the

new

mem

ber

stat

esof

Hun

gary

,ap

proa

chto

driv

ers’

hour

sen

forc

emen

t—an

dth

isha

sbe

enw

ell

rece

ived

Slov

akia

and

Rom

ania

toim

prov

ing

road

side

insp

ectio

nac

tivity

and

rolle

dou

tto

all

mem

ber

stat

esas

the

expe

cted

appr

oach

they

will

and

the

qual

ityof

enfo

rcem

ent

prio

rto

entr

yin

toth

eE

U.

Itis

take

.ho

ped

that

inth

elo

nger

term

,th

isw

ork

will

lead

toa

bette

rst

anda

rdof

vehi

cles

from

thes

eco

untr

ies

ente

ring

into

the

UK

.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

are

plea

sed

tole

arn

that

the

The

Dep

artm

ent

appr

ecia

tes

the

Com

mitt

ee’s

reco

gniti

onof

the

Man

yof

thes

ene

war

rang

emen

tsar

eno

win

plac

e—an

dth

ose

that

are

not

UK

ista

king

the

lead

onw

ork

toim

port

ance

and

qual

ityof

this

wor

k.It

will

cont

inue

tow

ork

will

besh

ortly

.A

llm

embe

rst

ates

have

aN

atio

nal

Reg

iste

rof

Roa

dim

prov

een

forc

emen

tan

dve

hicl

ecl

osel

yw

ithin

dust

ryco

lleag

ues

asth

ene

war

rang

emen

tsar

eT

rans

port

Und

erta

king

sin

plac

ean

dth

eyar

edu

eto

bein

terc

onne

cted

bysa

fety

wit

hin

the

Eur

opea

nU

nion

.im

plem

ente

d.31

Dec

embe

r20

12.

Onc

ein

terc

onne

ctio

nha

sbe

enac

hiev

edm

embe

rW

ew

elco

me

the

wor

kth

atis

bein

gst

ates

will

beab

leto

chec

kth

ere

pute

ofT

rans

port

Man

ager

sac

ross

done

byof

ficia

lsfr

ombo

thV

OSA

Eur

ope

and

notif

yto

the

hom

em

embe

rst

ates

inst

ance

sw

ere

one

ofa

and

the

Dep

artm

ent

for

Tra

nspo

rtnu

mbe

rof

Mos

tSe

riou

sIn

frin

gem

ents

have

been

dete

cted

duri

ngro

adsi

dew

ith

the

Tra

nspo

rtC

ounc

ilan

din

spec

tions

.A

lthou

ghit

isto

oea

rly

tom

ake

subs

tant

ial

com

men

ton

thei

rth

eE

urop

ean

Com

mis

sion

toco

-ef

fect

iven

ess,

we

are

awar

eth

ata

num

ber

ofM

embe

rSt

ates

have

mad

eor

dina

tew

ork

and

deve

lop

asu

bsta

ntia

lim

prov

emen

tsto

thei

rre

gula

tory

regi

mes

asa

resu

ltof

itth

atE

urop

e-w

ide

data

base

ofsh

ould

only

have

apo

sitiv

eim

pact

onro

adsa

fety

for

all

coun

trie

sin

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

gth

esa

fety

whi

chth

ose

Mem

ber

Stat

es’

vehi

cles

are

oper

ated

reco

rds

ofE

urop

ean

oper

ator

s.T

heim

plem

enta

tion

ofa

Eur

ope-

wid

eda

taba

seis

vita

lw

ork

whi

chis

urge

ntly

need

edto

help

save

lives

acro

ssth

eco

ntin

ent.

Itis

hear

teni

ngth

atth

eG

over

nmen

tan

din

dust

ryre

pres

enta

tive

sar

ew

orki

ngto

geth

erto

educ

ate

colle

ague

sel

sew

here

inE

urop

eab

out

the

bene

fits

ofou

rsy

stem

and

stan

dard

s.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

wel

com

eth

eim

prov

emen

tsto

VO

SAre

cogn

ise

that

the

spec

ifica

tion

ofve

hicl

eson

toPS

VV

OSA

reco

gnis

eth

ebe

nefit

sth

esp

ecifi

catio

nof

vehi

cles

onO

Lic

ence

spu

blic

serv

ice

vehi

cle

(PSV

)O

pera

tor’

sL

icen

ces

wou

ldof

fer

sign

ifica

ntbe

nefit

sto

impr

ovin

gw

ould

brin

g—an

dal

sono

teth

atth

ere

isa

leve

lof

indu

stry

supp

ort

for

oper

ator

licen

sing

,but

ther

ear

eth

een

forc

emen

tof

the

Ope

rato

rL

icen

sing

syst

em.

Thi

sw

ould

such

am

easu

re.

How

ever

,it

isal

sono

ted

that

ther

ew

ould

bean

clea

rlo

opho

les,

whi

chim

peri

lth

een

able

the

Ope

rato

rC

ompl

ianc

ean

dR

isk

Scor

e(w

hich

isus

edto

addi

tiona

lbu

rden

ifve

hicl

esw

ere

spec

ified

and

ther

efor

ea

chan

geto

safe

tyof

pass

enge

rs,t

hat

still

need

targ

etve

hicl

esfo

rch

ecki

ngin

road

side

chec

ks)

tobe

muc

hm

ore

legi

slat

ion

isun

likel

yat

this

time.

tobe

clos

edre

gard

ing

the

use

ofro

bust

for

PSV

s,an

dw

ould

also

mor

ere

adily

help

VO

SAW

ew

illco

ntin

ueto

mon

itor

this

issu

e.P

SVop

erat

orlic

ence

son

mul

tipl

ede

term

ine

ifa

PSV

isbe

ing

used

unla

wfu

llyw

ithou

ta

licen

ceve

hicl

es.W

ere

com

men

dth

at(w

hich

will

mak

eth

ere

cent

lyav

aila

ble

PSV

Impo

undi

ngsa

nctio

nap

prop

riat

ele

gisl

atio

nbe

am

ore

usef

ulto

ol).

intr

oduc

edas

soon

aspo

ssib

leto

How

ever

,it

isno

ted

that

are

quir

emen

tfo

rPS

Vop

erat

ors

tono

tify

mak

epr

ovis

ion

for

the

all

vehi

cle

regi

stra

tion

num

bers

,in

all

circ

umst

ance

s,w

ould

brin

gsp

ecifi

cati

onof

vehi

cles

onw

ithit

am

ore

subs

tant

ial

regu

lato

ryco

st.

Itis

not

clea

rth

atth

eop

erat

orlic

ence

sfo

rpu

blic

serv

ice

bene

fits

ofth

isap

proa

chw

ould

besu

ffici

ent

toju

stif

yth

eve

hicl

es.

regu

lato

ryco

sts

invo

lved

Part

icul

aris

sues

aris

ew

here

anop

erat

orne

eds

tous

edi

ffer

ent

vehi

cles

,fo

rex

ampl

ebe

caus

ea

vehi

cle

need

sto

behi

red

inat

shor

tno

tice

toco

ver

for

abr

eakd

own.

At

the

pres

ent

time

itw

illno

tal

way

sbe

poss

ible

tono

tify

VO

SAim

med

iate

lyin

thes

eci

rcum

stan

ces—

alth

ough

itis

expe

cted

that

over

the

next

few

year

sim

prov

emen

tsin

the

on-l

ine

syst

ems

that

VO

SAha

vear

elik

ely

tom

ake

this

poss

ible

.A

necd

otal

evid

ence

from

part

sof

the

indu

stry

sugg

ests

that

deliv

erin

gsu

chim

prov

emen

tsw

ould

bea

prer

equi

site

for

indu

stry

supp

ort

for

the

prop

osal

.T

his

issu

eis

curr

ently

reco

gnis

edin

the

good

sve

hicl

eop

erat

orlic

ensi

ngsy

stem

,w

here

oper

ator

sha

vea

limite

dpe

riod

(the

“mar

gin

conc

essi

on”)

with

inw

hich

the

new

vehi

cle

deta

ilsm

ust

beno

tified

.A

nun

scru

pulo

usop

erat

orw

illth

eref

ore

alw

ays

beab

leto

clai

mth

atan

“unn

otifi

ed”

vehi

cle

was

bein

gus

edun

der

the

mar

gin

conc

essi

onan

dth

isw

ould

seri

ousl

ylim

itth

ebe

nefit

sth

atco

uld

othe

rwis

ear

ise

from

spec

ifyi

ngve

hicl

eson

all

PSV

oper

ator

s’lic

ence

s.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

The

reis

anex

istin

gpo

wer

for

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers—

inpa

rtic

ular

circ

umst

ance

s—to

spec

ify

whi

chve

hicl

esm

aybe

used

unde

ra

PSV

oper

ator

’slic

ence

.T

his

pow

er,

unde

rse

ctio

n26

(5)

ofth

eT

rans

port

Act

1985

,pr

ovid

esan

oppo

rtun

ityfo

rth

eT

raffi

cC

omm

issi

oner

sto

requ

ire

the

oper

ator

tono

tify

whi

chve

hicl

esw

illbe

used

unde

rth

elic

ence

.T

his

pow

eris

avai

labl

ew

here

itap

pear

sto

the

traf

ficco

mm

issi

oner

that

vehi

cles

are

not

bein

gm

aint

aine

din

afit

and

serv

icea

ble

cond

ition

,or

whe

rean

oper

ator

ism

akin

gag

reem

ents

with

othe

rop

erat

ors

inan

atte

mpt

toci

rcum

vent

the

licen

sing

requ

irem

ents

.T

his

pow

erap

pear

sto

bese

ldom

used

byth

eT

raffi

cC

omm

issi

oner

sat

pres

ent.

