Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Wednesday 7th February 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Tuesday 27th February 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s road haulage sector directly contributes £13.1 billion to our economy and plays a major role in carrying £35 billion in trade between the UK and the EU. It is estimated that almost 200,000 people are directly employed in the road freight sector in Great Britain. These figures alone highlight the importance of the sector to the UK economy. The commercial haulage industry is critical to ensuring the continued movement of goods between the UK and EU. Hauliers are planning for the years ahead and they want certainty that any future deal can be implemented smoothly.
I hope noble Lords will welcome that the UK’s overall aim in the negotiations with the EU is to maintain the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. We anticipate success in the negotiations, building on the progress made last December. However, it is only right and responsible that the Government should prepare for a range of scenarios. As part of the Government’s EU exit legislation programme, the Bill provides a sensible framework for the UK to use, if required, as part of our agreement with the EU. The Bill also ensures that the UK can fulfil its international obligations and be ready to operate in the international arena when we leave the EU. I hope noble Lords from all sides can support the Bill’s intention.
There are two parts to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill. The first will give the UK Government the ability to introduce arrangements to operate a road haulage permit scheme, if that is what is required as part of our deal with the EU. Currently, hauliers have to hold an international operator’s licence and an EU community licence to operate on the continent. The Bill puts in place a legal framework for the Government to establish an administrative system to issue permits, if required, as part of the final deal. This part of the Bill is designed to provide a flexible framework for any system that may be needed, without placing any undue regulatory or financial requirements on the industry. It will come into effect only if our international agreements require it, and it applies only to UK hauliers travelling abroad.
Permits are a key feature of almost all international road freight agreements outside free trade areas. Indeed, the UK already has several permit-based agreements with non-EU countries, including Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, the Russian Federation, Tunisia and Ukraine. The UK also has liberal non-permit agreements with Serbia, Albania and Turkey. While we currently administer some types of permits, the numbers that we issue are very small, so the Government are putting in place plans to deal with future international agreements that may require permits. The Bill will allow the UK Government to distribute permits that we negotiate with overseas authorities to UK operators. The type and form of permit will depend on the agreements that we negotiate. It also contains powers to determine how to allocate permits in the light of any agreement reached, based on criteria that will be set out in the regulations with further guidance on how they will be applied in practice.
This section of the Bill also allows the Government to recover the cost of the scheme through the charging of fees that will be in line with current arrangements for international permit schemes. We are committed to ensuring that any additional requirements or costs to the road haulage industry are minimised. There are a total of 13 provisions containing delegated powers within the Bill to establish the permitting system, should we need it, and a trailer registration scheme. Of course it is important that we get these regulations right, and we will be consulting with industry on the detail later this year.
Before moving on to Part 2 of the Bill, it may be helpful if I say a few words about the 1968 Vienna convention, which is subject to a separate parliamentary process but is related to the trailer registration section in the Bill before us today. The Government have recently laid a Command Paper with the intention to formally ratify the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, which the UK signed in 1968. We intend that our ratification will be completed on or before 29 March 2019. The convention was introduced by the United Nations to enable international road travel and to increase safety by establishing common traffic rules. The convention builds on the earlier 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic and the 1926 Paris convention, both of which the UK has already signed and ratified.
Moving on to the second part of the Bill, the Government are seeking powers to establish a trailer registration scheme to meet the registration standards in the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic which I just mentioned. Many EU countries already comply with this convention and have similar registration schemes. This part of the Bill will ensure that UK operators will comply with the obligations of those countries that require registration of trailers travelling on their roads.
The Bill provides powers to set the scope of coverage for a trailer registration scheme. While the detail of the scheme will be set out in regulations, our intention is to require only operators who take trailers abroad to register their trailers. The scheme will apply to commercial trailers over 750 kilograms, and all trailers over 3.5 tonnes. I would like to reassure noble Lords that private-use trailers such as caravans and horse trailers would not fall within the scope of the mandatory registration scheme. Furthermore, this scheme would not apply domestically.
This section of the Bill also allows the Government to recover the costs of running this scheme through the charging of fees. The fees will be significantly lower than those currently set out for the registration of motor vehicles. It is of course important that these new arrangements are complied with. Offences will be created in relation to trailer registration that mirror existing offences for motor vehicle registration.
