Appendix—Department for Transport
response
This paper sets out the Government's response to
the Transport Select Committee's report, The enforcement activities
of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), published
24 August 2009. The response has been compiled as a joint response
from both VOSA and the Department for Transport (DfT).
1. We recognise that the use of private sector
sites may be helpful in cutting costs and ensuring that operators
receive a flexible annual testing service. However, we believe
that any move towards complete privatisation of test sites would
disproportionately affect smaller operators who have fewer resources.
We further believe that certain areas of the country would be
less profitable and could consequently be under-served by the
private sector. Therefore, we recommend that VOSA be required
to retain a significant network of sites in order to maintain
adequate coverage for annual testing throughout the UK and to
safeguard VOSA's role as the independent enforcement agency. (Paragraph
12)
Response—The
driving theme of the Testing Transformation Programme (TTP) is
to take testing to the customer, with the objective, where possible,
of moving vehicle testing closer to the place where vehicle maintenance
is carried out. The programme is not property lead, so it is not
a leading objective to reduce the VOSA estate per se through closing
existing testing stations. However, it is expected that by increasing
the provision of third party owned sites authorised to host heavy
vehicle testing VOSA will be in a position to reduce the size
of the VOSA testing estate. But, VOSA testing stations would only
close when it was assured that there was sufficient alternative
testing capacity in the market. In so doing VOSA will be especially
mindful of the position of small operators. And, it is planned
that VOSA should retain at least some of the existing testing
estate over the next few years in order to ensure there is sufficient
testing capacity.
In certain locations it might become appropriate
to transfer existing VOSA testing stations to the private sector.
In such cases the business drivers would remain the same—i.e.
to bring testing and maintenance closer together. If testing stations
were transferred to the private sector, VOSA expect that this
would only be addressed on a site by site basis, under a lease
with restrictive covenants which, among other things, obliged
the lessee to continue to host testing on a basis where it will
be open to all. This should provide further assurance of availability
of testing facilities for all types of customers.
2. The Committee acknowledges that fees for annual
testing must reflect the costs of providing this service. However,
changes in fees must be fair and above-inflation increases must
be justified with real improvements in services. A move towards
private sector involvement should reduce costs and therefore we
will be looking for much greater flexibility in the numbers and
times of test slots available before any future fee increases
are proposed. (Paragraph 14)
Response—A
consequence of TTP is that VOSA should need to do much less station
modernisation than has been the case in recent years. It is the
cost of station modernisation that has been a major driver for
above inflation fee increases.
It is expected that if the TTP is successful (i.e.
that a significant proportion of tests shift to being carried
out at non VOSA sites), and that VOSA is able to dispose of a
significant number of its existing sites, that this would reduce
a significant cost pressure, and result in lower VOSA testing
fees than would be the case if VOSA retained an extensive GVTS
network, and had to continue the programme of site modernisations.
In addition, through TTP, VOSA is in negotiations
with the TUS to secure more flexible working arrangements with
its staff to support the provision of more flexible testing arrangements,
and increasing availability over a longer working day.
3. We welcome the use of targeting mechanisms
such as the Operators Compliance Risk Score in order to allocate
resources most effectively and to apprehend successfully those
most likely to be non-compliant. However, the OCRS mechanism is
just one aspect of enforcement and VOSA should not rely on this
score alone when targeting vehicles for inspection. (Paragraph
19)
Response—The
Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS) system has been a highly
beneficial tool in providing VOSA a method to focus on operators
offering the highest risk to road safety. However, VOSA also carry
out random inspections on operators with a better compliance record
to ensure that standards are maintained, and that the OCRS data
is up to date and meaningful. The OCRS database is not used in
isolation in terms of targeting mechanisms. The intelligence marker
system provides VOSA with information on specific activity of
both drivers and operators. Other technology such as Weigh in
Motion Sensors (WIMS), coupled with Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) systems, alert examiners to overloaded vehicles. VOSA have
also been trialling the use of speed guns to provide information
on speed limiter and fraudulent tachograph recording offending,
the results have been promising, and the practical introduction
of the devices is now being assessed. And indeed, one of the most
powerful enforcement aids is the use of visual indicators; a lack
of an operators licence disc in the windscreen of a vehicle, or
a generally unroadworthy looking vehicle, can be easily spotted
without the use of expert equipment.
4. The Operators Compliance Risk Score is a valuable
tool for enforcement purposes, but it should not be regarded as
a direct indicator of operator reliability or quality for unrelated
purposes. If OCRS scores are made available to third parties,
VOSA needs to be sure that it indicates the limits for how such
scores should be used, and how to interpret them appropriately.