Inth

efir

stin

stan

ce,

ther

efor

e,th

eG

over

nmen

tw

ould

enco

urag

eth

eT

raffi

cC

omm

issi

oner

sto

mak

eus

eof

the

exis

ting

pow

erin

the

Tra

nspo

rtA

ct19

85,

men

tione

dab

ove,

insp

ecifi

cca

ses

whe

reth

eyco

nsid

erit

appr

opri

ate

todo

so.

The

effe

ctiv

enes

sof

this

appr

oach

will

bem

onito

red,

and

ifit

appe

ars

tobe

inef

fect

ive,

mor

ew

ork

will

bedo

neto

dete

rmin

eho

wsp

ecifi

catio

nm

aybe

able

tobe

appl

ied

inth

ePS

Vin

dust

ryto

min

imis

eun

law

ful

oper

atio

n—id

eally

bein

gfo

cuss

edon

thos

ese

ctor

sw

here

prob

lem

sof

unla

wfu

lop

erat

ion

are

mos

tsi

gnifi

cant

.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

Ifth

ene

wre

liabi

lity

and

Enf

orce

men

tof

bus

punc

tual

itylie

sw

ithth

eT

raffi

cV

OSA

has

activ

ely

supp

orte

dT

raffi

cC

omm

issi

oner

sin

impr

ovin

gbu

spu

nctu

alit

ym

onit

orin

gsy

stem

isto

Com

mis

sion

ers.

Bus

oper

ator

s(o

utsi

deL

ondo

n)m

ust

regi

ster

all

punc

tual

ityan

dha

sim

plem

ente

dth

ere

vise

dap

proa

ches

tabl

ishe

dby

DfT

beef

fect

ive,

the

role

ofV

OSA

and

loca

lse

rvic

esth

eyin

tend

toop

erat

ew

ithth

ere

leva

ntT

raffi

cto

impr

ove

the

effe

ctiv

enes

sof

this

wor

k.Fu

rthe

rde

tails

ofth

ew

ayth

isal

lot

her

rele

vant

agen

cies

mus

tbe

Com

mis

sion

ergi

ving

the

pres

crib

edpa

rtic

ular

sof

thos

ese

rvic

esha

sbe

enac

hiev

edar

egi

ven

inM

emor

andu

mN

o.2.

clar

ified

.How

ever

,we

dono

t(c

hiefl

yth

ero

ute

and

timet

able

).W

hils

tth

eym

ayre

gist

eran

dde

-be

lieve

that

VO

SAcu

rren

tly

has

regi

ster

any

serv

ice

they

choo

se,

they

are

oblig

edto

oper

ate

the

the

reso

urce

sto

adeq

uate

lyse

rvic

ein

acco

rdan

cew

ithth

epa

rtic

ular

sth

eyha

vere

gist

ered

.un

dert

ake

this

resp

onsi

bilit

yon

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers

can

pena

lise

oper

ator

sw

ho,

with

out

top

ofit

sex

isti

ngre

mit

.We

reas

onab

leex

cuse

,fa

ilto

run

serv

ices

inac

cord

ance

with

the

reco

mm

end

that

the

Gov

ernm

ent

regi

ster

edpa

rtic

ular

s,ei

ther

with

afin

anci

alsa

nctio

n1an

d/or

atr

ansf

erth

ere

spon

sibi

lity

for

rest

rict

ion

onth

eir

licen

ce.2

The

Loc

alT

rans

port

Act

2008

mon

itor

ing

punc

tual

ity

and

serv

ice

enha

nced

the

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers’

pow

ers,

enab

ling

them

tore

liabi

lity

tolo

cal

bodi

essu

chas

hold

loca

lau

thor

ities

toac

coun

tfo

rth

eir

cont

ribu

tion

topo

orIn

tegr

ated

Tra

nspo

rtA

utho

riti

es.

perf

orm

ance

,an

den

ablin

gth

emto

requ

ire

anop

erat

orto

inve

stin

At

the

sam

eti

me,

the

poss

ible

spec

ific

impr

ovem

ents

orpr

ovid

eco

mpe

nsat

ion

topa

ssen

gers

,ef

ficie

ncie

sth

atm

ight

beac

hiev

edra

ther

than

,or

inad

ditio

nto

,im

posi

nga

pena

lty.

VO

SAcu

rren

tlyby

am

ore

high

-tec

hap

proa

chto

prov

ide

the

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers

with

supp

ort

inth

isro

lean

dth

em

onit

orin

gsh

ould

beex

plor

ed.

Dep

artm

ent

belie

ves

that

VO

SAre

mai

nsth

em

ost

appr

opri

ate

body

todo

this

.To

ensu

reth

atre

liabl

ean

dpu

nctu

albu

sse

rvic

esar

epr

ovid

ed,

the

Dep

artm

ent

belie

ves

itis

vita

lfo

rlo

cal

auth

oriti

esan

dbu

sop

erat

ors

tow

ork

toge

ther

.T

heD

epar

tmen

tis

curr

ently

wor

king

with

key

stak

ehol

ders

toin

trod

uce

are

vise

dpu

nctu

ality

perf

orm

ance

regi

me

base

don

part

ners

hip

wor

king

toen

sure

that

prob

lem

sar

eun

ders

tood

earl

yan

dso

lutio

nsap

plie

d.T

his

wor

kis

bein

gta

ken

forw

ard

byth

eB

usPu

nctu

ality

Wor

king

Gro

up(B

PWG

),se

tup

unde

rth

eum

brel

laof

the

Bus

Part

ners

hip

Foru

m,

cons

istin

gof

key

indu

stry

,lo

cal

auth

ority

,pa

ssen

ger,

and

enfo

rcem

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es.

The

BPW

Gis

look

ing

ata

num

ber

ofis

sues

surr

ound

ing

data

shar

ing

and

the

mon

itori

ngof

bus

punc

tual

ity,

incl

udin

gw

heth

erda

tapr

ovid

edby

loca

lau

thor

ities

coul

dbe

utili

sed,

and

the

use

ofel

ectr

onic

data

aspa

rtof

the

punc

tual

itym

onito

ring

proc

ess.

The

Dep

artm

ent

inte

nds

tois

sue

guid

ance

onth

eim

port

ance

oflo

cal

auth

oriti

esan

dop

erat

ors

wor

king

inpa

rtne

rshi

pto

achi

eve

punc

tual

and

relia

ble

bus

serv

ices

,an

dse

tting

out

thei

rre

spec

tive

role

s.T

hegu

idan

ceis

bein

gpr

epar

edin

conj

unct

ion

with

the

BPW

Gan

dsh

ould

beis

sued

earl

yne

xtye

ar.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

wel

com

eth

eim

prov

emen

tin

Thr

ough

the

chan

ges

that

have

take

npl

ace

rece

ntly

abe

tter

and

The

Dep

artm

ent

and

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers

(TC

s)ha

veco

ntin

ued

tow

ork

rela

tion

sbe

twee

nV

OSA

and

the

mor

eco

here

ntse

rvic

eis

now

bein

gde

liver

edto

truc

kan

dbu

scl

osel

yto

geth

ersi

nce

the

last

TSC

totr

yan

den

sure

ther

eis

clar

ityin

the

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers

over

the

oper

ator

sac

ross

the

coun

try.

The

esta

blis

hmen

tof

ast

atut

ory

rela

tions

hips

betw

een

DfT

and

its’

agen

cies

and

TC

s.B

oth

part

ies

have

past

two

year

s.It

ises

sent

ial

that

Seni

orT

raffi

cC

omm

issi

oner

(ST

C)

with

new

pow

ers

tois

sue

seen

this

asim

port

ant

soth

atT

Cin

depe

nden

cean

dth

epe

rcep

tion

ofT

Cth

eyw

ork

seam

less

lyto

geth

er,a

ndgu

idan

cean

ddi

rect

ion

tofe

llow

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers

will

grea

tlyin

depe

nden

ce,

asin

depe

nden

tof

fice

hold

ers,

cann

otbe

ques

tione

d.th

atco

mm

unic

atio

nbe

twee

nth

emhe

lpin

this

proc

ess.

