|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate that the amendment has been drafted with the word "may" rather than the word "shall" so that the powers would be permissive, but I have to say that it is a good, sound rule of legislation that one does not take powers which one does not intend to use. So I shall explain why the Government do not believe that the proposed scheme would be a good use of resources.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley that it is important that hauliers should obey the law. We should look at the different reasons why they should obey the law. I suggest that there are three reasons: first, safety; secondly, the damage to roads and bridges; and, thirdly, the issue of unfair competition.
It is certainly true that vehicles which are run over their design weight have the potential for being more dangerous than vehicles which are run within their design weight. But the design weight is not the same as the legal limit. Many lorries have a design weight that is higher than their legal limit. It may well be that they are running over the legal limit without running over their design weight and are not therefore, in themselves, more dangerous than lorries which are running within their legal limit. Furthermore, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, many vehicles "bulk out" before they "gross out". In other words, if a lorry is carrying cornflakes it cannot be filled so that it is heavier than its legal weight. I understand that that applies to about two-thirds of the lorries on the roads.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to reputable operators. There is not a great deal of point in weighing lorries used by reputable operators. In a computer-controlled logistics system, the computer knows what each component of a load weighs and will not permit a lorry to be overloaded. Even with less sophisticated systems, there is physical weighing, which ensures that lorries are not over-weight. Safety is, and must be, the first issue but I suggest that there are limits on the safety risks of vehicles which are over their legal limit.
The issue of road and bridge damage is enormously important. In all the discussions that have taken place about the increase from 40 tonnes to 44 tonnes, we have had a great deal of debate on gross vehicle weight and axle weight. I shall not go over that issue. However, I do not want to underestimate the importance of that or of ensuring that those who obey the law are not discriminated against by the neglect of law enforcement. We have to strike a balance. Does the proposal provide an effective way of dealing with the fairly small proportion of dodgy operators carrying the heavier loads?
The scheme would affect many sites. I appreciate that the amendment refers to major facilities and suggests that only those with an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles, each exceeding 30,000 kilograms gvw, should be included. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has admitted and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has discovered, there is no way of telling how many would be affected.
Owners of such sites would have to have specific means of weighing installed. All lorries over the specified weight would have to be weighed and a record kept of that weighing. A lorry visiting several sites on a round trip, picking up or dropping off a load at each, would have to be weighed at each stop. Lorries with identical loads on each journey would have to be
As I have said, most of the vehicles that would be affected by the amendment belong to larger operators; namely, those who run 25,000 lorries of over 30 tonnes each in a year. Generally it is those operators who are the most reputable and who already have in place the best systems for ensuring that lorries are not overweight. The ones that are in danger of being overweight would have less chance of being caught by the amendment.
It is also difficult to tell how much such a scheme would cost. The capital cost of typical weighing equipment and associated structures is £20,000--although I have read what was said in Committee about mobile platforms. We can only guess at how many sites would be affected, but clearly the capital costs would be high. Furthermore, the costs of operation, congestion, pollution, delay and enforcement could also be significant.
I do not deny that overloading is a problem, but it is a problem more of road damage and unfair competition than of safety. Safety is and must remain the chief focus of our enforcement activity. That activity must be developed so that it becomes as effective as possible in improving safety. The Government, with the help and support of the industry, is developing an enforcement strategy based on targeting and concentrating on the most serious problems. I am afraid that this amendment, although it varies substantially from the one which was moved in Committee, is too untargeted to help us in that approach.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. Frankly, some of his comments have surprised me. My noble friend said that this is not a problem of safety. If a lorry is above its design weight, it stands to reason that it will be less safe than if it is below its design weight. Of course, I do not deny that many lorries are operated safely--and, indeed, many lorries are piled up with cornflakes. However, a great many other lorries operate above their design weight, whether their limit is 41 tonnes or 44 tonnes. That can damage roads and bridges.
My noble friend did not have anything to say about unfair competition and the fact that, while only a small proportion of the total fleet operates illegally, those who do undercut those who obey the law. Indeed, I suggest this may be in part one of the causes of the fuel crisis because a minority of the smaller operators do break the law and thus undercut other small operators. That may be why the industry is facing so many financial problems. I accept that there are reputable operators, but there are also those who are not reputable. I do not accept that the dodgy operators form only a small proportion of the total fleet. Perhaps
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in that case, I am not sure that my noble friend can assert that only a small proportion of operators are dodgy. Indeed, 5 per cent of a very big number of operators are caught. Evidence has shown that the vehicle inspectors, who are good at their job, can target those who are likely to be dodgy. I believe that that figure demonstrates that quite a high proportion operate against the law.
I understand that my noble friend does not wish to accept the amendment. I shall read carefully what he has said, but for the moment I shall withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage.
Clause 256 was inserted by another place as an amendment and is designed to stop companies from operating small PSVs--those with under nine seats--under the Public Service Vehicles Act 1981. The PSV licensing regime is different from the private hire vehicle licensing regime but no less rigorous. Can the Minister tell the House what is the thinking that lies behind the clause?
Is the Minister aware that some local authorities will approve a Ford Galaxy for private hire vehicle work, while others will not? Is there any risk of local authorities straying into making decisions that more properly should be made by officials from his department; namely, are they straying into the area of construction and use regulations? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am a little surprised by this amendment, although I understand that a certain degree of agitation has accompanied it. The amendment would delete Clause 256. If we were to accept it, it would leave behind a legal loophole and an anomaly in the law on private hire licensing, one which has caused considerable concern. Perhaps I should explain the background to the matter.
The arrangements for licensing small buses on the one hand and private hire vehicles on the other are different. Bus licensing is a matter for the traffic commissioners, while private hire licensing is a matter
Essentially, the clause ensures that if a small vehicle is used as a private hire vehicle it must be licensed as such. One small exception is provided to that principle. We recognise that there are cases where well-established conventional bus operators have a few small vehicles which may be used as buses to provide feeder services and so forth. But these vehicles may also be used for private hire work. For example, they may be hired out for outings at the weekend. It would have been wrong to put up a barrier to a bus operator offering that kind of service. That exception is therefore provided for in the clause. In general, we think that private hire vehicles should be licensed as such and not as buses.
The noble Earl stated that local authorities have different licensing policies. Indeed, some different decisions may be taken between different local authorities. However, they are based on broad requirements. Of course there is a right of appeal against a local authority decision under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That appeal can be made to the magistrates. Those who feel disgruntled by a decision reached by a local authority--say, because that decision is incompatible with one made by a neighbouring local authority--can take the matter to appeal.
I am aware of the concerns which have been expressed by the PSV Operators' Association. However, I am not convinced by the points made by the association. It points out that services run by small vehicles can meet a need which is not catered for either by bus operators or by the taxi trade. That may well be so, but the new clause does not prevent a small operator from performing that role. The clause merely provides that if a service of this kind is being operated, it is a private hire service and it must be licensed as such, with all the associated safety and other checks.
As I have said, I am not convinced by the case that has been put and I believe that our earlier amendment, which is now Clause 256, covers what would otherwise be a lacuna in the regulatory framework.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page