The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
DRAFT ROAD TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES (VIENNA CONVENTION – MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 201- (P.109/2018): COMMENTS
Presented to the States on 19th November 2018
by the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel
STATES GREFFE
2018 P.109 Com.
COMMENTS
Introduction
- On 26th September 2018, P.109/2018 – Draft Road Traffic and Vehicles (Vienna Convention – Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Regulations 201- was lodged in the States Assembly by the Minister for Infrastructure.
- Whilst it is clear to the Panel that an evidence-led analysis has, in part, informed the basis of the Proposition, crucial detail such as the fees, and who will deliver the testing, is still unknown at this stage.
- The Panel is aware that tight deadlines to meet Brexit have led to this position, however, without this information, it does make it difficult to sufficiently scrutinise what is being proposed. The Panel had less than 8 weeks to review the Proposition, which was not ideal and is the reason the Panel is submitting a Comments paper, instead of a full Scrutiny Report.
- The lack of crucial information, such as the fees and who will provide the testing, appeared to be a shared cause of frustration, as this was highlighted in a few of the submissions received by the Panel.
- Prior to the lodging of the Proposition and subsequently, the Panel met with the Minister and his Officers, and held a Public Hearing to discuss the proposals and to address some concerns. The Panel also raised questions via written correspondence to the Minister, of which the responses are appended to these Comments (see Appendix 1). The Panel also held a further Public Hearing with the Jersey Motor Trades Federation.
- Furthermore, and as part of the evidence-gathering process, the Panel issued a Call for Evidence' to the general public and issued requests for written submissions to 39 businesses within the motor industry.
- The Panel received a total of 20 submissions to the Review.
- Requests for written submissions were also issued to 3 international car hire companies, although a response was not received.
- In addition, the Panel raised questions via written correspondence to the UK Department for Transport (see Appendix 2).
Ratification of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic
- As part of the Panel's Terms of Reference for the Review, it wished to explore whether contracting to the United Nations Vienna Convention on Road Traffic is the best solution for Jersey in order to guarantee the free circulation of vehicles in Europe post-Brexit, or whether there were suitable alternative options.
- During the Public Hearing with the Jersey Motor Trades Federation, the Panel asked whether they thought Jersey should comply with international standards on road safety by contracting to the Vienna Convention. The response was as follows –
President, Jersey Motor Trades Federation:
Yes. I do not see any other way of letting us have free movement in Europe because what I have read, and what we have had presented to us, there is no other alternative. What a lot of garages and what a lot of people are saying is: why do we not just test the cars that leave the Island? That is the question I get day in, day out, whether they are motor traders or whether they are just people in the street. They do not realise that joining up to the Convention says the jurisdiction has to have testing. I think if that was communicated to them they then would understand [1]
- The Panel also received further submissions which commented as to why testing could not just apply only to vehicles which travelled to Europe, as opposed to all vehicles. When asked this in a written question, the Minister for Infrastructure explained why this would not be possible –
To conform and be able to contract the Convention, the applying jurisdiction must have the articles of Vienna in domestic legislation, have implemented mandatory testing and have an earnest intent to comply in inspecting all vehicles as "far as possible". Being bound as a signatory the UK is unable to work against the principles of the Convention. Thus, the UK must satisfy itself that this is the case before requesting the Convention's extension to any dependent territories.
"As far as possible" means what is possible now (and is regarded as such by the other signatories to the Convention), not when those words were first used in the Convention, and the reality is that the periodic inspection of cars and motorcycles that are on the roads every day is not a difficult proposition for modern countries (it is a requirement throughout the EU) and accords with commonly accepted internationally road safety standards.[2]
- The Panel wrote to the UK Department for Transport ("DfT"), in order to ascertain the UK's position on contracting to Vienna, as well as what it would mean for Jersey motorists if we do not contract to Vienna. The questions and responses have been appended to this Comments paper (see Appendix 2).