Add

ition

ally

all

part

ies

are

com

mitt

edto

prov

ing

that

the

oper

ator

isef

fect

ive.

licen

sing

enfo

rcem

ent

and

regu

lato

rysy

stem

sca

nw

ork

toge

ther

insu

cha

way

soas

tom

axim

ise

the

effe

ctiv

enes

san

def

ficie

ncy

ofbo

thsy

stem

sin

impr

ovin

gro

adsa

fety

.T

hem

ost

sign

ifica

ntpr

ogre

ssin

this

resp

ect

was

the

publ

icat

ion

inJu

ly20

12of

aFr

amew

ork

docu

men

tth

atcl

earl

yse

tou

tth

ere

latio

nshi

psbe

twee

nth

eva

riou

spa

rtie

sth

atw

assi

gned

byth

eth

enR

oads

Min

iste

rM

ike

Penn

ing

and

the

STC

.T

heD

epar

tmen

tbe

lieve

sth

isha

sre

solv

eda

num

ber

ofth

eke

yis

sues

ofco

ncer

nth

atT

Cs

had

but

are

awar

eth

atth

ere

are

som

efu

rthe

ris

sues

tore

solv

esu

chas

final

isin

ga

revi

sed

Mem

oran

dum

ofA

gree

men

tbe

twee

nV

OSA

and

TC

s.H

owev

erw

ear

eho

pefu

lth

isw

illbe

achi

eved

befo

reth

een

dof

this

finan

cial

year

.

We

cont

inue

toha

veco

ncer

nsV

OSA

ackn

owle

dges

the

conc

erns

ofth

eC

omm

ittee

and

acce

pts

VO

SAha

veno

wm

oved

tom

uch

sim

pler

perf

orm

ance

man

agem

ent

abou

tth

eop

erat

ion

ofV

OSA

’sth

atth

epe

rfor

man

cega

insy

stem

has

limita

tions

.It

isno

long

era

mea

sure

s—su

chas

over

all

num

bers

ofpr

ohib

ition

san

dth

era

teof

perf

orm

ance

man

agem

ent

syst

emke

yta

rget

but

ison

eof

anu

mbe

rof

inte

rnal

man

agem

ent

proh

ibiti

onis

sue.

Thi

sha

ssi

mpl

ified

our

perf

orm

ance

man

agem

ent

has

whi

chm

aydi

stor

tpr

iori

ties

soin

dica

tors

utili

sed,

alon

gw

ithin

put

hour

san

dva

riou

sou

tput

ensu

red

we

have

atr

ansp

aren

tvi

ewof

wha

tis

bein

gdo

ne—

and

that

that

cruc

ial

wor

kin

supp

ort

ofm

easu

res.

Perf

orm

ance

gain

iske

ptun

der

revi

ew.

incl

udes

supp

ort

for

TC

s.he

arin

gsby

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers

VO

SAta

kes

the

wor

kdo

neby

exam

iner

sin

supp

ort

ofpu

blic

Prov

idin

ggo

odqu

ality

info

rmat

ion

onth

efa

iling

s(o

rot

herw

ise)

ofG

Bis

negl

ecte

d.T

hesy

stem

need

sto

inqu

irie

sve

ryse

riou

sly,

and

has

adju

sted

the

man

agem

ent

syst

emO

pera

tors

rem

ains

ake

yel

emen

tof

the

enfo

rcem

ent

stra

tegy

.O

ver

the

beau

dite

d,an

dif

nece

ssar

y,to

reco

gnis

eth

atth

epe

rfor

man

cem

easu

refo

rpr

epar

atio

nof

case

last

two

year

sV

OSA

has

refo

cuse

dex

amin

ertim

eto

war

dsth

isac

tivity

toad

just

edto

ensu

reth

atsu

ppor

tfo

rw

ork

for

the

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers

iseq

ual

toth

atgi

ven

for

ensu

reth

atth

isac

tivity

isgi

ven

adeq

uate

wei

ght.

the

enfo

rcem

ent

wor

kof

Tra

ffic

road

side

wor

k.T

here

isa

form

alm

easu

re—

know

nas

the

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

erSe

rvic

eC

omm

issi

oner

sis

give

ndu

eL

evel

Agr

eem

ent—

betw

een

the

TC

san

dth

eO

ffice

(s)

ofth

eT

raffi

cpr

iori

ty.

Com

mis

sion

ers,

Lic

ensi

ngan

dIn

telli

genc

epa

rts

ofV

OSA

.It

isfo

rmed

of15

mea

sure

san

dis

repo

rted

onea

chm

onth

.To

achi

eve

succ

ess,

VO

SAha

sto

achi

eve

85%

ofou

rta

rget

s,an

dit

has

done

this

year

onye

arsi

nce

the

Agr

eem

ent

was

put

inpl

ace

in20

06.

Thi

sye

arto

date

we

are

mee

ting

14of

the

15m

easu

res

whi

chis

a93

%ac

hiev

emen

t



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

reco

mm

end

that

VO

SAbe

The

Dep

artm

ent,

VO

SAan

dth

eU

KB

orde

rsA

genc

yar

ecu

rren

tlyV

OSA

now

have

asi

gned

anM

emor

andu

mof

Agr

eem

ent

with

the

Bri

tish

gran

ted

righ

tof

acce

ssto

all

port

deve

lopi

ngst

rate

gies

whi

chm

ayac

hiev

ea

reso

lutio

nto

the

issu

esPo

rts

Ass

ocia

tion

and

the

Maj

orU

KPo

rts

Gro

upth

atse

tsou

tth

epr

emis

esw

here

road

vehi

cles

ente

rar

ound

enfo

rcem

ent

onpo

rtpr

emis

es.

Itis

inte

nded

that

thes

eex

pect

atio

nsfo

rV

OSA

’sac

cess

for

port

san

dho

wV

OSA

will

wor

kw

hen

the

UK

.Thi

sco

uld,

ofco

urse

,be

deve

lopi

ngst

rate

gies

coul

dac

hiev

eth

eob

ject

ive

ofen

suri

ngth

atit

does

cond

uct

chec

ksw

ithin

port

s.T

hem

ajor

ityof

port

sar

epa

rtof

this

achi

eved

thro

ugh

legi

slat

ion,

but

aen

forc

emen

tan

din

spec

tion

wor

kca

nbe

effe

ctiv

ely

and

agre

emen

tan

dw

eha

veha

dno

sign

ifica

ntis

sues

atth

ose

that

have

sign

edqu

icke

ran

dm

ore

effe

ctiv

eop

tion

prop

ortio

nate

lyca

rrie

dou

tat

all

port

loca

tions

,w

ithou

tth

ene

edth

eM

oA.

The

rear

est

illa

smal

lnu

mbe

rof

port

sw

here

we

dono

tha

veco

uld

beto

esta

blis

ha

for

any

legi

slat

ive

chan

ge.

acce

ss—

but

thes

ear

ebe

ing

deal

tw

ithlo

cally

and/

orw

eha

veal

tern

ativ

eM

emor

andu

mof

Und

erst

andi

ngV

OSA

mai

ntai

na

pres

ence

atC

oque

lles,

the

Fren

chen

try

for

chec

klo

catio

nsth

atco

ver

traf

fictr

ansi

ting

that

port

.be

twee

nV

OSA

and

all

UK

port

Eur

otun

nel

traf

fic,

but

have

foun

dth

atth

isis

not

alw

ays

anau

thor

itie

s.If

all

UK

port

sw

here

effic

ient

loca

tion

for

insp

ectin

gve

hicl

es.

The

reis

insu

ffici

ent

spac

eve

hicl

esen

ter

the

UK

are

part

ofto

proh

ibit

vehi

cles

inth

ein

spec

tion

area

,an

dV

OSA

has

noth

eag

reem

ent,

nopo

rtw

ould

beat

juri

sdic

tion

tode

tain

the

vehi

cles

inFr

ance

.T

here

fore

VO

SAha

vea

disa

dvan

tage

com

pare

dto

todi

rect

proh

ibite

dve

hicl

esth

roug

hth

etu

nnel

tobe

met

and

othe

rs.W

ere

com

men

dth

atth

ees

cort

edby

VO

SAex

amin

ers

atA

shfo

rd.

VO

SAar

elo

okin

gat

Dep

artm

ent

for

Tra

nspo

rtan

dbo

thho

wre

sour

ceco

uld

beus

edm

ore

effic

ient

ly,

and

atal

tern

ativ

eV

OSA

expl

ore

the

opti

ons

wit

heq

uiva

lent

dete

rren

tm

echa

nism

s.B

eyon

dC

oque

lles,

wor

kis

bein

gpo

rts

oper

ator

s,bu

tif

nodo

neto

expl

ore

how

VO

SAca

nw

ork

inpa

rtne

rshi

pw

ithot

her

volu

ntar

yag

reem

ent

isco

untr

ies

toim

prov

ean

din

crea

sein

spec

tions

ofve

hicl

esat

port

sfo

rthc

omin

g,M

inis

ters

shou

ldno

tbe

fore

vehi

cles

ente

rth

eU

K.

shy

away

from

legi

slat

ive

acti

on.