On devolution, the Bill covers the whole of the United Kingdom. Haulage permitting and trailer registration are reserved matters in Scotland and Wales, and this matter is devolved to Northern Ireland. The department has been working closely with all devolved Administrations as the Bill has been developed.
On the Bill’s application to the island of Ireland, this legislation supports the commitments made in the December joint report. These commitments include avoiding a hard land border and preserving the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom. We want to see trade and everyday movements over the land border continue as they do now. The Bill will not create a permit regime or a hard border on the island of Ireland. Trailers travelling only between the UK and Ireland will not need to be registered.
Your Lordships will be well aware that there are many other considerations when considering the movement of goods across to the EU, including the future customs and border arrangements. Separately to the Bill, my department is working closely with the Department for Exiting the EU and HMRC as part of the cross-government borders working group to manage impacts to borders after we leave the EU. I can confirm that the Bill will not impact on border arrangements and that there will be no new transport-related checks at our borders.
I look forward to this Second Reading debate on the content of the Bill. As I have already outlined, this Government are committed to ensuring that this sector can continue to prosper as we leave the European Union. As part of the Government’s EU exit legislation programme, the Bill prepares us for a range of scenarios and will ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations and be ready to operate in this sector when we leave the EU. The Government have been supported by industry for bringing forward these measures. I hope that noble Lords will recognise this Bill as the Government taking a responsible approach in their contingency planning, and I welcome your Lordships’ expertise in ensuring that this legislation is as well designed as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, towards the end of my time as part of the usual channels the Government Chief Whip advised me that we would be receiving this Bill as a Lords starter. I recall thinking at the time that it was not one of those mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, and becoming instantly suspicious. I should tell the House that suspicion is an integral part of a Whip’s training. Later it comes as second nature.
Despite the distinct lack of interest in the Bill displayed in the Chamber today, I was right to be concerned. It is the first major piece of Brexit contingency legislation I have seen and is in essence a panic measure. Sam Coates of the Times got it right when he said on 7 February, “Last week No.10 said there was no date for the bill; there wasn’t a date and there was lots of work to do. Six days later it was published”. Someone in the department finally persuaded Mr Grayling that it was not a given that there would be agreement on road haulage arrangements after 29 March 2019.
It is a fact that without a system of fully effective multilateral road haulage arrangements, our businesses would literally grind to a halt. In the event of no deal, this legislation is hugely important. The alternative is chaos at our borders and ferry ports. It would make Operation Stack look like a minor hold up in B-road Britain. Thinking about it, I am staggered at Mr Grayling’s complacency in not requiring the Bill earlier and not ensuring that it had Queen’s Speech clearance.
In her customary charming way, the Minister has set out the Bill’s main provisions. Currently, we benefit from eminently sensible EU regulations that flow from the International Road Haulage Permits Act 1975—legislation, I might add, so old that it was enacted the year I graduated. The current regulations require road hauliers to have a Community licence for all operations in or through EU countries. Post Brexit UK-issued Community licences will no longer be valid, unless of course we have secured agreement. UK hauliers would be able to use European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits. These provide for a multilateral quota scheme, are limited in number and do not cover the full range of haulage operations currently permitted by the Community licence.
The problem with the ECMT permit scheme is that it is limited to 102 permits annually. These are specifically allocated to a company for use for one international journey at a time. If the permits are allocated to only the most modern vehicles—Euro 6—the number increases to a maximum of 1,224 permits a year. Currently, approximately 300,000 UK registered powered vehicles travel from the UK to the continent, and that is without adding in those travelling to the Republic of Ireland, so reliance on ECMT permits alone would cripple our haulage sector and is simply untenable. It would be a bit like tickets for Glastonbury: you just about get online and they are all sold out in seconds. The permits will be gone. Even with rationing, some sectors would be given first refusal—and who would want to decide between essential medicines and fresh foods for supermarkets? These are decisions we should not have to make.
The second part of the Bill introduces a trailer registration scheme, which will be required following the UK’s ratification of the 1968 Vienna convention. This makes sense even though ratification triggers the need for a registration scheme. A failure to put one in place would mean that unregistered trailers could be turned away at the borders of countries that have ratified the convention.