- Jersey currently relies on the Geneva Convention (1949) in order for motorists to be able to circulate across most of Europe. However, there are countries who do not recognise Geneva, as they have only ever contracted to Vienna, such as: Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Latvia and Lithuania. As further highlighted in the DfT's response, the UK's exit from the European Union would bring the guaranteed loss of licence and vehicle recognition in those countries. The UK, therefore, has taken the decision to ratify the Vienna Convention in order to be
able to issue Vienna compliant International Driving Permits ("IDPs") to motorists who wish to travel to these countries.3
- The Panel heard evidence explaining that countries which are already part of the European Union are already required under an agreement for the EU Common Transport Area to test vehicles to a much higher level than prescribed under Vienna, and therefore do not necessarily need to be a signatory to the Vienna Convention.4
- Furthermore, as the UK has been part of the EU Common Transport Area, holding a Jersey licence has become an accepted means of allowing Jersey motorists to drive throughout the EU. However, once the UK leaves the EU at the end of March 2019, it is anticipated that there will be further scrutiny on the differentiation between GB' and GBJ' vehicles, and whilst the GB vehicles will be Vienna-compliant, without signing up to Vienna, Jersey vehicles will not.5
- As further set out in P.109/2018, under Vienna there would also be the requirement for Jersey to have Vienna-compliant IDPs.6 If Jersey does not, it would also cause potential issues with Jersey motorists being able to hire a car in Europe post-Brexit, and therefore the issue does not simply apply to just those who take their own vehicle abroad.
- Furthermore, the DfT explained that if licence recognition is not achieved in Brexit negotiations, in countries that do not recognise the Geneva Convention, Jersey motorists could be seen as driving without a licence. This could mean fines, vehicle impounding and potentially invalidation of motor insurance.7
- Due to a lack of statistical data, it is unknown precisely how many Jersey motorists travel to the small number of European countries who do not recognise the Geneva Convention, and therefore it is not possible for the Panel to assess the scale of the impact this might have for Jersey motorists who might wish to hire and/or drive a vehicle in these countries.
Improving road safety
- Whilst it is evident that Brexit has been the catalyst for these proposals, aside from the benefits of Jersey motorists being able to circulate across all of Europe post-Brexit, the Panel heard of other potential benefits to the Island, mainly improvements to road safety and environmental benefits.
- As part of the Panel's public consultation, the majority of submissions which commented on whether vehicle testing would improve road safety, said they thought it would. Only a small minority of submissions commented that they did not think testing would improve road safety.8
3 Response to Written Questions, UK DfT, November 2018 (see Appendix 2)
4 Public Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure, October 2018, p.30
5 Response to Written Questions, Minister for Infrastructure, October 2018 (see Appendix 1) 6 P.109/2018, p. 10-11
7 Response to Written Questions, UK DfT, November 2018, (see Appendix 2)
8 Vehicle Road Worthiness Testing Scrutiny Review - Submissions
- In response to written questions from the Panel, the Minister for Infrastructure commented –
There is no single measure that will on its own improve Jersey's road safety issues, rather there is a range of measures that will each contribute to marginal improvements, but as a whole can significantly improve road safety. Road worthiness testing is one of these.[3]
- In order to understand fully what these other measures are, the Panel questioned the Minister further during the Public Hearing, and the following was noted –
Director, Transport, Growth, Housing and Environment:
Where we are in terms of road safety, you have to do all of these different things. You have to look at the engineering of the road, you have to look at enforcement, you have to look at education, and you have to look at the quality of the vehicles circulating; you cannot not do any one of them. There is not one single big win among them. The effects are cumulative by trying to address all of those points.[4]
- The Panel also heard evidence suggesting that whilst only 2% of road traffic accidents are caused by defective vehicles, the poor condition of the vehicle often makes the consequences of these accidents much worse than they would have been if the vehicle hadn't been defective.[5]
- The Panel accepts that roadworthiness testing in isolation is not likely to lead to significant improvements in road safety, but could nonetheless, play its own part in the wider effort to improve road safety.
Environmental benefits
- The Panel heard in a number of submissions[6] from the motor industry that vehicle testing would help reduce vehicle emissions, bringing additional benefits to the environment.
- The Panel also heard in the Public Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure that testing would help contribute to reducing emissions and improving air quality –
Group Director – Regulation, Growth Housing and Environment:
I think the answer is it will certainly help. If we have engines and cars running more efficiently, then it will help air quality in Jersey. The biggest issue we have, if we do have an issue of air quality, is around vehicle emissions. That is where most of our air quality problems are seen. We do not have many industrial premises that create point source pollution but it is mainly vehicle pollution. We see that in certain bits
of the road network and the diffusion tubes we have around town pick that up.13
- The Panel considers it plausible that as there is currently no vehicle emission testing in Jersey, the introduction of testing would, to some degree, contribute towards a reduction in vehicle emissions for the benefit of the environment and the Island's air quality.
