HL Deb 24 March 2004 vol 659 cc786-94

8.50 p.m.

Lord Bradshaw rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 27 February, be annulled (S.I. 2004/462).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister several questions about the regulations. This seems an obscure piece of legislation, but it has significant consequences for road haulage and road safety in this country. The Minister may be able to put my mind at rest, because there is little in the regulations to describe their effect.

Why are the regulations necessary at all? Must we have them, or are they the result of representations received by the Government? I am not advising the Minister to take trips to various far-flung areas of Georgia, Croatia, Macedonia or Moldova, but what do the Government know about the licensing regimes for vehicles in those countries and for drivers who are based in those countries?

What records are kept of accidents and known breaches of regulations of drivers and the vehicles registered other than in the UK? I understand that no records are kept by the police because there is no space on the forms that they use at the sites of accidents or checks to record whether a foreign vehicle is involved or one based in the UK. It is important to know about the behaviour of vehicles registered abroad.

I appreciate that vehicles from most of these countries have not yet arrived here, but plenty of vehicles from Italy, Spain, Portugal and other places are here. When penalties are imposed on such vehicles, are they paid here or to the government of the country where the vehicle is registered? What evidence do we have that any penalties or notices of prosecution given here actually result in justice being administered here or abroad? Does giving people penalties have any effect whatever?

I have looked at the history of the enforcement efforts of Thames Valley police. I know that the police obviously target the most suspicious vehicles—they do not stop vehicles from Sainsbury's because they know that the transport manager would get the sack if anything were wrong. However, I was surprised to learn that, of the vehicles stopped, 34 per cent, 52 per cent, 37 per cent and 55 per cent were found to have defects or to have committed an offence.

It occurs to me that I should be asking whether the Minister is satisfied that sufficient resources are being targeted at the problem. Only five checks are planned this year in the whole of the Thames Valley area—and we cover a lot of motorways, including the M4, the M1, the M40 and the A34, which are significant roads carrying a large proportion of the country's traffic. The checks reveal quite a lot of criminal intelligence as well as offences relating to the vehicles or drivers themselves. Should we be making more checks? I believe that it is the case that the industry itself has said that it would pay for more checks through operator licences—provided that the Government undertook to devote the money raised by such an increase on actual checks. Those vehicles operating at the fringes of the law undercut the whole business and drive down the prices in the business.

Knowing the Minister's background, I wonder to what extent he believes that the low wages in the countries on the fringe of eastern Europe, where wage rates are very low, and possibly the low standards of vehicles of those foreign-based operators—the maintenance of vehicles, the operation of tachographs, the use of untaxed fuel and so on—undermine our own laws relating to wages, vehicle suitability and so on.

Is there any evidence that vehicles such as heavy lorries driven from the left-hand side are involved in more or fewer accidents than those driven from the right? I am not sure that that is recorded, but it appears to be a subject that should be recorded, because it is a matter of concern.

Lastly, I understand that it is a fact that in the accession countries—although I accept that some of the countries mentioned in the regulations are not accession countries the average fatality risk that is attributed to heavy lorries is three times greater than the EU average and five times greater than that in the UK. One's chances of being killed by a lorry from one of those countries appears to me to be very substantial. Are the Government right in exposing UK citizens and road users to those risks, when I am sure such things would be unimaginable in aviation or the railway industry? I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 27 February, be annulled (S.I. 2004/462).—(Lord Bradshaw.)

8.56 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I see why the regulations might be necessary to apply to accession countries—the 10 that will be joining the European Union on 1 May. The figures that the noble Lord gave for road accidents applicable to those countries, saying that there is a five times greater risk of an accident than in the UK, are very serious. I suspect that if one extended that comparison to Macedonia, Georgia, Croatia and Moldova, which are the four countries listed in the regulations that are not among the accession countries, one would find that the accident rate was even greater there. That is pretty serious.

I cannot understand why we have to have these agreements with those four countries, which are not joining the European Union in the next month. Have all the other member states of the European Union brought forward similar regulations with respect to drivers from Macedonia, Georgia, Croatia and Moldova? If not, why have they not? Is it the usual business that we are complying with perceived European regulations and nobody else is?

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about the industry offering to pay for more checks to ensure safer lorries here. It is a serious problem, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can put our minds at rest, particularly with regard to the countries that are not accession countries. Frankly. one could easily extend that list to the rest of the world. No doubt they all have equally efficient DVLAs as we have in Swansea. Where do we stop?

There is also the question of driver rates. It is unfair on UK drivers when people coming from these countries not only come here with loads but then probably play cabotage for quite a long time, whether they are allowed to or not. I know that this was a big problem in Germany a couple of years ago when a company called Willi Betz apparently more or less decimated the German truckers market. There are some serious questions to be answered and I look forward to my noble friend's response.

9 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing his Prayer this evening. I declare an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. I was a little surprised by the slightly xenophobic attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, because these countries may have their own reservations about our lorry drivers driving over there.