We

also

reco

mm

end

that

the

poss

ibili

tyof

carr

ying

out

insp

ecti

ons

atpo

rts

outs

ide

the

UK

shou

ldbe

purs

ued

whe

refe

asib

lean

dde

sira

ble.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

wel

com

eth

epr

ogre

ssw

hich

VO

SAis

grat

eful

for

the

reco

gniti

onth

eC

omm

ittee

has

give

nin

VO

SAha

sm

aint

aine

dan

dex

tend

edits

links

with

othe

ren

forc

emen

tha

sbe

enm

ade

byV

OSA

inte

rms

term

sof

the

join

tw

orki

ngth

atis

unde

rtak

enw

ithot

her

agen

cies

.ag

enci

esan

dha

sco

ntin

ued

tow

ork

colla

bora

tivel

yw

ithth

em.

Inof

colla

bora

tion

and

info

rmat

ion

VO

SApl

ace

sign

ifica

ntfo

cus

onth

eco

llabo

rativ

eef

fort

sth

atca

npa

rtic

ular

the

inte

llige

nce

and

inve

stig

ativ

efu

nctio

nsw

ithin

VO

SAar

esh

arin

gw

ith

othe

rag

enci

es.T

hese

beut

ilise

dw

ithth

epo

lice

and

will

cont

inue

toex

plor

efu

rthe

rde

liver

edin

clos

eco

nsor

tw

ithth

epo

lice

atan

oper

atio

nal

leve

l.T

his

effo

rts

mus

tco

ntin

ueav

enue

sof

com

bine

def

fort

.Fo

rm

any

year

sjo

int

larg

esc

ale

incl

udes

Polic

ere

pres

enta

tion

atth

eV

OSA

natio

nal

targ

etin

gm

eetin

gsun

dim

inis

hed,

wit

ha

part

icul

aren

forc

emen

top

erat

ions

such

asth

e‘O

pera

tion

Mer

mai

d’an

d(w

hich

sets

the

natio

nal

targ

etin

gpr

iori

ties)

.V

OSA

also

wor

kw

ithot

her

emph

asis

onco

llabo

rati

onw

ith

the

‘Ope

ratio

nTo

uris

t’ch

ecks

have

been

unde

rtak

en,

enab

ling

agen

cies

—sh

arin

gda

taw

here

nece

ssar

yto

ensu

reth

atm

utua

lob

ject

ives

polic

e.C

olla

bora

tion

faci

litat

esco

llabo

rativ

ew

orki

ngon

both

ona

natio

nal

and

loca

lle

vel.

VO

SAca

nbe

met

.R

ecen

tw

ork

has

incl

uded

revi

ewin

gda

taco

llect

edby

the

opti

mal

use

ofsc

arce

reso

urce

s.m

eets

regu

larl

yw

ithth

epo

lice

and

othe

rag

enci

esto

shar

eH

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

on‘i

ncid

ents

’in

volv

ing

HG

Vs

tode

term

ine

ifth

ere

Als

o,in

form

atio

nan

din

telli

genc

ein

telli

genc

ean

din

form

atio

non

high

risk

natio

nal

targ

ets.

Mor

ew

ere

syst

emic

faili

ngs

with

the

oper

ator

sof

the

vehi

cles

invo

lved

.is

ake

yco

mpo

nent

ofan

rece

ntly

itha

sbe

ende

velo

ping

polic

ies

and

stra

tegi

esw

ithth

eFo

rce

rtai

nel

emen

tsof

VO

SA’s

rout

ine

enfo

rcem

ent

VO

SAar

est

illen

forc

emen

tpo

licy

whi

chis

base

dpo

lice

for

deal

ing

with

the

illeg

alop

erat

ion

oflim

ousi

nes,

whi

chde

pend

ent

onco

llabo

ratio

nw

ithth

epo

lice.

Thi

sis

part

icul

arly

the

case

insi

gnifi

cant

mea

sure

onth

ew

illse

eth

eag

enci

esw

orki

ngto

geth

erto

impo

und

vehi

cles

foun

dw

here

VO

SApl

anto

impo

und

vehi

cles

—w

here

polic

esu

ppor

tis

requ

ired

.ta

rget

ing

ofth

em

ost

likel

yto

bein

cont

rave

ntio

nof

regu

latio

ns.

Thi

sha

sbe

enat

the

fore

rece

ntly

inhi

ghpr

ofile

oper

atio

nsth

atha

veof

fend

ers.

The

polic

eha

veal

way

sbe

ensu

ppor

tive

toV

OSA

exam

iner

sw

here

deal

tw

ithso

me

larg

efo

reig

nop

erat

ors

that

have

been

oper

atin

gw

ithin

diffi

cult

conf

ront

atio

nal

circ

umst

ance

sha

vepr

evai

led,

and

this

Gre

atB

rita

inou

tsid

eof

the

cabo

tage

rule

s—so

thei

rve

hicl

esha

vebe

ensu

ppor

tha

sbe

enpa

rtic

ular

lyva

luab

lefo

llow

ing

the

intr

oduc

tion

ofim

poun

ded.

the

grad

uate

dfix

edpe

nalti

esan

dde

posi

tssc

hem

esea

rlie

rth

isye

ar.

Rec

ent

high

profi

lech

ecks

VO

SAha

sun

dert

aken

join

tlyw

ithot

her

VO

SAar

eal

soin

volv

edw

ithth

epo

lice

ona

wid

erE

urop

ean

enfo

rcem

ent

agen

cies

incl

ude:

basi

s,si

tting

onth

eE

urop

ean

traf

ficpo

lice

wor

king

grou

p,—

Ope

ratio

nC

harl

ton—

this

prog

ram

me

ofw

ork

took

plac

edu

ring

the

TIS

POL

,w

hich

prov

ides

afo

rum

for

shar

ing

info

rmat

ion

onO

lym

pics

.O

nbe

half

ofth

eH

ighw

ays

Age

ncy,

VO

SAen

forc

eda

tach

ogra

phfr

aud.

wei

ght

rest

rict

ion

onH

GV

sus

ing

one

ofth

ebr

idge

son

the

M4

clos

eto

Lon

don;

—O

pera

tion

Kan

sas—

duri

ngth

esp

ring

and

sum

mer

of20

12,

with

the

supp

ort

ofth

eM

etro

polit

anPo

lice

and

TfL

,V

OSA

exam

iner

sin

spec

ted

anu

mbe

rof

limou

sine

sin

cent

ral

Lon

don

onFr

iday

and

Satu

rday

even

ings

.So

me

ofth

ese

vehi

cles

wer

eim

poun

ded

asth

eyw

ere

bein

gop

erat

edw

ithou

tan

oper

ator

slic

ence

.In

addi

tion,

VO

SAis

cond

uctin

gch

ecks

ofPS

Vs

(esp

ecia

llylim

ousi

nes)

acro

ssth

eco

untr

y,w

here

test

purc

hase

sar

eus

edfr

omkn

own

unlic

ense

dop

erat

ors;

—O

pera

tion

Uta

h—So

uth

Wal

esT

raffi

cPo

lice,

Tra

ffic

Wal

es,

the

Hig

hway

sA

genc

yan

dV

OSA

are

mou

ntin

gco

-ord

inat

edch

ecks

offo

reig

nH

GV

Sus

ing

the

Seco

ndSe

vern

Cro

ssin

gen

-rou

teto

Eng

lish

and

Con

tinen

tal

dest

inat

ions

.T

hepu

rpos

eof

the

oper

atio

nsis

to“d

eny

crim

inal

sth

eus

eof

the

road

s”an

dV

OSA

conc

entr

ates

onth

ose

aspe

cts

whi

chin

volv

eba

tche

sof

larg

eve

hicl

es.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

Inor

der

tom

axim

ise

effic

ienc

yV

OSA

acce

pts

itne

eds

toim

prov

eth

etim

elin

ess

and

accu

racy

ofV

OSA

acce

pted

itne

eded

toim

prov

eth

etim

elin

ess

and

accu

racy

ofda

taan

dre

duce

inco

nven

ienc

eto

data

tosu

ppor

tits

enfo

rcem

ent

activ

ity.

VO

SAis

com

mitt

edto

tosu

ppor

tits

enfo

rcem

ent

activ

ity.

Sinc

eth

epr

evio

usup

date

,w

eha

veop

erat

ors,

VO

SAex

amin

ers

mus

tim

prov

ing

this

via

the

crea

tion

ofan

ITen

ablin

gen

forc

emen

tm

ade

prog

ress

with

the

key

area

sof

focu

sas

follo

ws:

have

acce

ssto

accu

rate

and

up-t

o-st

rate

gy,

the

key

area

sof

focu

sw

ithin

this

are:

1.To

ensu

real

lin

telli

genc

eso

urce

sar

eas

upto

date

aspo

ssib

leon

the

date

info

rmat

ion.

The

refo

re,t

he1.

Toen

sure

all

inte

llige

nce

sour

ces

are

asup

toda

teas

poss

ible

diff

eren

tte

chno

logi

esbe

ing

used

tost

op/s

ift

vehi

cles

.ad

opti

onof

anIT

syst

emw

hich

onth

edi

ffer

ent

tech

nolo

gies

bein

gus

edto

stop

/sif

tve

hicl

es.