As the Minister recognised, the road haulage sector is vital to the UK’s economy. It contributes £11.2 billion to it and enabled the UK to import and export 8.9 million tonnes of goods in 2014 alone. Additionally, foreign-registered HGVs carry 34.2 million tonnes of goods as part of the current Community licence scheme. It keeps supply chains working for our vital food and agriculture sector. The Community licence arrangements secure our industrial base, facilitate economic growth in EU trade and keep the construction industry and high-tech sectors moving forward. Without it, business here in the UK would grind to a halt and we would cease to be a major trading nation.
Eighty per cent of goods go by road, 47% of goods we exported in 2015 went to the EU and 54% of goods imported came from that same source. The impact of a failure to put in place either an agreement following a Brexit deal or a scheme, if there is no agreement, can be judged by the scope of the current Community licence. It is issued free of charge to the UK hauliers who sign a standard international operators’ licence. Community licences are issued to operators. Office copies must be retained and certified copies held on each vehicle on each international journey. Certified copies are not specific to each vehicle. At the end of 2016, 9,745 UK hauliers possessed a licence and more than 35,000 certified copies had been issued. This scheme is extensive and essential to our nation’s economic health and success.
The most effective option, so that we do not have to rely on the Bill, will be to negotiate and agree a bilateral road transport agreement with the EU, which in turn could be part of a wider trade agreement or a stand-alone agreement separate from a customs union. This should be done as a matter of priority and be in place before Brexit, or before the end of a transition period, if one is agreed. Frankly, anything short of an agreement replicating existing arrangements with no quantitative restrictions will greatly disrupt and constrain cross-channel trade.
We need arrangements that place no additional administrative or financial burdens on hauliers. It is only by achieving this that people avoid damaging the road haulage sector and the economy as a whole. It is difficult to see how a Brexit that does not include, as a minimum, membership of a customs union could be compatible with preserving the current ease of transit of goods. In that context, can the Minister say something about costs when she sums up? I ought to add that I made the mistake yesterday of taking a look at the DfT’s memorandum accompanying the Bill and the two impact assessments of costs to government and business. It is worth reminding ourselves that at present, the Community licence comes at no cost to hauliers. The memorandum makes it clear that there will be full cost recovery. Those costs will cover the issuing of permits for both road haulage and trailers, and the enforcement of the scheme, including compliance inspection.
Will the Minister tell the House how much each permit will cost, how long the application process is expected to take, whether it will be an online system, what it will cost the Government to establish the scheme, how much the trailer registration scheme will cost and how much registering each trailer will cost? Given that this Government are supposed to be concerned about the cost of regulatory burdens on businesses, have they done any cost modelling of the impact on the businesses affected?
If the haulage sector is looking for sympathy from the Government it will not find much in the impact assessments, which simply say that larger businesses will require more permits and incur higher costs. They say that 99.6% of the haulage sector is made up of SMEs, which account for 45% of road freight turnover. The Government say that,
“smaller businesses may find it harder to absorb the additional costs of a permit scheme. Operators typically have tight profit margins and smaller scale businesses may have more difficulty in absorbing the new costs”.
That is a pretty sobering assessment, and my worry is that Ministers have yet to realise the seriousness of the position.
Rightly there has been concern in the aviation sector about the failure to agree a deal, leading to a cliff edge for the European aviation market. As yet, freight has not achieved that degree of realisation. The Freight Transport Association has estimated that the logistics sector contributes over £121 billion GVA to the UK economy. We need the Government to safeguard that return. We also need to ensure the mutual recognition of driver qualifications. This needs to be agreed early on in negotiations to secure cross-border operations for drivers and operators. Currently drivers and transport managers need to hold certificates of professional competence to operate a heavy duty vehicle in the EU. The haulage sector will require legal certainty post Brexit, as the Minister acknowledged, to guarantee mutual recognition. Can the Minister provide a timetable for resolving this and say what progress has so far been made?
The Government are keen to present this Bill as a last resort, but the lack of progress in the Brexit negotiations make it increasingly unlikely that the DfT’s preferred outcome will be achieved. I worry that insufficient thought has been given to the unintended consequences of Brexit on freight haulage. The Government have not reassured me by publishing this Bill, which is a panic measure. They have published no-cost assessments for the sector, nor have they given any detailed assessment of the impact of added bureaucracy on businesses or the on-costs.