My first observation is about the complexity of the order. Why are there different rules for different countries? Why do we not have one standard rule for countries with which we want to have an international transport agreement? The Explanatory Notes are not very illuminating or helpful in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned the effect of competition. It is important not to underestimate the effect of one or two very low cost operators on the market rate for international transport. The noble Lord also mentioned the difficulties of driving a left-hand drive vehicle in the UK. I think that we need to be careful here because we are the odd man out in Europe as we are driving our right-hand drive vehicles on the Continent, although it has to be said that many of our international operators buy left-hand drive vehicles for international operations. But I think that we need to be careful about that criticism.

I am proud of my small part in introducing impounding for illegally operated good vehicles. It was targeted at UK-based cowboy operators and a particular concern was tipper vehicles. At one point after we introduced this legislation I became concerned about cowboy operators using vehicles with Irish registrations. The problem was that UK authorities might be unable to determine whether a vehicle stopped at a multi-agency check was covered by an Irish operator's licence. I am not now aware of problems with Irish vehicles and hope that, due to the effective action of VOSA, the problem has disappeared. But I want to know how the UK authorities—VOSA—will be able to determine whether one of the vehicles covered by the order is covered by an operator's licence from, say, the Moldovan authorities.

I expect that local EU authorities—France, Germany and Belgium have close co-operation on "O" licence data with our authorities. But if, say, a Moldovan vehicle is stopped at one o'clock in the morning Moldovan time, will VOSA be able to find out from a database whether that vehicle has an operator's licence? If it does not have an operator's licence then that vehicle can be impounded. If we need to have access to a foreign "O" licence database, we will have to offer the same facilities to them, and online. That would involve the TAN21 database—it may have changed its name, but I think that we know what we are talking about. I do not see any arrangements in the order for sharing data on whether operators have a licence. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, expressed concerns about accidents and vehicle defects. Those points were well raised and they are an anxiety for me.

I am a Tory Euro-sceptic but I am not a Euro-phobe or a xenophobe. However, I hope that the Minister has more confidence in the Georgian vehicle operator licensing system than he does in their election system.

Lord Roper

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but it is none the less a matter of some importance. Having listened to the interventions of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I have one or two questions.

It seems to me that the Czech Republic and Slovakia—which are of course accession countries that are coming in on a straightforward basis—fall into one group. Having visited Moldova, which is an interesting but not totally developed country, and having heard a little about some Georgian practices, I have to ask why it is that the UK develops its own policies towards these countries. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I am not a Euro-sceptic, but it seems to me that this is the sort of area where the European Union ought to be developing a common policy so that we approach them together. I am glad to see that on this issue I have persuaded the Euro-sceptic, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to see the value of the European Union. This is an issue on which a common policy seems to have some value. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity provided by this short debate to consider the safety of lorries on British roads and other related issues. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was a little savage on the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I think that "xenophobic" is putting things a little strongly. "Illiberal", perhaps; or "a lack of understanding of the mutuality of benefit from these regulations and arrangements" may have been an appropriate charge.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I did qualify my comments with liberal use of the word "slightly".

Lord Davies of Oldham

I must have missed that, my Lords; it sounds a little like an afterthought. However, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is suitably chastened, even in such a mild form.

The first and most important question is why we need these regulations and why they are framed as they are. The regulations cover three states that will be joining the European Union and four which are currently not client states. However, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He makes a most welcome contribution to our deliberations and speaks from a position of great authority on the European Community. The simple fact is that the European Community has not made sufficiently rapid progress in standardisation of these issues. It has plans to do so. The noble Lord was right, of course, that a desirable benefit of the European Community would be standardisation of policy right across all member states. If that were the case, tonight we would be discussing the issue with regard only to the four states that are not applicant members. However, we are not presently in that position. Individual states sign these bilateral agreements and the United Kingdom follows that pattern.

We sign bilateral agreements because, believe it or not, British lorries go abroad to these countries. There are conspicuous advantages in having agreements that aid our operators going to those countries, just as there are in aiding and regulating operators who come to this country. So the basis is one of mutuality. Why are the regulations being considered now? We are doing so now only because they represent consolidation and make British law compliant with treaties signed over a number of years. The effects of the treaties come into force in each signatory country when the treaty is signed. We are in a sense with this measure consolidating practice that Britain already applies, as does Moldova and other states. However, we need the regulations to ensure that United Kingdom law is compliant with treaties that have been signed. We need to ensure that agreements are fully enforced. That is the central question. It also explains why the measures do not contain an immense amount of detail. The detail is contained in the relevant treaties. The regulations merely give effect to the treaties.