In20

11–1

2w

ede

liver

edan

ITso

lutio

nto

enab

leen

forc

emen

tca

sew

ork

upda

tes

data

inst

antl

yac

ross

the

2.E

nhan

ceth

ecu

rren

tU

Kop

erat

orri

sksc

orin

gsy

stem

toin

clud

eto

bem

anag

edel

ectr

onic

ally

.T

heca

pabi

lity

tosc

anan

dat

tach

supp

ortin

gen

tire

syst

emm

ust

bea

prio

rity

.If

inte

rnat

iona

ltr

affic

.do

cum

ents

was

intr

oduc

edin

2012

.In

Mar

ch20

12,

we

intr

oduc

eda

new

nece

ssar

y,m

ore

reso

urce

ssh

ould

3.E

xplo

itatio

nof

real

orne

arre

altim

eda

tato

impr

ove

dete

ctio

nIT

solu

tion

whi

chen

able

din

telli

genc

ere

cord

edat

VO

SA’s

cont

act

cent

rebe

mad

eav

aila

ble

toin

vest

inof

non

com

plia

nce

and

the

effe

ctiv

enes

sof

VO

SAre

sour

ces.

tobe

auto

mat

ical

lypr

esen

ted

toin

telli

genc

eof

fers

for

grad

ing

redu

cing

bett

erte

chno

logy

toac

hiev

eth

is.

4.A

sses

sing

oppo

rtun

ities

toen

rich

VO

SAda

tafo

rta

rget

ing,

byde

lays

inth

eha

ndlin

gpr

oces

s.B

yM

arch

2013

,w

ew

illm

easu

resh

arin

gda

taw

ithot

her

Age

ncie

s(P

olic

e,H

MR

C,

UK

Bor

ders

etc.

)in

telli

genc

eou

tcom

esus

ing

info

rmat

ion

man

aged

inth

ein

telli

genc

ean

dan

dE

Um

embe

rst

ates

.ca

sew

ork

busi

ness

syst

ems.

Bus

ines

sca

ses

will

bepr

oduc

edto

ensu

reth

atth

ein

vest

men

tin

In20

12w

epi

lote

dne

wm

obile

tech

nolo

gyto

supp

ort

sift

ing

ofve

hicl

esth

ese

impr

ovem

ents

deliv

ers

valu

efo

rm

oney

.at

the

road

side

.W

ear

eno

wta

king

forw

ard

the

pilo

t’s

findi

ngs

tode

liver

The

obse

rvat

ion

mad

eby

the

Com

mitt

eeth

atit

wou

ldbe

ane

wm

obile

solu

tion

toen

able

sift

ing

and

reco

rdin

gth

eou

tcom

esof

adva

ntag

eous

toha

vein

form

atio

nav

aila

ble

toV

OSA

,so

exam

iner

sro

adsi

dein

spec

tions

aspa

rtof

VO

SA’s

wid

erm

obile

wor

king

stra

tegy

and

wer

eaw

are

ofw

heth

era

vehi

cle

had

alre

ady

been

insp

ecte

dIT

mod

erni

satio

npr

ogra

mm

e.el

sew

here

byV

OSA

that

day

isac

cept

ed,

alth

ough

itis

cons

ider

ed2.

Enh

ance

the

curr

ent

UK

oper

ator

risk

scor

ing

syst

emto

incl

ude

alo

wpr

obab

ility

and

low

road

safe

tyri

skbu

tw

illbe

expl

ored

asin

tern

atio

nal

traf

fic.

part

ofV

OSA

futu

reIT

enab

lem

ent

stra

tegy

.E

nhan

cem

ents

toth

eop

erat

orri

sksc

orin

gto

incl

ude

inte

rnat

iona

ltr

affic

(non

-GB

OC

RS)

wer

ein

trod

uced

in20

11.

In20

12,

we

com

plet

edan

asse

ssm

ent

ofth

epe

rfor

man

ceof

the

solu

tion

and

are

cons

ider

ing

area

sfo

rim

prov

emen

tas

part

ofou

rpl

ans

for

2013

–14.

Inad

ditio

n,an

enha

nced

GB

OC

RS

solu

tion

was

intr

oduc

edin

2012

with

exte

nsiv

ein

dust

ryin

volv

emen

t.Fu

rthe

ren

hanc

emen

tsar

epl

anne

dfo

r20

13–1

4.3.

Exp

loita

tion

ofre

alor

near

real

time

data

toim

prov

ede

tect

ion

ofno

nco

mpl

ianc

ean

dth

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofV

OSA

reso

urce

s.In

2011

–12

we

esta

blis

hed

join

tw

orki

ngw

ithB

orde

rFo

rce

(for

mer

lyU

KB

A)

toim

prov

eta

rget

ing

ofin

tern

atio

nal

traf

ficth

roug

hsh

ared

acce

ssto

the

Frei

ght

Targ

etin

gSy

stem

(FT

S).

Wor

king

with

Tra

nspo

rtfo

rL

ondo

n,w

ein

trod

uced

netw

orke

dre

altim

eau

tom

ated

num

ber

plat

ere

cogn

ition

(AN

PR)

tech

nolo

gyat

the

Bla

ckw

all

tunn

elpr

ior

toth

eO

lym

pics

and

are

inth

epr

oces

sof

exte

ndin

gth

isca

pabi

lity

toal

lou

rot

her

fixed

AN

PRca

mer

as.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

4.A

sses

sing

oppo

rtun

ities

toen

rich

VO

SAda

tafo

rta

rget

ing,

bysh

arin

gda

taw

ithot

her

Age

ncie

s(P

olic

e,H

MR

C,

UK

Bor

ders

etc.

)an

dE

Um

embe

rst

ates

.W

eha

vees

tabl

ishe

djo

int

wor

king

rela

tions

hips

with

—U

KB

orde

rFo

rce

(for

mer

lyU

KB

A)

for

targ

etin

gof

inte

rnat

iona

ltr

affic

—E

UM

embe

rSt

ates

—th

eN

atio

nal

Reg

iste

rfo

rU

KO

pera

tors

was

deliv

ered

in20

11.

The

inte

rcon

nect

ion

ofE

UN

atio

nal

Reg

iste

rspr

ovid

ing

shar

ing

ofda

tafo

rre

pute

chec

ksan

din

tern

atio

nal

traf

ficin

frac

tions

will

bede

liver

edby

Janu

ary

2013

.—

HM

RC

—da

tash

arin

gfo

rm

atte

rsre

latin

gto

finan

cial

repu

te—

Polic

e—on

goin

gof

inte

llige

nce

shar

ing

and

join

top

erat

iona

lac

tivity

—In

sura

nce

Frau

dB

urea

u—id

entif

ying

MO

Tga

rage

sth

atm

ight

have

been

invo

lved

inin

sura

nce

frau

dIn

addi

tion,

we

are

asse

ssin

gth

efe

asib

ility

ofa

publ

icre

leas

eof

oper

ator

test

and

insp

ectio

nda

taas

part

ofou

r20

12–1

3da

tatr

ansp

aren

cypl

ans.



Rec

omm

enda

tion

The

Gov

ernm

ent’s

2009

Res

pons

e(a

spu

blis

hed

inH

C10

57)

Cur

rent

Pos

itio

n

We

belie

veth

atas

pect

sof

curr

ent

Itis

agre

edth

atV

OSA

’sen

forc

emen

tef

fort

wou

ldbe

impr

oved

byFo

rmal

data

shar

ing

arra

ngem

ents

have

been

esta

blis

hed

with

UK

Bor

der

data

prot

ecti

onle

gisl

atio

nar

ea

bette

rac

cess

toth

eda

tain

form

atio

nof

othe

rA

genc

ies,

and

VO

SAFo

rce,

HM

RC

,In

sura

nce

Frau

dB

urea

u,H

ighw

ays

Age

ncy

and

EU

hind

ranc

eto

succ

essf

ulta

rget

ing

and

the

Dep

artm

ent

are

expl

orin

gbe

tter

way

sof

wor

king

with

the

mem

ber

stat

es.

The

rear

ees

tabl

ishe

dpr

oces

ses

whi

chen

able

law

ful,

offo

reig

n-re

gist

ered

vehi

cles

.H

ome

Offi

ce,

the

Polic

ean

dU

KB

orde

rA

genc

yto

incr

ease

prop

ortio

nate

and

timel

ysh

arin

gof

data

,w

here

requ

ired

.W

hile

itis

very

impo

rtan

tto

effe

ctiv

enes

sby

shar

ing

data

whe

repo

ssib

le.

