Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 13 July 2004
[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]
Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2004
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2004.
May I say, Mr. Amess, what an unexpected pleasure it is to sit under your chairmanship? I have not had the pleasure before, but I hope that it will be repeated many times.
International conventions provide for the free movement of traffic between those countries that are party to them. In the United Kingdom, the Motor Vehicle (International Circulation) Order 1975 prescribes in detail the documents, fees, minimum ages and enforcement arrangements and so on that apply to those of our residents who wish to drive abroad, and to visitors from abroad who wish to drive here.
Today's order is necessary to cover the costs of issuing the documentation needed to remedy anomalies that have come to light in relation to vehicle types driven by visitors, and to bring vocational licences issued in Guernsey into line with those issued in Jersey and the Isle of Man by allowing people to drive large British registered vehicles during visits here.
International driving permits—IDPs—and international certificates for motor vehicles—ICMVs—may be issued to drivers who are visiting a country outside the European economic area—the EEA. IDPs translate the details of driving licences into several languages, enabling foreign authorities to interpret the entitlements held, the validity period, and the age and identity of the holder. ICMVs translate details of British registered vehicles being taken temporarily to another country.
The issue of IDPs is a statutory function deriving from international obligations, namely the Paris convention of 1926 and the Geneva convention of 1949. That function is currently delegated by the Secretary of State for Transport to the motoring organisations in Great Britain—namely, the Automobile Association, Royal Automobile Club Motoring Services and Green Flag. Those motoring organisations have applied to raise the fee for IDPs and ICMVs from £4 to £4.50, to cover the increased administrative costs of issuing the documents.
The anomaly that requires remedy relates to the types of vehicle that non-EEA licence holders may drive during visits to Great Britain. Non-EEA licence holders who visit Great Britain may drive for 12 months from the date when they last entered the United Kingdom, on the strength of a valid national
Column Number: 4
driving licence issued in the country where they normally reside. Such licence holders may drive small vehicles such as cars and motor cycles, medium-sized goods vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes, and minibuses with up to 16 passenger seats provided that they are not driven for hire or reward. Conversely, non-EEA licence holders who are resident in Great Britain are restricted to driving only small vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes and with up to eight passenger seats, such as motor cycles, cars and small vans, during their first 12 months of residence.
I propose that the anomaly be corrected, thereby restricting non-EEA licence holders who visit Great Britain to driving small vehicles. They will still be allowed to drive larger vehicles that have been registered outside Great Britain that they have driven into the country. That provision is already granted to drivers of large vehicles during visits.
Visitors with Guernsey driving licences may drive large vehicles during visits only if they brought the vehicle into Great Britain; unlike their counterparts from Jersey and the Isle of Man, they cannot drive British registered large goods vehicles—LGVs—or passenger carrying vehicles—PCVs. An assessment undertaken by officials in 2001 considered the testing standards in place in Guernsey for those drivers and found them to be comparable to those in the UK. As a result, I propose that Guernsey LGV licence holders be allowed to drive British registered large vehicles during their visits to Great Britain, thus giving them the status as holders of such licences from Jersey of the Isle of Man.
2.35 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. The fact that you were asked to chair this important Committee is a reflection of your rising status on the Chairmen's Panel.
The Minister has helpfully pointed out that the order has three sections. First, there is the issue relating to fees for permits. I am surprised that the Minister did not explain a little more the Government's justification for allowing this very large increase. I realise that it is said that the administrative costs of the motoring organisations are such that they need to have a 37.5 per cent. increase. The last increase was in 1996; since then, the fees will have increased from £3 to £5.50. That is a small sum but it represents a significant percentage increase. I would have thought that, at a time of low inflation, the Government would have been rather more concerned about significantly above inflation increases in cost.
The explanatory memorandum makes the point that no less than £1.91 of the new fee of £5.50 will be ''profit''. I have worked out that if the profit were limited to 28 per cent., the fee would have to increase to only £5. Why does the Minister think that it is justified for the profit on these transactions to be as high as 35 per cent?