As a result, I intend to table amendments asking the Government specifically to negotiate a deal which replicates the benefits of the current Community licence and brings the UK within its purview. I shall also be asking the Government to report on the impact of the international road transport permits regime on the efficiency of haulage between the UK and the EU. If we cannot have an agreement that allows business as usual for haulage, we could end up with one of Mr David Davis’s dystopian fantasies—only it would not be a fantasy, but a fact.
The Bill should, and no doubt will, be supported by Parliament in an attempt to prevent chaos on day zero for Brexit, but it is a far from satisfying way of dealing with a problem almost entirely of the Government’s making—for example, the shoddy way they have dealt with negotiations. I worry about this Bill, and this House should too.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I had the great privilege and enjoyment of working in the road freight industry for the first 17 years of my career. It was rather different from my parliamentary career but it was just as competitive—in fact, it was more competitive. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, this is probably the most competitive sector in the economy, with a large number of SME companies operating in it. Any costs, charges, delays or extra bureaucracy—red tape as we normally call it—will have a very negative impact on the sector. This is an unintended consequence of the Brexit negotiations, particularly the red lines on the customs union and single market that the Government have chosen. I shall come back to that theme later. This is an unnecessary and—in the sense that it was not in the Queen’s Speech—unexpected Bill, which promises the industry quite a substantial amount of extra red tape.
Looking at the size of the issue, there are some 4 million cross-border truck movements in and out of the United Kingdom per annum. This is an addition to the customs issue, which the Minister herself mentioned. There will be extra costs there, too: an average of £500 a day for the delay of a truck going across a border. The number of customs declarations will have to go up from 55 million to something like a quarter of a billion. In Dover, there are 10,000 freight movements a day, with no holding space for delay. There are issues around rules of origin and phytosanitary conditions. Hauliers and road transport operators will have to deal with all those issues post Brexit, based on the red lines the Government have put down. So this is an important Bill, but it is part of a larger problem and challenge to the industry to adjust over a relatively short period to the new, post-Brexit situation. This will be challenging financially, time-wise, bureaucratically —in every way—to an industry that is always under pressure.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has given an excellent summary of the majority of the issues, so I will ask the Minister a number of questions. I, too, would like to understand the cost to hauliers of these permits. In her introductory remarks, the Minister said that it would be comparable to the cost of permits in countries that we deal with elsewhere in the world. Presumably we have a fairly good idea of what those are; the analysis will be there. I would be interested to hear about that. Are we certain, as negotiations stand, that we can keep the community licences we have at the moment during the transition period? Having seen the correspondence on the offer from Brussels on the transition deal and the Government’s response, I do not see this as an issue. I hope we will have a breathing space of two years, 18 months or whatever it is. It is important for the industry to understand how much of a breathing space it might have, provided we do not come to no deal in the meantime.
On trailer registration, there is an absolutely huge number of trailers. I am slightly reassured by the Minister that it will relate only to trailers used on international movements. However, hauliers may often not be aware which trailers they might or might not want to use and feel they have to register their whole fleets. Does the Minister have an estimate of the number of trailers and semi-trailers in the United Kingdom that will have to be registered?
What is happening about foreign vehicles coming into this country? This is the other side of the argument. What are we expecting as a permit system from them? Are we going to give them free access? Are we going to allow them to undertake cabotage in the UK, as we will almost certainly be stopped from doing in other European Union countries? Will we charge them road fund licence fees for operating on British roads? As I understand it, foreign or cross-border traffic by road transport is heavily dominated by EU 27 rather than British vehicles. Are we to have issues around paying for our roads and infrastructure?
Does the Bill require new IT systems in the Department for Transport and, if so, have they started to be developed? Are they complex? Are they being put out to consultants? I hope not. Can we be certain that this will happen? As we all know, IT systems are one area of development where we need urgent and rather forced change when things go wrong and we do not meet deadlines. I am unclear whether these regulations apply to or will be needed by other EU countries for own-account operations, as well as hire and reward. Most of the commentary in this area is around hire and reward, but what about the own-account organisations?