VO

SAar

eal

ive

topr

otec

tpe

rson

alda

tafr

omth

epr

ivac

yis

sues

arou

ndth

ein

crea

sed

use

ofpe

rson

alda

ta,

and

inap

prop

riat

eus

e,it

isw

ould

seek

toac

hiev

eth

eir

enfo

rcem

ent

obje

ctiv

esth

roug

hun

acce

ptab

leth

atin

form

atio

nm

inim

alus

eof

such

data

.T

heD

epar

tmen

tar

eal

soex

plor

ing

whi

chco

uld

grea

tly

impr

ove

road

whe

ther

VO

SAha

veth

ele

gal

pow

ers

toob

tain

info

rmat

ion,

such

safe

tyca

nnot

besh

ared

wit

hth

eas

Ship

s’M

anif

ests

,an

din

deed

whe

ther

UK

Bor

ders

have

the

agen

cyre

spon

sibl

efo

ren

forc

ing

lega

lpo

wer

sto

disc

lose

the

info

rmat

ion

toV

OSA

.ve

hicl

esa

fety

stan

dard

s.T

heG

over

nmen

tsh

ould

give

prio

rity

tole

gisl

ativ

ead

just

men

tsw

hich

wou

ldfa

cilit

ate

secu

rean

def

fect

ive

data

shar

ing

betw

een

key

gove

rnm

ent

agen

cies

such

asV

OSA

and

HM

RC

.In

orde

rto

disc

harg

eit

sco

refu

ncti

ons

effe

ctiv

ely,

VO

SAne

eds

toha

veth

esa

me

acce

ssto

Ship

s’M

anif

ests

and

othe

rke

ydo

cum

ents

asis

enjo

yed

byth

eH

MR

C.T

heef

ficie

ncy

ofre

gula

tion

and

enfo

rcem

ent

inar

eas

whe

reth

ere

spon

sibi

litie

sof

seve

ral

bodi

es’

over

lap

coul

dbe

grea

tly

impr

oved

thro

ugh

bett

erin

form

atio

nsh

arin

gar

rang

emen

ts.

Tabl

eN

otes

:

1T

rans

port

Act

2000

,se

ctio

n15

5,as

amen

ded

byse

ctio

n64

ofth

eL

ocal

Tra

nspo

rtA

ct20

08.

2T

rans

port

Act

1985

,se

ctio

n26

,as

amen

ded

byse

ctio

n62

ofth

eL

ocal

Tra

nspo

rtA

ct20

08.

Dec

embe

r20

12



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. TheAgency plays a key role delivering the Government’s road safety strategy through ensuring compliance withregulations of vehicle operators, drivers, Transport Managers, MOT garages, tachograph and speed limitercalibration 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 Directiveand 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 theSecretary of State for Transport and are statutorily independent of VOSA and the Department. TrafficCommissioners 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. Themajority of this income—£175 million—came from statutory fees (eg testing and licensing), the remaindercame 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 inBristol, 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 improvedroad safety.

Annual Testing

Plans for the Future

VOSA believes it has, in the last three years significantly improved arrangements for vehicle test sites andwill continue to do so into the future. VOSA’s objective is for annual testing to be increasingly conducted atnon-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 countrywhere early take-up has been slow; current plans have been submitted from industry to create a further 62 newbuilds and convert 22 of the 88 Designated Premises (DPs—these are similar to ATFs but are sites authorisedfor this function prior to the existence of ATFs—the key difference is that they are not managed through acontract) 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 deliverymodels. These will include the renting of servicing lanes in private sector facilities or ultimately the sale orleasing of existing Goods Vehicle Testing Stations to operate as ATFs. The history of testing and currentpractice in annual testing is set out in Annex 1 below.



VOSA’s vision is that its Vehicle Inspectors will be increasingly multi-skilled, flexible and deployed in away that best meets the needs of ATF operators and their customers whilst maintaining test quality. VOSA hasalready conducted a significant amount of planning of a future design to enable this. This design has beenapproved internally and is currently with DfT for approval. This Design complements the successful roll-outof more ATFs and covers a number of areas:

— more flexible deployment—especially early starts/late finishes to match the working pattern ofan 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 workis delivered;

— Enhanced Inspector skill-sets; ongoing development of technical skills will be managed by aContinuous Professional Development approach. In addition, analysis of test result data willinform 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 qualitysystems 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 beprovided 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 tohelp operators, presenters and VOSA improve compliance. This will both increase efficiency and ensurespecific quality tolerances are met. The technology required will ensure that equipment is better matched tothe 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 ofstatistics: volumes of tests, pass, fail, failure items, consistency and contract compliance. Paper-based reportswill be replaced with bulletins through a web-based portal to enable better management of income andcontractual obligations.

Supporting the Work of the Traffic Commissioners

VOSA directly provides support to the Traffic Commissioners—through the administrative support of theOperator Licensing System. The background to this work is contained at Annex 2. VOSA’s enforcementactivities—and in particular the provision of the results of roadside checks and operator systems checks—areanother key element of the work that VOSA does for TCs. A background to that enforcement work is containedat Annex 3.

Improved Support

VOSA believes it can further improve its support for the TCs in the medium and long term. The IT systemsupporting the Operator Licensing processing for TCs (the Operator Licensing Business System—OLBS) isdue 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 tobetter 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 anddiscussed and detailed cost benefits have not been completed—but areas being looked at (either as a part ofthe 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. Forexample, it should be possible to check—by automatic means—the status of the way the business of theoperator is structured and whether the firm is registered with Companies House. Another example is a checkof financial standing, where banks would provide evidence of sufficient funds. Although this might take someeffort to set up these links, they offer significant benefits in processing time and quality of assessment forlicence applications. A reduction in the burden on applicants (and VOSA) would enhance the reputation of thesystem 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 andthe regular management of licences via a portal—an extension of the relatively limited services currentlyavailable to customers on-line through the Operator Self-Service element of OLBS. This would make the



process slicker and quicker by the reduction/removal of paper documents. Moreover, confirmation of the licenceparameters at set intervals by the licence holder would make many public inquires less contentious as the basicdetails (eg change of entity) would not be the subject of debate and the hearing could focus its efforts on thereal 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 customerswould have a positive impact on education and enforcement activities, and it would help TCs/VOSA achievethe 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 itprovides a structure for the creation of electronic case management files from paper documents allowing mucheasier transmission of information around the Agency. VOSA believes ECMS has further development potentialwhich can help ensure that those cases reaching Traffic Commissioners contain additional information aboutthe interaction VOSA has had with the operator. This would allow public inquiries to have the benefit of thewhole picture. The reduction or removal of paper files where possible would also be a further move towardsGovernment’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 conductbusiness with VOSA and Traffic Commissioners. Once an account is opened the user has the ability to applyfor different licences, update licence details, access reports and receive links to training, advice and guidancespecific to the role they carry out. Traffic Commissioners would benefit from the knowledge thatcommunications between them and operators (especially the larger ones) would be made more effective andthat any message sent out with an increased likelihood it would reach all parts of the business. This is currentlyunder 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 toissue effective penalties to foreign drivers—the Agency has continued to focus its efforts to deal with trafficthat presents the highest risk to GB road users. This has resulted in considerable effort going into the checkingof non-GB vehicles—typically this being around 50% of the roadside checks that we conduct. Since then wehave seen some improvements in compliance rates compared to the GB vehicles, as measured through the fleetcompliance survey. This is a statistically robust view of on-the-road compliance rates—not skewed by thetargeting of at-risk vehicles:

Roadworthiness Drivers Hours & TachographChecks

GB Non-GB GB Non-GB

2010 10.4% 21.8% 12.4% 14.4%2011 10.3% 14.2% 12.9% 11.5%

This shows that non-GB and GB prohibition rates for vehicles are converging. The exact reasons for thisare not known—but the implementation of the fixed penalties and deposits scheme will be a factor, as will ourcontinued efforts to target the non-compliance (including use of non-GB Operator Compliance Risk Score) andlegislative improvements that other member states will have been complying with that include changes to theannual testing requirements and bringing in operator licensing schemes analogous to that of long standingin GB.

DfT continues to work with other Member States and the EC on changes to European Legislation to ensurethat the safety of GB road users is preserved and that there is fair competition between the GB and non-GBindustries. This has resulted in a number of positive changes to the rules by which industry are governed thathave improved the situation. Most notably this has included new cabotage rules that have been much moreenforceable than the previous rules and new requirements for the competent authority in member states to takeaction where their operators are found to be committing serious offences. We expect an EC proposal to furtherliberalise 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 riskto road safety—and also ensuring that “fair competition” rules (such as cabotage) are enforced. VOSA willtherefore continue putting a considerable proportion of its roadside enforcement effort into checks of foreignvehicles. VOSA will also continue to improve its ability to target these vehicles through the future developmentof non-GB OCRS. It will also use other data sources as appropriate to help it build up a better view ofcompliance of foreign operators—and the data available from the HGV Road User Levy (when launched in2014) 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 allother strategies have failed that enforcement is disruptive and forces behaviours to change. In these cases,



vehicles are targeted at base/point of entry, targeted where they are known to be used and stopped on everyoccasion they are encountered. It is noted that where this approach has been used—that the operators soonapproach VOSA to discuss what it is they need to do to comply, as they cannot continue to run their businesswith 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 thecompletion of the procurement process for the payment system) foreign hauliers. The new charge is beingintroduced through the HGV Road User Levy Bill which is currently working its way through parliament toprovide the necessary primary legislation. The introduction of the levy is seen as a key measure towardslevelling the playing field between UK and foreign hauliers. There will be new charges for foreign registeredheavy 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 newinitiative makes little practical difference, effectively splitting the current Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) amountsinto two—elements for the Levy and VED. The levy will be paid for at the same time as the VED payment ismade, either annually or six monthly. VOSA’s role is expected to remain broadly unchanged from the currentprocesses, 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, heaviestvehicles. The Levy will be payable to an externally contracted service, and non-compliance will be primarilyenforced by VOSA.