(Paragraph 20)
Response—OCRS
has been operational in VOSA since 2005/06, and its purpose is
as an enforcement tool providing risk information. VOSA agrees
that the system should not be regarded as an indicator of overall
operator quality and compliance. It has never been presented as
any kind of league table and there are several pieces of communication
which explain the objective of OCRS and how it works; including
information on VOSA's website, articles in VOSA's 'Moving On'
magazine for operators, and presentations to trade associations.
However, it is accepted that on occasion the system has been misunderstood
and misrepresented by others as a rating system, and VOSA will
take the opportunity to remove any ambiguity and further emphasise
the purpose of the OCRS system in a new OCRS guide which is currently
in development.
In respect of the availability of Operators' risk
scores, these are only accessible on the website to the individual
operator whose score it is, and then only via a secure account.
VOSA does not provide information on OCRS to third parties and
has no intention of publishing the data. The next step is to further
enhance the OCRS system by including the newly introduced graduated
fixed penalties into the scoring mechanism, as this scheme both
reflects offences detected at the roadside, and the seriousness
of the offence detected —rather than a single score for
each offence.
5. The number of foreign-registered heavy goods
vehicles on Britain's roads, particularly from the newer EU Member
States is rising. They bring unacceptable levels of non-compliance
with basic road safety standards. We recognise that the Government
and VOSA cannot specifically target foreign operators, but it
is imperative that the Government works intensively to identify
ways to improve enforcement and compliance among foreign-registered
heavy goods vehicles. (Paragraph 25)
Response—New
legislation came into force earlier this year which has introduced
new sanctioning powers enabling VOSA to deal more effectively
with drivers of foreign registered vehicles. Graduated fixed penalties
are now issued for the majority of offences and drivers without
a satisfactory address within the UK are required to make an immediate
financial penalty deposit payments. These powers have provided
a more consistent, non discriminatory, approach to the sanctioning
of drivers. Powers to immobilise have also come into force this
year, enabling the attachment of an immobilisation device to vehicles
under prohibition. Prior to the introduction of these new powers,
in many cases these prohibited vehicles would have absconded in
an unroadworthy state, or with a tired driver at the wheel. Indeed,
there are already indicators that these new enforcement measures
are becoming an effective deterrent to foreign drivers, as VOSA
have started to see increases in compliance in foreign based traffic,
particularly in respect of drivers' hours rules.
The targeting information of foreign registered traffic
is being improved with the development of an Operator Compliance
Risk Score (OCRS) database which will operate very much in the
same way as the current system, but will provide information on
those non GB operators who are representing the highest risk to
road safety. VOSA have a Secretary of State Key Target to introduce
this non GB OCRS database by the end of 2009/10.
The Department continues to press the European Commission
and other Member States to include vehicle registration marks
in the national register for operators. This would greatly aid
targeted enforcements of non-UK vehicles on UK roads. A greater
understanding of the current activities of non-UK vehicles will
be available when the Department's Foreign Vehicle Survey is completed
later this year.
6. We are pleased to see the Government and VOSA
initiating schemes, such as the High Risk Traffic Initiative (HRTI),
which concentrate additional funding and staff resources on those
vehicles that pose the greatest risk to road safety, often foreign
registered vehicles. It can only be right that resources are concentrated
where they are most likely to save lives. This is a significant
step in the right direction, but we are concerned whether the
number of additional staff is adequate, and we urge the Government
and VOSA to take immediate action if it becomes clear that more
staff is required for such schemes. (Paragraph 26)
Response—The
Government investment of £24m over a 3 year period to introduce
a High Risk Traffic Initiative (HRTI) has meant the recruitment
of over 100 extra front line staff dedicated to roadside enforcement
work. These new staff are making a significant 24/7 presence felt
at ports, and on the road network, with a focus on high risk drivers
and operators on an international journey. The continuation of
the HRTI funding is being reviewed within the context of the Departments
comprehensive spending review.
7. We welcome the introduction of the Graduated
Fixed Penalty, Financial Penalty Deposit and Immobilisation Schemes.
We believe it will enhance VOSA's ability to punish and deter
non-compliance among non-UK operators. However, the fines are
small and we recommend that there should be increases so that
there is a real level of deterrence. The Government and VOSA must
continue to explore ways to strengthen VOSA's ability to enforce
vehicle and drivers' hours standards among foreign operators on
UK roads. (Paragraph 29)
Response—Fixed
penalty and financial penalty deposit levels were set so that
they were broadly compatible with existing fixed penalties for
similar offences. However, both these and other key aspects of
the scheme will be included in the post-implementation review
of the schemes scheduled for May 2010. A commitment was made both
in Parliament and in the Impact Assessment to review the schemes
one year after implementation.