I am very pessimistic about this. If the Government stick to their red line of being outside not just the customs union but the single market, I can guarantee that this legislation and scheme will be necessary. There is not a chance that, outside the single market, we will be able to have a similar system to community licensing. That is described by Mr Barnier as cherry picking. A number of colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I met him last week, and he once again made the point that Britain would not be able to cherry pick if it is not in the single market. This is one of those areas, so I very much regret its bureaucracy and cost, and that this unnecessary act will indeed be necessary if we have a Brexit that is outside the single market.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I acknowledge his experience in the road haulage industry. It is also a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, who spent far too many years in the silent cell of the Government Whips’ Office. He reminds us today how much he was missed in the years he spent away.
It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister. She has not been in her position long, but she has a mellifluous tone that makes it difficult to disagree with her, no matter what she says. In the early part of her speech, she said that the Government anticipate success in their long-term arrangement with the EU. I wonder whether she can tell us why the Government anticipate success. From Minister after Minister at the Dispatch Box we hear this philosophy that our future relationship with the EU will be all right on the night. This is exemplified by her opening remarks about this Bill and yet, so far, we have not seen any evidence that the Government are making great progress in this or any other area of Brexit. Perhaps when she winds up, the Minister will give us further cause for encouragement about their progress.
She mentioned in passing the 1968 Vienna convention and that it will become the fallback position for the United Kingdom if the worst comes to the worst and there is no long-term deal for the road haulage industry. We have avoided the convention for 50 years. Although we were initially involved in its preparation, the United Kingdom has never implemented or signed it. What makes that change of heart necessarily beneficial for the future? What guarantee can the Minister give us that our ratification of that convention, after five decades, will be allowed, bearing in mind that the Government have expressed their reservations about certain aspects of it. The parking of vehicles facing oncoming traffic and the lighting of parked vehicles at night are just two areas of the convention from which, as I understand it, the Government will seek exemption. Can she give us any assurance that the Community or the other signatories to the convention will be prepared to go along with our ratifying those parts of it that we find suitable? The view seems to be that our negotiations with the EU are such that it will agree to virtually anything that we propose regarding agreements and conventions.
What further grounds for optimism does the Minister have in relation to the convention? Her optimism is not particularly shared by the road haulage industry. I refer her to the latest press release on the Bill from the Freight Transport Association. It says that the biggest long-term challenge for the UK freight industry is the tiny number of travel permits that will potentially be available for British truck drivers if no other solution is found through an EU trade deal. Under existing international treaties, between 103 and 1,224 permits a year are available to deal with more than 300,000 journeys by 75,000 British trucks. There are no real grounds for optimism for the future if we are to have a rationing system and a small number of permits for British trucks. I am old enough to remember Winston Churchill talking about setting the people free and abolishing rationing back in the 1950s, yet here we are, as an act of desperation, considering legislation that brings back rationing of permits for British trucks. It is scarcely a Conservative measure, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree.
As my noble friend from Brighton, Lord Bassam, pointed out, chaos regularly reigns on the M20. If the French ferry workers decide that there is a dispute, in no time at all the M20 motorway becomes a massive car park. If we have to fall back on the provisions of the legislation before your Lordships today, it will not be difficult to imagine—this is not scaremongering—that the chaos on the M20 may well be repeated daily. Again, I think the House is entitled to some assurance from the Minister about the future.
Part 2 of the Bill concerns the licensing of trailers. It seems to me that a triumph of hope over reality is inherent in the proposals here. The convention requires the setting up of a new system for the registration of trailers and the issuing of international driving permits if the EU refuses to recognise UK licences. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many such permits are likely to be issued and how the road haulage industry will cope with a limited number of permits for an enormous number of trailers. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to cabotage. As far as I can see, there is no provision under the Bill for cabotage to continue. Among the benefits of membership of the EU for the road haulage industry is the ability to pick up goods in one part of Europe and take them to another. There is no provision for the extension of such benefits in the Bill.
It seems that we are just striking blindly into the dark in this as in so many other aspects of Brexit, and that the Government have no real idea of how to take things forward. This measure has been brought forward at the last minute, with less than a year to go before, at least theoretically, we leave the EU. I fear that it will take more than the Minister’s optimism, refreshing though it is, to reassure those in the road haulage industry that the Government know the best way forward over the next months and years.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing her Bill. My noble friend and other noble Lords are right to draw the House’s attention to the importance of the road haulage industry, both internally and internationally. I will not weary the House by repeating the arguments so well put by other noble Lords. I declare an interest: I own two classic heavy goods vehicle tractor units and one very large trailer. However, they are not used commercially and it is extremely unlikely that they would go overseas.