We are currently liaising closely with DfT and other stakeholders in establishing the detail of the VOSAwork, but we expect the following to form the framework of the enforcement:

— In strategic locations, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipped cameras willaccess 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 withthe Levy.

— VOSA will issue fixed penalty notices, or fixed penalty deposits (currently £200) to drivers ofvehicles 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 onVOSA 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 onevery foreign vehicle inspected. Some additional funding is planned to cover VOSA officer time as well asincrease in IT capability, to ensure that robust compliance with the levy. The introduction of this work will nothave 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 Britainin the late 1960s for all vehicles after the first year of service. All tests were carried out by employees ofpredecessors to VOSA, at Government provided test stations. VOSA currently provides around [72] suchstations from Shetland to Cornwall with a mix of full and part time sites to meet local requirements. The planis 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 DesignatedPremises (DPs), almost all of which were owned by operators of vehicles, usually the larger. About a decadelater, VOSA extended this arrangement to include heavy goods vehicles and trailers, although many wereconverted serving lanes. In addition, an additional charge was made for testing at these sites to cover the costof 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 othersto present vehicles at their facilities (open access). The relationship between the facility provider and VOSAwas informal in that VOSA gave no guarantees about service provision and had no certainty their staff wouldbe fully utilised. The organisation owning the premises could charge presenters for the use of the test facilityin addition to the statutory test fees payable to VOSA. This charge could be in the form of a fee for the use ofthe facilities (referred to as a “pit fee”) or could be included as an overhead in charges for other services whichthe facility provider was supplying to their customers.



Current Practice

In 2010, VOSA launched a new approach to providing test facilities, referred to as the Testing TransformationProgramme (TTP). The aim was to make commercial vehicle roadworthiness inspections more accessible andflexible for operators by providing them at more locations and at more convenient times—in other wordsbringing testing closer to the customer. There is now a new generation of emerging non-VOSA test facilitiesknown as Authorised testing Facilities (ATFs). Many ATFs, especially those provided by main dealers, haveopen access status, meaning they provide testing for anyone’s vehicle, including PSVs, which their facility canaccommodate. Many ATFs can offer a menu of other services prior to test or after, which further minimisesbusiness downtime.

Unlike DPs, ATFs have a formal contract with VOSA which sets out obligations on both sides—eg the ATFis required to guarantee a minimum income for each testing session (the “reservation fee”—to encourageefficient use of VOSA inspectors) and VOSA pays compensation if it fails to provide inspectors at the agreedtimes. 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 repairsas well as roadworthiness inspections, all of which can be managed more efficiently and cost-effectively. VOSAhas supported the opening of 278 ATFs in addition to the remaining 88 DPs. The coverage of ATFs is shownin the attached map of Great Britain.

A breakdown of test volumes (‘000s) by type of site is given below, together with the proportion tested inan ATF/DP.

Year Heavy goods (motor) vehicle Heavy goods vehicle (trailer) Public Service VehicleVolume by site Volume by site Volume by siteGVTS ATF/DP Total % GVTS ATF/DP Total % GVTS ATF/DP Total %

09/10 356 84 443 19 165 66 231 29 49 34 83 4110/11 321 105 426 25 147 80 227 35 45 38 83 4611/12 279 135 414 33 124 101 225 45 39 42 81 52

Most customers seem pretty content with the concept of ATFs. 90% of service agents are satisfied with thetesting process as a whole. And 96% of service agents and 89% of operators are satisfied with the overallquality 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 VOSAand improved access to other services including immediate rectification of test failuredefects;

— Improved maintenance facilities through the use of ATF equipment and a consequentimprovement in the pass rate of vehicles. The table below shows the more favourable passrate at third party sites than for those owned by VOSA, resulting in a greater number ofvehicles meeting the test requirements;

— Improved access to testing—a greater number of sites where testing is available than wasthe 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 forthose 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.

Pass Rate (%)No of additional vehicles

Vehicle Type GVTS ATF/DP meeting test requirements

Heavy goods (motor) vehicle 85.3 87.3 2,693Heavy goods vehicle (trailer) 64.9 88.9 24,249Public Service Vehicle 85.3 93.5 4,444



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 hadlocally based teams of support staff such as administrators, Mechanical Engineers and Traffic and VehicleExaminers. 1994 saw the completion of the move of the teams (except admin support) across to the VehicleInspectorate (VI). In 2003, the TCs administrative support (Traffic Area Network) was split away from theDepartment 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 ensuringconcerns around the independence of TCs was dealt with. The new agency became a trading fund with theCEO as the Accounting Officer.

In 2007, the operator licensing function was centralised in Leeds. Local administrative support to TrafficCommissioners is provided by VOSA. The operator licensing work and the administrative support to the TCsis paid for primarily through the fees that operators pay for their licences and for registration of local busservices. There is some additional funding from the DVLA for the driver conduct work the TrafficCommissioners 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 PassengerVehicles Act 1981.There is one less TC than Traffic Areas because the West Midland and Welsh Traffic Areasare served by a common Traffic Commissioner. Mrs Beverley Bell, the North Western TC is the SeniorTraffic Commissioner.

The TCs are responsible for the granting and issue of operator licences to operators of goods vehicles andpublic service vehicles. They also take regulatory action against the holders of licences when they fail to meetthe standards required of them. Such action is triggered by VOSA providing the results of its enforcementactions—roadside examinations and assessments of operator’s systems. TCs are also responsible for registeringlocal bus services and taking action against those operators who do not operate the services in accordance withtheir registered timetables.

Traffic Commissioners also have responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State for considering the fitnessof people who hold vocational driving entitlement for heavy goods vehicles or passenger carrying vehicles andthose that are applying for the entitlement based on their conduct.

Other responsibilities of the TCs include: dealing with appeals against local authority proposals to implementa Quality Partnership Scheme; chairing Quality Contract Scheme Boards when a local authority proposesmaking a scheme; imposing Traffic Regulation Conditions when asked by a local authority to reduce or limittraffic congestion or noise/air pollution.

Traffic Commissioners will also rule on an application received from a person or company against theimpounding 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 ScottishParking Appeals Service and appeals against contraventions of bus lanes. This work is funded throughrecharging the relevant Scottish local authorities.

Framework Agreement

The Local Transport Act 2008 introduced changes to the way in which Traffic Commissioners engage withGovernment. The Framework Document—signed earlier this year—supports the drive to make the serviceprovided by individual TCs more transparent, accessible and efficient, whilst ensuring fairness and trust, whichlies at the heart of the licensing system. The Document also aims to assist operators in understanding thoserelationships.

Organisational Structure

The VOSA Chief Executive is the Accounting Officer with responsibility for the provision and performanceof TC support staff. The Head of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTCAL) (a VOSA employee) isresponsible for the provision of services to the Traffic Commissioners and reports to the Operations Directorof 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 andapplications to vary licences, as well as updating records for changes of address, etc. There are 82.17full time equivalent (fte) staff in this office and they are structured into teams each with a definedresponsibility of support they provide to Traffic Commissioners.



The Offices of the Traffic Commissioner (OTCs)—see below—support the Traffic Commissionersin their regulatory functions regarding operators and drivers. This primarily involves processingcases for public inquiries, including carrying out administrative duties.

The OTC locations and staffing are as follows:

Traffic Area Traffic Commissioner Location OTC staff

Scotland Joan Aitken Edinburgh 19North Eastern Kevin Rooney Leeds 10North Western Beverley Bell Golborne (Warrington) 11.41West Midland Nick Jones Birmingham 9.92Wales Nick Jones BirminghamEastern Richard Turfitt Cambridge 11.68South Eastern and Metropolitan Nick Denton Eastbourne 8.5Western Sarah Bell Bristol 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 656 (New PSV) 998 (PSVVariations Variations)

WORK OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS AND THEIR DEPUTIES ON PUBLIC INQUIRIES IN2011–12

Total 713 (TCs) 972 (Deputy TCs) 1685

Currently licence applications are reduced from recent levels. Whilst this has reduced the volumes of workon this specific activity, it has not reduced the volumes of work on variations and other activities—and in factthe 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 theirfunctions. Staff in the OTCAL are therefore awarded delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of theTraffic Commissioner for certain functions or within certain parameters. This delegation is granted under theterms of the Deregulation and Contracting-Out Act 1994. Delegation is awarded to named staff once the TrafficCommissioner is satisfied that they are competent to fulfil the role and make decisions on their behalf. Thework carried out under delegated authority is regularly and routinely audited by OTCAL managers with theresults 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 ScottishGovernment rather than through fees. The approach to this work changed in 2011 following therecommendations of the Bus Punctuality Working Group, formed from stakeholders to develop a more effectivepunctuality regime. The changes required VOSA to move away from an enforcement role which focused solelyon proving an operator was at fault into one that focused on facilitating improvement, promoting preventionand taking a more proactive approach to punctuality issues. The shift in approach also reflected new powers ofTraffic 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 buscompliance monitors, into the mainstream activities of around 65 enforcement examiners, who for part of theirtime 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 complaintsas well as providing an educational and advisory role.