A requirement exists under Enforcement Directive
2006 22/EC that all member states must check 2% of all days worked
by drivers. This will increase to 3% by 1 January 2010.
8. At European level, VOSA's enforcement work
is seen as a model of best practice. We congratulate VOSA on this
achievement. (Paragraph 32)
Response—The
comments of the Committee are appreciated. VOSA are involved on
many levels with European colleagues, and actively engage in enforcement
groups such Euro Controle Route, TISPOL and chair the digital
tachograph committee for CORTE.
VOSA has worked with the new member states of Hungary,
Slovakia and Romania to improving roadside inspection activity
and the quality of enforcement prior to entry into the EU. It
is hoped that in the longer term, this work will lead to a better
standard of vehicles from these countries entering into the UK.
9. We are pleased to learn that the UK is taking
the lead on work to improve enforcement and vehicle safety within
the European Union. We welcome the work that is being done by
officials from both VOSA and the Department for Transport with
the Transport Council and the European Commission to co-ordinate
work and develop a Europe-wide database of information regarding
the safety records of European operators. The implementation of
a Europe-wide database is vital work which is urgently needed
to help save lives across the continent. It is heartening that
the Government and industry representatives are working together
to educate colleagues elsewhere in Europe about the benefits of
our system and standards.(Paragraph 33)
Response—The Department
appreciates the Committee's recognition of the importance and
quality of this work. It will continue to work closely with industry
colleagues as the new arrangements are implemented.
10. We welcome the improvements to public service
vehicle (PSV) operator licensing, but there are clear loopholes,
which imperil the safety of passengers, that still need to be
closed regarding the use of PSV operator licences on multiple
vehicles. We recommend that appropriate legislation be introduced
as soon as possible to make provision for the specification of
vehicles on operator licences for public service vehicles. (Paragraph
38)
Response—VOSA
recognise that the specification of vehicles onto PSV Operator's
Licences would offer significant benefits to improving the enforcement
of the Operator Licensing system. This would enable the Operator
Compliance and Risk Score (which is used to target vehicles for
checking in roadside checks) to be much more robust for PSVs,
and would also more readily help VOSA determine if a PSV is being
used unlawfully without a licence (which will make the recently
available PSV Impounding sanction a more useful tool).
However, it is noted that a requirement for PSV operators
to notify all vehicle registration numbers, in all circumstances,
would bring with it a more substantial regulatory cost. It is
not clear that the benefits of this approach would be sufficient
to justify the regulatory costs involved
Particular issues arise where an operator needs to
use different vehicles, for example because a vehicle needs to
be hired in at short notice to cover for a breakdown. At the present
time it will not always be possible to notify VOSA immediately
in these circumstances—although it is expected that over
the next few years improvements in the on-line systems that VOSA
have are likely to make this possible. Anecdotal evidence from
parts of the industry suggests that delivering such improvements
would be a prerequisite for industry support for the proposal.
This issue is currently recognised in the goods vehicle
operator licensing system, where operators have a limited period
(the "margin concession") within which the new vehicle
details must be notified. An unscrupulous operator will therefore
always be able to claim that an "unnotified" vehicle
was being used under the margin concession and this would seriously
limit the benefits that could otherwise arise from specifying
vehicles on all PSV operators' licences.
There is an existing power for traffic commissioners—in
particular circumstances—to specify which vehicles may be
used under a PSV operator's licence. This power, under section
26(5) of the Transport Act 1985, provides an opportunity for the
traffic commissioners to require the operator to notify which
vehicles will be used under the licence. This power is available
where it appears to the traffic commissioner that vehicles are
not being maintained in a fit and serviceable condition, or where
an operator is making agreements with other operators in an attempt
to circumvent the licensing requirements. This power appears to
be seldom used by the traffic commissioners at present.
In the first instance, therefore, the Government would
encourage the traffic commissioners to make use of the existing
power in the Transport Act 1985, mentioned above, in specific
cases where they consider it appropriate to do so.
The effectiveness of this approach will be monitored,
and if it appears to be ineffective, more work will be done to
determine how specification may be able to be applied in the PSV
industry to minimise unlawful operation—ideally being focussed
on those sectors where problems of unlawful operation are most
significant.