My main parliamentary activity is to take a very close look at the UK prison system. We have far too many prisoners and insufficient resources to look after them properly. I am therefore pleased that Clauses 8 and 17 do not provide for imprisonment for any offences. However, the maximum fine relating to international road traffic permits must not exceed level 4 on the standards scheme, and only level 3 for any of the trailer registration offences. Given the commercial and competitive pressures that operators are under, which some noble Lords have talked about, the penalties appear to be quite lenient and I would like to understand why. The Minister may tell us that this is in order for the offences to be consistent, which would be a good reason. Also, I do not understand why the drafting in Clause 17(6) provides that offences can be tried only summarily, whereas the drafting in Clause 8, 5 and 6 is not so clear. There does not seem to be a consistent provision for offences—but I expect there is a good reason for that and my noble friend the Minister might want to write to me about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, has obviously been extremely well briefed. However, he talked a lot about the current situation with permits and not the future. We simply do not know what the future will be. The Bill is purely an enabling measure. It does not seem a panic measure to look twelve months in advance of when the provisions may be needed. I expect that the negotiations will be difficult and may go right to the wire. They nearly always do, as noble Lords know perfectly well. However, we should not forget that there would be very serious difficulties for industry, commerce and transport within the other EU states if some sensible agreement were not reached.
Having the Bill in place is only a sensible precaution. However, I would expect that the most likely outcome is little real change. It would not be sensible for ourselves or our EU friends to have anything else. I do not believe that the doomsday scenario that many noble Lords seem to enjoy portraying will ever come to pass. I assure the House that I will be vigorously supporting my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It takes me back about 20 years to when he and I were exchanging views on regulation of the road haulage industry. I am pleased that he is here tonight.
We should start by recognising the move that has been taken by the Department for Transport. It has produced a contingency plan for, in effect, a downbeat Brexit. In that sense, it is well ahead of any other Whitehall department I know of. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will convey her congratulations to her department and her fellow Ministers.
The first point, which colleagues have made and which I have made in this House in different debates over Brexit, is that without membership of a customs union and probably without membership of the single market, there is no such thing as frictionless trade. There are costs, both administrative costs and on-costs. There are costs to the road haulage industry itself: to the 9,000 or so independent road hauliers, to own-account drivers and to those who run great fleets. As was made clear in the impact assessment, there are also costs to the Government, and of course to the people who rely on the road haulage industry for importing and exporting. Therefore, at the end of the day, there are costs also to consumers.
In this case, the costs are quite seriously aggravated. In effect, as my noble friend Lord Snape indicated, we are reverting to a prehistoric system. The conventions that were established in Geneva and Vienna—the latter of which I think we have not actually ratified—relate to an entirely different era, when economic relations in Europe were supposedly governed by the UN Economic Commission for Europe, under which the Council of Ministers for Transport operated and developed the quota scheme. It is now proposed that we take that back from 50 years ago and put it into operation in the UK now.
That scheme is archaic. It was based largely on bilateral arrangements and was not for the whole of the European Union, and it has quotas. I am not quite sure how the calculation was made but I understand that, under that system, about one-eighth of quota licences will be available compared with the community licences that are currently available to the road haulage industry in the UK. The scheme also does not deal with cabotage, and therefore cuts the UK industry out of profitable trade on the continent and beyond.
The old system has some serious deficits and difficulties. It will undoubtedly be more costly, more administratively bureaucratic and more of an inhibition to trade. It may be necessary as a stop-gap if we do not end up with a deal that gets us closer to frictionless trade—although, even in a free trade agreement, there will still be some friction and some costs. Even if part of that free trade agreement was almost a cherry-picking arrangement for road haulage—it is a large “if”—there would still be a cost involved in moving from a system of absolute access for British hauliers and EU hauliers here to the replacement archaic and limited scheme.
I will make three other quick points. The first relates to Ireland and to the broader Brexit argument. At present, Northern Ireland has devolved powers for the registration of transport vehicles, admittedly within an overall system. The agreement that provisionally was reached in December foresees the alignment of regulations in those areas that support the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. There are all sorts of arguments about whether that is a lot of areas—142 areas have been suggested—or whether it is to be limited to a number of specific areas. In the limited interpretation, transport is one of those areas. Therefore, in default of an overall agreement that allows us no border of any sort, transport would, under the agreement that we signed and which has yet to be put into legal form, require the full alignment of the Northern Irish licensing system with that of the Republic of Ireland—in other words, with the EU system.