The frequency and fees charged for testing
- Submissions to the Panel which commented on the frequency of testing were mixed; some felt that the proposed frequencies for cars and motorbikes were fair and proportionate to Jersey, but some members of the motor industry commented that testing should be more frequent in order to stay on top of vehicle faults.14
- P.109/2018 is not absolute on the fees to be charged for tests, although the Minister has provided an indication that fees are likely to be in the region of between £40–60.15 When asked for their opinion on whether this was a reasonable price range for tests, the responses from the motor industry indicated that this was a reasonable price range.16
- A further point which was raised in submissions was the cost of re-tests. In the Public Hearing, the Jersey Motor Trades Federation commented that free re- testing was generally the norm in the UK, if presented within a certain timeframe.17
- By contrast, in the Public Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure, it was stated that re-tests were anticipated to be charged at full cost.
- The cost of retests is something the Panel considers should be factored in as part of the procurement process, to determine what option will provide the best value for money for the public.
The motor industry: capacity, resource, and desire to carry out testing
- On page 19 of P.109/2018 it states –
Initial discussions with the industry have identified that there is generally a reluctance from local garages to undertake inspections, largely due to the investment required, small size of many local garages, and lack of available land for larger operations.18
- Following further investigation, it is clear to the Panel that this is not the case. The Panel has found in several submissions19 to the Review that there is a
13 Public hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure, October 2018, p.19
14 Vehicle Road Worthiness Testing Scrutiny Review - Submissions
16 Vehicle Road Worthiness Testing Scrutiny Review - Submissions
17 Public Hearing with the Jersey Motor Trades Federation, October 2018, p. 20 18 P.109/2018, p.19
19 Vehicle Road Worthiness Testing Scrutiny Review - Submissions
significant amount of desire and in some cases, capacity, within the motor industry to carry out testing.
- The Panel considers that there was not adequate consultation with the motor industry and that the Minister for Infrastructure and his Department should have consulted with them at a much earlier stage, certainly prior to the lodging of P.109/2018. Much of the discussion with the industry appears to have taken place after the Proposition was lodged. Whilst the Minister states in P.109/2018 that he/ his Department held initial discussions' with the Jersey Motor Trades Federation, their representation does not include much of the smaller independent garages. The Panel considers that instead of initial discussions,' the proposals would have been better informed by a full, industry-wide consultation.
- The Panel heard evidence suggesting there is a discrepancy between the costs of equipment required for testing. The Jersey Motor Trades Federation anticipate this to be in the region of £25,000–35,000, whereas in a Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure, the Panel were told it could be up to £100,000.[7]
- A significant concern raised by some members of the motor industry in a number of submissions to the Panel was that of staffing and a current lack of skills within the industry.[8] This concern was also echoed in the Public Hearing with the Jersey Motor Trades Federation, who commented as follows –
Managing Director, Derek Warwick Honda:
But the biggest issue and threat for us, as an industry, is staffing. As you have probably seen from the responses, a lot of them are already saying we cannot get enough technicians, as it is. So immediately if suddenly 6 or 8 further technicians are required for M.O.T. testing I believe that the Government needs to look at licences for those people. Because if the Government set up their own test station and took 6 to 8 technicians out of our already depleted pool of technicians, that would leave us, as a trade, in a position where we cannot fulfil our normal daily requirement for maintaining vehicles.[9]
- When questioned in the Public Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure, the Panel was advised that, due to the phased approach to the introduction of testing for cars, this allowed a 2 year timeframe in which to "look at training schemes and bring them up to standard.".[10]
- The Panel would recommend to the Minister for Infrastructure to prioritise further collaboration with Highlands College, to look at ways to encourage young people into the motor industry and bring through more apprentices. Furthermore, to explore the possibility of temporary flexibility with employment licensing, to bring in skilled workers whilst there is the current shortage of skills within the industry.
States run facility vs. outsourced to motor industry
- As noted previously, and evidenced in a number of submissions to the Review, there is clearly appetite within the motor industry to undertake vehicle testing. The Panel highlighted in its Amendment to P.109/2018 that the decision as to who carries out testing is likely to a have considerable implications for the States of Jersey and the motor industry.
- The Panel is aware that the decision as to who will undertake testing will be subject to the Treasury's procurement process, and would request to be kept abreast of the options that are presented.
- The Panel believes that if testing were to be outsourced to the motor industry, there should be independent oversight from the States of Jersey, in order to suitably control the fees. The Panel is aware that a suitable franchise model might strike the right balance between a wholly States-run facility and outsourcing testing entirely to the motor industry, and that this would be worthy of further consideration as part of the procurement process.