11. If the new reliability and punctuality monitoring
system is to be effective, the role of VOSA and all other relevant
agencies must be clarified. However, we do not believe that VOSA
currently has the resources to adequately undertake this responsibility
on top of its existing remit. We recommend that the Government
transfer the responsibility for monitoring punctuality and service
reliability to local bodies such as Integrated Transport Authorities.
At the same time, the possible efficiencies that might be achieved
by a more high-tech approach to monitoring should be explored.
(Paragraph 41)
Response—Enforcement
of bus punctuality lies with the Traffic Commissioners. Bus operators
(outside London) must register all local services they intend
to operate with the relevant Traffic Commissioner giving the prescribed
particulars of those services (chiefly the route and timetable).
Whilst they may register and de-register any service they choose,
they are obliged to operate the service in accordance with the
particulars they have registered.
Traffic Commissioners can penalise operators who,
without reasonable excuse, fail to run services in accordance
with the registered particulars, either with a financial sanction[1]
and / or a restriction on their licence.[2]
The Local Transport Act 2008 enhanced the Traffic Commissioners'
powers, enabling them to hold local authorities to account for
their contribution to poor performance, and enabling them to require
an operator to invest in specific improvements or provide compensation
to passengers, rather than, or in addition to, imposing a penalty.
VOSA currently provide the Traffic Commissioners with support
in this role and the Department believes that VOSA remains the
most appropriate body to do this.
To ensure that reliable and punctual bus services
are provided, the Department believes it is vital for local authorities
and bus operators to work together. The Department is currently
working with key stakeholders to introduce a revised punctuality
performance regime based on partnership working to ensure that
problems are understood early and solutions applied.
This work is being taken forward by the Bus Punctuality
Working Group (BPWG), set up under the umbrella of the Bus Partnership
Forum, consisting of key industry, local authority, passenger,
and enforcement representatives. The BPWG is looking at a number
of issues surrounding data sharing and the monitoring of bus punctuality,
including whether data provided by local authorities could be
utilised, and the use of electronic data as part of the punctuality
monitoring process. The Department intends to issue guidance on
the importance of local authorities and operators working in partnership
to achieve punctual and reliable bus services, and setting out
their respective roles. The guidance is being prepared in conjunction
with the BPWG and should be issued early next year.
12. We welcome the improvement in relations between
VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners over the past two years. It
is essential that they work seamlessly together, and that communication
between them is effective. (Paragraph 42)
Response—Through
the changes that have taken place recently a better and more coherent
service is now being delivered to truck and bus operators across
the country. The establishment of a statutory Senior Traffic Commissioner
(STC) with new powers to issue guidance and direction to fellow
Traffic Commissioners will greatly help in this process
13. We continue to have concerns about the operation
of VOSA's performance management system which may distort priorities
so that crucial work in support of hearings by Traffic Commissioners
is neglected. The system needs to be audited, and if necessary,
adjusted to ensure that support for the enforcement work of Traffic
Commissioners is given due priority. (Paragraph 44)
Response—VOSA acknowledges
the concerns of the Committee and accepts that the performance
gain system has limitations. It is no longer a key target but
is one of a number of internal management indicators utilised,
along with input hours and various output measures. Performance
gain is kept under review.
VOSA takes the work done by examiners in support
of public inquiries very seriously, and has adjusted the management
system to recognise that the performance measure for preparation
of case work for the Traffic Commissioners is equal to that given
for roadside work.
14. We recommend that VOSA be granted right of
access to all port premises where road vehicles enter the UK.
This could, of course, be achieved through legislation, but a
quicker and more effective option could be to establish a Memorandum
of Understanding between VOSA and all UK port authorities. If
all UK ports where vehicles enter the UK are part of the agreement,
no port would be at a disadvantage compared to others. We recommend
that the Department for Transport and VOSA explore the options
with ports operators, but if no voluntary agreement is forthcoming,
Ministers should not shy away from legislative action. We also
recommend that the possibility of carrying out inspections at
ports outside the UK should be pursued where feasible and desirable.
(Paragraph 49)
Response—The Department,
VOSA and the UK Borders Agency are currently developing strategies
which may achieve a resolution to the issues around enforcement
on port premises. It is intended that these developing strategies
could achieve the objective of ensuring that enforcement and inspection
work can be effectively and proportionately carried out at all
port locations, without the need for any legislative change.
VOSA maintain a presence at Coquelles, the French
entry for Eurotunnel traffic, but have found that this is not
always an efficient location for inspecting vehicles. There is
insufficient space to prohibit vehicles in the inspection area,
and VOSA has no jurisdiction to detain the vehicles in France.