Noble Lords are fully entitled to ask questions about the implications of the treaties that are now consolidated into law, assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, does not propose to annul the regulations. I give way to the noble Earl.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, the Minister is being extremely helpful and I am grateful to him for giving way. However, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, signed an agreement with the Slovak Republic on 11 January 2001. Why has it taken several years to come up with the order?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, the noble Earl may have noticed that the order does not concern just Slovakia; it concerns seven countries. It takes time for all of the issues to be brought together. The noble Earl will recognise that for general convenience we have brought together all seven countries into a single order. It would not be an appropriate use of parliamentary time to lay in the form of an order before the House every treaty that was signed on a bilateral basis. Many bilateral measures exist that go way beyond the realms of those concerned with goods vehicles. I believe that we have quite enough secondary legislation without seeking to multiply it several times. If the noble Earl had his way, every time such a treaty was agreed, we would produce further legislation. I should point out that we gain benefits from the treaty as soon as it is signed.

A number of other questions were raised. As regards whether I would be enthusiastic about visiting some of the countries that we are discussing, I had the enormous pleasure of visiting Slovenia immediately after the army of the former Yugoslavia had withdrawn and in so doing destroyed practically everything in its tracks. I considered the country staggeringly beautiful and a wonderful tourist location then. I have no doubt at all that in the intervening years it will have improved beyond bounds. If noble Lords opposite are eager for me to go there and are prepared to produce the necessary funds to enable me to do so, I assure them that I would go with the greatest enthusiasm. I would address myself to the lorry issue once I was there and even report back. However, whether I would report back from this Dispatch Box in those circumstances is a different matter. The issue of why some of these countries are not in the European Community is merely a question of the signatories of the relevant treaties; they all raise the same issues.

A question was raised that referred to supposition rather than the use of statistics. I think the noble Lord who raised the matter would say that he did not have statistics because we are not particularly prone to publish such extensive statistics. I emphasise that on the whole, so far as law enforcement in this country is concerned, overseas lorries pose a very limited problem. The noble Lord will know, with his vast experience, what difficulties we have had on compliance issues for lorries as a whole. We know that the situation has improved significantly, and the House will be aware of the measures that the Government have brought in in recent years to enhance enforcement.

I hasten to emphasise that if European lorries, from whichever country, fall foul of the law, they pay their punishment here. We are the beneficiaries of fines paid, just as the noble Lord would expect that a British lorry driver guilty of breaking the law in Moldova would pay the price of the law there. I seem to recall that when lorry drivers have been caught in very unfortunate circumstances indeed in other countries, we have been all too well aware of the fact that they have been in prison there, no doubt entirely rightly in most cases. Noble Lords will recall one or two cases when lorry drivers who were innocent had been in prison for a considerable period abroad, and we were under great pressure as a government to do our very best to see that justice was done. In one or two cases, we had to intervene very effectively.

The question of the database was raised. Of course we hope, through modern technology, to be able to exchange levels of information. It will be recognised that we ourselves need to improve the quality of our information on accident statistics and so on. Noble Lords have an entirely valid point when it is stressed that it would be helpful if we were able to exchange information. Whether we would be doing that at one o'clock at night Moldovan time, I am not clear. However, I am not so sure that Moldovan time is that far out from British time; if it is inconvenient for the Moldovans at one o'clock in the morning, it might be pretty inconvenient for the British at eleven o'clock or whatever time in the evening here. Normal hours operating, I concur with the general proposition that we ought to take advantage of the opportunities to exchange information.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords about the issues. I am not in any way suggesting that safety is not of very great importance. Concern over the use of mobile phones while driving was partly triggered off by the absolutely horrendous example of a German lorry driver causing the deaths of several of our citizens. He caused a horrendous accident while on the telephone back to base in Germany. The case attracted a huge amount of attention, and there are many other reasons, in terms of our own safety, why that issue has changed the law of the land.

We benefit from having mutuality of legal provision between countries. I understand when it is said that some of the lorries come from countries that have nothing like the per capita income that this country has. It is a fool, however, who puts an ill equipped lorry on to the roads for a journey of 50 miles in the UK. It is some really stupid operator who intends to send the same lorry 2,000 miles across Europe to come to the United Kingdom. Therefore, if one sends lorries over such distances, the tendency with international haulage is for the lorries to be rather better looked after, equipped and maintained than lorries that do the daily round over shorter distances, where risks might be taken and sometimes are, but ought not to be.

We cannot see the issue of foreign lorries, in terms of safety in the United Kingdom, as outstandingly difficult. In so far as it is difficult and needs to be controlled, the fact that we have reciprocal treaties—I hope that they will be consolidated in UK law if the Motion is withdrawn is of advantage to us all. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, having made his points, will withdraw his Motion.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, I thank the Minister, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, for his contribution, with which I go along to an extent. I still believe that we are probably extremely attentive to our duties in passing these matters into law. I imagine that that is not the case in many other countries. However, I still have reservations over the safety of lorries. Generally, I am not picking out foreign lorries, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested, because I am equally concerned about British lorries. But, I hope that the Minister will accept that I will occasionally bring to him evidence of lack of safety and non-compliance with the law. I hope that when I do that, it will be treated seriously and not brushed aside, because it will be solid evidence—not my wanderings in the night, as it were. It will be evidence that I have gathered from roadside checks, and so on. I believe that there is a serious mismatch between the safety record on the fringes of road haulage and other transport operators. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.