— Aimed at promoting, and facilitating, partnership working between operators and localauthorities.

— Allowing partnerships to resolve issues between themselves where possible, but following upto ensure that this is happening.

— Continuing to take an enforcement role and referring the more serious cases to the TrafficCommissioner, particularly where other avenues for improvement have failed.



— Carrying out monitoring exercises where required, for example where evidence is required tosupport a public inquiry.

— Checking (and investigating where necessary) operator processes and records for making claimsfor Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG).

— Taking a wider view of a bus operation beyond punctuality, eg drivers’ hours systems, checkingthat 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 500bus 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 hascontributed 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 commercialvehicles—goods and passenger carrying—both GB operated vehicles, and non-GB vehicles operated on GBroads. The primary driver for this enforcement is the support of the regulation of Operator’s Licensing acrossEurope—with the focus for enforcement of GB operators in support of Traffic Commissioners in dischargingtheir regulatory duties.

The particular rules that VOSA enforce largely focus on road safety—but do also cover other objectives onprotecting the environment, ensuring fair competition, protecting employees, protecting government revenueand, 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 AccessibilityRegulations, 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 limitedfunding—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 riskoperators. The delivery of the strategy consists of the following five key elements—targeting the worstoffenders 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 tooffending, but ensuring that best efforts are made to target the non-compliant;

This predominately involves stopping the vehicle to check roadworthiness, drivers’ hours and licensingaspects.



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 someinfringements 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 tominimise disruption to the compliant.

Checks are conducted across GB to provide national deterrence, with a large proportion of checks beingconducted on routes where there are high volumes of traffic (and hence high numbers of non-compliantvehicles).

Action is taken to ensure that non-compliance is dealt with and any significant road safety is mitigatedbefore a vehicle or driver continues their journey.

Where possible, checks are made highly visible, and the results of them publicised to maximise theirdeterrence value.

Targeted Follow-up Investigations

For GB operators, information from in-use checks (in GB or abroad), complaints, intelligence, TrafficCommissioners 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 havebeen detected, are to determine the effectiveness of an operator’s systems for managing compliance of thevarious areas that VOSA enforces.

The results of the follow-up work results in one or more of the following actions: no further action; adviceprovision, referral for further investigation, application of a sanction and/or provision of information to theRegulator (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—toensure 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 thosewithout a satisfactory GB address. Repeat and serious offenders are reported to Traffic Commissioners suchthat they can consider any driver conduct aspects.

For operators the current range of interventions available to VOSA is quite limited. For minor infringementsthese are dealt with by providing education and advice. Where failings in an operator’s systems are found theseare reported to Traffic Commissioners to enable regulatory action. VOSA will take prosecution action wherethere 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 cantake to deal with operators that have failings that will complement the Traffic Commissioner regime and betterand efficiently achieve improvements in performance—and this could include the issuing of conditional offersto operators for minor offences (effectively a fixed penalty) and/or ensuring there is an appropriately high costto non-compliance.

Reporting for Potential Regulatory Action

The results of all that VOSA does in relation to drivers, operators and transport managers are collated andpresented to regulators.

For GB based entities this is to the Traffic Commissioner—enabling them to make decisions on whatregulatory 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 plainEnglish. 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 on-line—and covers key areas such as Drivers’ Hours and Roadworthiness. In recent years VOSA have produceda number of tailored “guides” for specialist industry sectors that have suffered from particularly poorcompliance rates—including Horseboxes, Limousines and (currently under preparation) Recovery Vehicles.



In its day to day enforcement activities VOSA examiners provide advice on potential areas for non-compliance 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 vehiclesat roadside. The system was originally built to cover GB Operators only, but in recent years hasbeen expanded to cover non-GB Operators—the data for that being built up from our checks on thevehicles. Whilst these systems have been recently enhanced we believe that there is still scope forfurther improvement to be made—this being important in ensuring that our roadside check effortsare 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 scoringmechanism—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 changeshave recently been made to how we record the outcomes of operator investigations to enable theseto be included in the OCRS in the future. Other future changes may include the addition of someoffence types not currently included in OCRS, the results of larger volume analysis of operator’stachograph charts and the inclusion of the results of operator assessments conducted fromorganisations outside of VOSA.

GB Operator Prioritisation—VOSA currently have a wide range of views of an operator’sperformance that can be used to help operational managers determine where best to direct theirefforts towards in terms of further investigating an operator’s compliance management systems—with a view to providing information for Traffic Commissioners to determine any necessaryregulatory action. It is important that VOSA directs its efforts towards the “right” operators—thosethat 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 TrafficCommissioners—to ensure that Traffic Commissioners are presented with information on theseoperators, rather than those that perhaps have less serious failings. To that end, VOSA is improvingthe way that information is collated and presented internally to ensure that there is a systematic andclear process for prioritising these “follow-up” activities. This will ensure that VOSA doesinvestigate the “worst” operators and that Traffic Commissioners have the results of suchinvestigations.

Road-check Sites—The majority of VOSA’s road checks are conducted at government owned sitesaround the country. Whilst in the longer term there are aspirations that an increased proportion ofour checks may be able to be conducted at non-government owned sites (for example at motorwayservice areas) it is recognised that for higher volume check-sites these are unlikely to be able to beprovided by such means—and therefore it is assumed that VOSA will need to retain a reasonablysubstantial network of its own sites. At the same time it is noted that the current network of sitesdoes not fully match current and projected heavy vehicle traffic flows—and that some adjustmentsare required to the network to ensure that. Therefore VOSA have in place plans to add four newsites to the network—which are strategically placed and have modern facilities suitable forconducting high quality, high volume vehicle checks. Those sites are planned to be cover thefollowing routes (which are all gaps in our current network or ones where our current facilities areinadequate): A75 from Stranraer ports (Glenluce), M3/A34 (Chilcomb), A14 from Felixstowe andHarwich ports (Elmswell) and M20 from Dover and the Channel Tunnel (Ashford). It is intendedthat all four of these sites will be commissioned in 2013. In parallel to delivering these new sitesVOSA are reviewing the legacy network of check-sites with a view to ensuring that it is focusedaround areas of significant high risk heavy vehicle traffic flow—and this is resulting in somerationalisation of these facilities.

Compliance from the Record & “Back Office” Analysis—VOSA recognised that its roadside checkscan only ever deal with a relatively low proportion of heavy vehicle journeys and whilst it is workingto ensure that it maximises road-check numbers and the targeting of those, it is also working in anumber 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 therecord” 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 andto make compliance interventions from that data. It is still early days in this project and there are anumber of technical difficulties that still need resolving, but we believe we can have a productionservice available shortly. In addition we expect to set up similar services to deal with vehiclestravelling above their set speed and for other areas that can be detected remotely. In parallel to thework to enable us to deal with offences remotely we are also conducting work to establish a functionto process bulk data in a “back-office” environment to support our front-line activities. In particularit is intended to use this for tachograph analysis (primarily of digital records) which will betterinform our view of operators to help us direct any further enforcement activities—as well as havingpositive benefits in meeting EU obligations for numbers of tachograph charts checked.



Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras—VOSA uses ANPR cameras in a numberof applications to help it target at-risk vehicles. One of the main applications is a network of fixedcameras that support its key strategic sites. These cameras currently operate as stand-alone pieces ofequipment, and this does not make them as easy to operate as could be possible—and VOSAtherefore have plans to link these to its network. This will ensure that they have access to the mostup-to-date databases, and will also make collection of data to use for enforcement from the recordor other back-office analysis purposes much more straightforward. It is also a key enabler to thechecking 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 systemsand those of its EU counterparts. This is to enable information that VOSA has on infringements onforeign vehicles to be notified to the home authority and vice versa—and will build on the workalready conducted on establishing the national registers across the EU. This interconnection willbetter facilitate other member states taking action where their operators do not meet therequirements—and should also better enable VOSA to understand which member states are betterenacting 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 (%)No of additional vehicles

Vehicle Type GVTS ATF/DP meeting test requirements

Heavy goods (motor) vehicle 85.3 87.3 2,693Heavy goods vehicle (trailer) 84.9 88.9 4,042Public Service Vehicle 85.3 93.5 3,444

June 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited07/2013 030600 19585

PEFC/16-33-622

The work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)

Documents

Transcript of The work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)