Therefore VOSA have to direct prohibited vehicles through the
tunnel to be met and escorted by VOSA examiners at Ashford. VOSA
are looking at both how resource could be used more efficiently,
and at alternative equivalent deterrent mechanisms. Beyond Coquelles,
work is being done to explore how VOSA can work in partnership
with other countries to improve and increase inspections of vehicles
at ports before vehicles enter the UK.
15. We welcome the progress which has been made
by VOSA in terms of collaboration and information sharing with
other agencies. These efforts must continue undiminished, with
a particular emphasis on collaboration with the police. Collaboration
facilitates optimal use of scarce resources. Also, information
and intelligence is a key component of an enforcement policy which
is based in significant measure on the targeting of the most likely
offenders. (Paragraph 51)
Response—VOSA is
grateful for the recognition the Committee has given in terms
of the joint working that is undertaken with other agencies.
VOSA place significant focus on the collaborative
efforts that can be utilised with the police and will continue
to explore further avenues of combined effort. For many years
joint large scale enforcement operations such as the 'Operation
Mermaid' and 'Operation Tourist' checks have been undertaken,
enabling collaborative working on both on a national and local
level. VOSA meets regularly with the police and other agencies
to share intelligence and information on high risk national targets.
More recently it has been developing policies and strategies with
the police for dealing with the illegal operation of limousines,
which will see the agencies working together to impound vehicles
found to be in contravention of regulations.
The police have always been supportive to VOSA examiners
where difficult confrontational circumstances have prevailed,
and this support has been particularly valuable following the
introduction of the graduated fixed penalties and deposits schemes
earlier this year.
VOSA are also involved with the police on a wider
European basis, sitting on the European traffic police working
group, TISPOL, which provides a forum for sharing information
on tachograph fraud.
16. In order to maximise efficiency and reduce
inconvenience to operators, VOSA examiners must have access to
accurate and up-to-date information. Therefore, the adoption of
an IT system which updates data instantly across the entire system
must be a priority. If necessary, more resources should be made
available to invest in better technology to achieve this. (Paragraph
52)
Response—VOSA accepts
it needs to improve the timeliness and accuracy of data to support
its enforcement activity. VOSA is committed to improving this
via the creation of an IT enabling enforcement strategy, the key
areas of focus within this are:
1. To ensure all intelligence sources are as up to
date as possible on the different technologies being used to stop
/ sift vehicles.
2. Enhance the current UK operator risk scoring system
to include international traffic.
3. Exploitation of real or near real time data to
improve detection of non compliance and the effectiveness of VOSA
resources.
4. Assessing opportunities to enrich VOSA data for
targeting, by sharing data with other Agencies (Police, HMRC,
UK Borders etc.) and EU member states.
Business cases will be produced to ensure that the
investment in these improvements delivers value for money.
The observation made by the Committee that it would
be advantageous to have information available to VOSA, so examiners
were aware of whether a vehicle had already been inspected elsewhere
by VOSA that day is accepted, although it is considered a low
probability and low road safety risk but will be explored as part
of VOSA future IT enablement strategy.
17. We believe that
aspects of current data protection legislation are a hindrance
to successful targeting of foreign-registered vehicles. While
it is very important to protect personal data from inappropriate
use, it is unacceptable that information which could greatly improve
road safety cannot be shared with the agency responsible for enforcing
vehicle safety standards. The Government should give priority
to legislative adjustments which would facilitate secure and effective
data sharing between key government agencies such as VOSA and
HMRC. In order to discharge its core functions effectively, VOSA
needs to have the same access to Ships' Manifests and other key
documents as is enjoyed by the HMRC. The efficiency of regulation
and enforcement in areas where the responsibilities of several
bodies' overlap could be greatly improved through better information
sharing arrangements. (Paragraph 55)
Response—It is agreed
that VOSA's enforcement effort would be improved by better access
to the data information of other Agencies, and VOSA and the Department
are exploring better ways of working with the Home Office, the
Police and UK Border Agency to increase effectiveness by sharing
data where possible. VOSA are alive to the privacy issues around
the increased use of personal data, and would seek to achieve
their enforcement objectives through minimal use of such data.
The Department are also exploring whether VOSA have the legal
powers to obtain information, such as Ships' Manifests, and indeed
whether UK Borders have the legal powers to disclose the information
to VOSA.
1 Transport Act 2000, section 155, as amended by section
64 of the Local Transport Act 2008. Back
2
Transport Act 1985, section 26, as amended by section 62 of the
Local Transport Act 2008. Back
| 