There is hot competition among the motoring organisations, as there is among garages that provide the MOT test. Those garages can discount the price of
Column Number: 5
the test as part of the role of competition. Can individual motoring organisations discount this fee below the £5.50 that has been set, or is it a mandatory fixed fee? It would be better if it were a flexible fee, and if that were the maximum sum that could be charged. It would also be interesting if we were given some information about the volume of international driving permits and international certificates for motor vehicles that are issued each year.
I turn to another part of the provision. The holders of non-UK licences resident outside the European economic area will no longer be able to drive medium-sized goods vehicles on British roads, unless they have brought the vehicle into the country from their own country temporarily. That seems to be justified on road safety grounds. Hence, the comparison between what is being done with these vehicles and those that come from Guernsey, where it is said that the testing standards are higher.
However, the figures do not provide any evidence that vehicles driven into our country from places such as Slovenia and Turkey, which are outside the European economic area, are in any worse condition or driven any less well than vehicles from countries within that area. Statistics are produced on prohibitions for vehicles from different countries. The latest ones that I have are for 2002-03, and I want to offer some examples from them. There is prejudice against Turkish lorry drivers. I am sure that you do not share it, Mr. Amess, but I have to admit to having a certain prejudice because not long ago a Turkish lorry driver was in a collision with a car that I owned on the north side of Waterloo bridge. The driver failed to stop and was never traced, and quite a lot of damage was done to the car—we realised that it was a Turkish lorry nevertheless.
As far as Turkish lorries are concerned in this country, the number that have been offending against the operator licence rules, the drivers' hours and the road worthiness tests was only 32 in the year to which I have referred. Vehicles from Slovenia—another country outside the European economic area—offended only on 16 occasions. The country with the worst offenders was southern Ireland, where 182 heavy goods vehicles were involved in operator licence offences; 354 heavy goods vehicles were involved in drivers' hours offences; 107 had road worthiness problems; and 153 had trailers that were unroadworthy. The next highest figures, which I will not read out, involved drivers from Holland.
If the measure is to be justified on road safety grounds, there is no reason to single out and discriminate against vehicles that come into our country from outside the European economic area as opposed to those that come from countries within the EEA. I hope that the Minister can explain that anomaly, particularly as he has justified a change in relation to Guernsey, which we welcome, on the basis that testing standards are now higher there. In light of the figures that I have given, is the Minister satisfied that testing standards are high enough in southern Ireland, the Netherlands and other countries such as Germany?
Column Number: 6
10.42 pm
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess.
I happened to notice that the other place debated this order yesterday evening. I therefore took the trouble to read the Hansard report, and may I compliment the Minister on the fact that his comments are remarkably close to those made by his colleague in the other place? Only one sentence is missing, and that does not seem to be of much substance. I am sorry that I cannot say the same for the Conservative spokesman. Hard as I tried, I could not find a contribution from the Conservatives; they let this one pass. My noble Friend Lord Bradshaw made a few observations, however.
On balance, this is a perfectly sensible order. I note that the last fee increase was in 1996, when it went up from £3 to £4, which was a slightly larger percentage increase than that which was introduced by the previous Administration. An increase from £4 to £4.50 is straightforward.
On profit, £1.91 does appear to be large, but I am sure that if one examines the detail, one will find several variable costs that will change. I suspect that £1.91 for what appears to be an extremely good service represents good value—in fact, such good value that if other documents produced by Departments could be produced at that price, we would be very happy.
As for the non-EEA licence holders, it is perfectly right that that anomaly should be corrected. However, I have concerns about the heavy goods vehicles and passenger vehicles that may be driven by non-EEA people. Part of the problem depends on the volume, and I am sure that the Minister will say that the answer in respect of Ireland is that there is a percentage of Irish vehicles against a percentage of Slovenian or Turkish vehicles—those percentages may be higher or lower. However, as my noble Friend said, there is the possibility of a vehicle coming from somewhere like outer Mongolia to the United Kingdom, and, without wishing to be disparaging about outer Mongolia, such countries may not share our standards. I am a little uneasy about that, but it is not a point that need detain this Committee. As for Guernsey, I know that its standards are rigorously applied, so that is a straightforward addition.
2.45 pm
| 