The bulk of trade that goes in road haulage across the sea, both from Northern Ireland and from the Republic, is not travelling north-south across the border but east-west, into Great Britain and beyond into Europe. Therefore, we get a contradiction of not having alignment between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain, which will be an anathema to a number of elements —some of them fairly close to the Government—in Northern Ireland. It will also inhibit trade if we have a different system in Northern Ireland from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Irish dimension in this has not been fully addressed and may not be capable of being so until we have the final version of the December agreement. It may even not be addressed before the withdrawal treaty, or beyond that at the end of the transition. But, at whatever point we contemplate introducing this system, I plead with the Minister to take the Irish dimension into account.
I have two other quick points. If we are to introduce a new licensing and registration system, issues of road safety, environmental performance and driver standards ought to be introduced at the same time.
Finally, I will make a constitutional point. I am not making a big thing about it, but the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to penalties. As a consequence of this system, some penalties can be introduced by secondary legislation. Your Lordships’ Constitutional Committee has taken a fairly hard view on introducing new criminal offences through secondary legislation. To justify doing so, we need more justification than is currently in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.
I started by congratulating the Minister. I still think it is a good thing that the department is thinking that it may need this contingency, because at the moment it is by no means certain that anything better will be delivered, to put it at its mildest. But I also think that the Government have to face up to some of these very important side issues and not put all their eggs in the basket of solving a problem that is not of their making by reverting to an archaic, expensive and clumsy system.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in the gap.
I am interested in the way in which the Conservative Party has done a complete U-turn on this issue over 25 years. When I was building the Channel Tunnel, one of the arrangements Margaret Thatcher was pleased about was that she negotiated cabotage mainly with France because the French haulage industry was not keen to have British trucks going into France and doing cabotage there. In return for building all the trains in France, Mitterand allowed the UK to have cabotage. That was the start of the single market in transport, and here we have the same party trying to close it down today, which I find rather sad.
I saw Barnier and his team last year, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and he gave me the same message: industry must be prepared for a cliff edge and there will not be any cherry picking. Nothing seems to have changed. The Bill is a good start as an attempt to cherry pick but, as many noble Lords have said, what about the continental drivers who are going to come to the UK? About 80% of cross-Channel traffic is now provided by non-UK registered trucks and drivers, and I cannot see much point in setting out what we want unless we can reach agreement with the European Commission as to what happens the other way. Many noble Lords have referred to this.
It is worse with the issues in the Republic of Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, briefly referred. I have an interesting paper on Brexit produced by the Irish Academy of Engineering, which gives many statistics, including that about 1 million trucks or unit loads cross the frontier from the Republic. Some of them are destined for Northern Ireland while others go straight across the sea. The report states that 95% of the units go to and from Great Britain and two-thirds of the traffic to and from the continent goes through what they call the “land bridge”. It points out that that will involve four customs checks unless the system is changed. I cannot believe that the Irish Taoiseach, Mr Varadkar, whom I have met once and who I think is doing very well in sticking up for the Republic, will be pleased about that.
I understood the Minister to say in her opening remarks that there was no need for registration, whether for trucks or trailers, between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I do not know, but I hope that she will be able to clarify that in her response to the debate. As many other noble Lords have said, I do not see how we can have no checks on registration between the Republic and Northern Ireland and no checks on registration across the sea.
Finally, several noble Lords have put this to the Minister. If we have a system for issuing licences for trailers, trucks or drivers, how long will it take to develop and how much will it cost? She will remember that HMRC was asked a similar question last autumn: what would it cost to handle the customs on trucks? The chief executive said that it would take five years to develop an IT system, he could not say what it would cost and the work cannot start until HMRC knows what has to be done. We are going to have five years of misery on the licensing, assuming the Department of Transport can do as well as HMRC—I do not know whether it can—before something good comes out of it, if it ever does. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I want to intervene only briefly. On 5 December last year, I spoke in a debate on trade and customs policy, in particular on the issue of the allocation of CEMT permits, and I expressed some concerns. Some noble Lords may well recall the debate. My experience goes back almost 50 years, when I was in business and I had trucks. We were running our goods abroad into markets in Europe and importing components into the United Kingdom. When I read this Bill, I was disturbed by one sentence, which is set out in Clause 2(2):
“The methods that may be specified under subsection (1)(d) include random selection and first come, first served”.