- Several submissions also highlighted that if vehicle testing were to be outsourced to the motor industry, then it could/should be incorporated into routine vehicle servicing, thus reducing the cost to the motorist.24
- The Panel would therefore also suggest that this possibility is included for consideration as part of the procurement process, and that the motor industry should be further consulted with on this.
Conclusion
- Following a detailed investigation within the short and limited timescale available, the Panel is satisfied that no other option other than contracting to Vienna would entirely guarantee that Jersey motorists would be able to circulate across all of Europe post-Brexit.
- That being said, it is largely unknown at this stage how various European countries will treat Jersey vehicles post-Brexit, and therefore it could be argued that taking a stance of wait and see' before contracting to Vienna would be the alternative option available to Jersey.
- The Panel acknowledges that this might not be favourable, as it would potentially place Jersey motorists in a position of risk immediately following the UK's exit from the EU; causing undue hindrance when we have the opportunity presented to us now to safeguard motorists' interests in time for Brexit.
- The Panel would point out that the extent of this potential hindrance and risk is not fully known, given that Jersey does not hold statistical data as to how many Jersey motorists specifically travel to Germany and the other European countries which only recognise the Vienna Convention.
24 Vehicle Road Worthiness Testing Scrutiny Review - Submissions
- Notwithstanding the fact that contracting to Vienna would guarantee that Jersey motorists would be able to circulate across all of Europe post-Brexit, there is also the further consideration that the requirement of Vienna to introduce vehicle testing would also play a part in improving road safety and reducing vehicle emissions, ultimately improving air quality. Whilst the scale of these effects are yet to be determined, the Panel does consider this would be a positive step forward for the Island to take.
- These benefits, however, must also be balanced against any considerable increase in red tape and public expenditure, as well as any negative, unintended consequences that could arise. A key consideration is the issue raised of staffing within the motor industry, as well as ensuring that any future chosen procurement model enables a fair, level playing field across the industry.
- Ultimately, the Panel believes the decision to accept this Proposition and contract to Vienna to be a mitigation of risk in case of a hard Brexit'. The alternative is that we wait to see what scale of impact Brexit might have, and make a decision at a future point in time.
APPENDIX 2
RESPONSE FROM UK DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
November 2018
We understand that Jersey motorists would still be able to circulate in most European countries by relying on the Geneva Convention (1949), with the exception of Germany and the Baltic states. What was basis of the UK's decision not to rely on the Geneva Convention?
Our decision was based on the loss of guaranteed licence and vehicle registration in 5 EU Member States, specifically, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Latvia and Lithuania when the UK leaves the EU. International Driving Permits (IDPs) are a contingency measure, which when held by a motorist alongside their licence, will guarantee the recognition of that licence when visiting and driving in EU Member States in the event of a deal not being agreed. IDPs issued under the earlier 1926 Paris Convention, and the 1949 Geneva Convention which the UK has also signed are not applicable, as the 5 countries listed are not Contracting Parties to those conventions.
Ratifying the 1968 Vienna Convention also offers the possibility of the photocard licence being accepted as an IDP, and offers a 3 year IDP booklet for 23 EU MS plus Switzerland and Norway. The 1949 format of IDP is only valid for 1 year.
Is the UK aware of whether there will be/or are likely to be tighter European border controls, post Brexit, to identify vehicles from countries that have not signed up to Vienna?
Jersey has its own distinguishing mark (GBJ) which is specified in the earlier 1926 Paris and 1949 Geneva Conventions, and is listed on the UN website(i). The GB mark only applies to vehicles registered in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As a result, Jersey registered vehicles are already identifiable when in International Traffic.
In addition, the legislation for the issue of IDPs in the UK, allows for an IDP to only be issued to a full UK licence holder, so a Jersey licence holder cannot obtain/use a 1968 IDP from the UK.
If licence recognition is not achieved in negotiations, and Jersey chooses not to join the UK's ratification of the 1968 Convention (and so cannot issue an IDP in this format), or if a licence holder chooses not to carry the correct IDP for their trip, there is the risk that their driving licence may not be recognised, and would be seen as invalid by the country they are driving in. This means they would effectively be driving unlicensed, and could be subject to the penalties that are in place in that country, for example a fine or having their vehicle impounded.
More widely, if their licence is not recognised, their motor insurance could also be invalidated.
(i) http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Distsigns.pdf – link to list of distinguishing marks
[2] Response to Written Question, Minister for Infrastructure, October 2018 (see Appendix 1)
[3] Response to Written Questions, Minister for Infrastructure, October 2018 (see Appendix 1)