I can tell the Minister what that means, because I have seen it with my own eyes: corruption. The old permit system was corrupting. I know that because the hauliers used to tell us about it. The drivers told us how they would get through customs posts in various parts of Europe. At the Mont Blanc tunnel, customs officers were bribed, as they were at the Brenner Pass tunnel because very often the permits the hauliers were running on were illegal. I have some of those permits with me, which I found this morning, and they go back almost 35 years. Now I might get a phone call from the civil servants asking what I know about it, but I do not intend to tell them—it is their responsibility to find out how it was done. It was common practice throughout the allocation of permits. In his place behind the noble Baroness on the Front Bench is a former Minister of Transport who will recall what happened because I think he took over while the old permit system was still in operation, or perhaps I am wrong. I think that the old system was completely cleared out by the beginning of the 1990s, but I am not altogether clear on that.
All I am saying is that, if the system was capable of corruption then, given that the language used in this Bill is very similar to the language that must have been used in the legislation at that time, it will be corruptible in the future. Before we go into Committee, Ministers should be briefed on how the system was corrupted so that, when we start producing examples of what happened, at least they will be able to give us a sensible reply.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this is a surreal situation. Earlier this afternoon we were discussing outer space, spaceports and lasers—innovations and challenges of the 21st century—and suddenly here we are, with this Bill and the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, which is 50 years old. In a way, it is an analogy for the whole of Brexit, an attempt to return to the world of yesteryear, because if you look at the Vienna convention, you will see that it has not, in all senses—despite some updating—withstood the test of time. It conjures up a different world.
It appears that, although we signed this convention, we have never ratified it. We have to do so now, because one of the realities of post-Brexit life will be that we can no longer be assured that we will be able to travel freely abroad to the 27 EU countries. With huge sadness, therefore, I say that what the Government are setting out to do in this Bill, given their commitment to a hard Brexit and thus the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit, is a sensible kind of insurance policy. It is truly tragic, however, that we are in this situation. This Bill, and the speed with which it is being pushed through, is symptomatic of the kind of crisis management we can expect from now on, as one thread after another of the EU web unravels and the Government work desperately to keep it all together. After all, this Bill, as other noble Lords have pointed out, was not on the Government’s list of Brexit-related Bills in the Queen’s Speech. It is one that the Government have only recently realised we need, and I am sure it will be the first of several.
The background to the Bill is that the UK has just weeks to ratify the convention in order to give the required 12 months’ notice before Brexit day. The current situation is that hauliers require a standard international operator’s licence and they can also request, free of charge, a Community licence, which allows them to work in EU countries. There is a single permit for all EU states, which—crucially—also allows cabotage: journeys within one EU member state made by a haulier from another EU state. So far, so simple, but it is part of a much more complex overall picture. Community licences are also valid in EFTA states. In addition, the UK has bilateral agreements and is a member of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. There are 43 countries participating in this multilateral quota scheme, but not all are participating on the same terms. These 43 countries include all the EU countries except Cyprus and 17 others—from Albania at one end of the alphabet to Ukraine at the other. That is just a very simplified snapshot of a hugely complex set of arrangements that our hauliers will have to confront, without the core certainty of easy access to 31 other countries on the basis of one free Community licence.
The Road Haulage Association has already warned that relying on ECMT permits would be inadequate for market demand, would be very bureaucratic and would not allow cabotage. In its estimation, there will be 75,000 trucks chasing 1,300 permits, which it says will devastate the industry. I therefore ask the Minister if she could explain to us how the 80% of hauliers who are EU nationals will be affected by this. Any new scheme is likely to result in cost to hauliers and to the people for whom they transport goods, as well as to the Government—by which I mean the taxpayer—in setting up the new scheme and operating it.
Let us look at this from the EU perspective, because the Government have been very vague about what they want but the EU has been very specific about the situation as it sees it. The UK will exit the internal market for road transport. This means the end of market access based on the Community licence, of cabotage rights, of mutual recognition of driving licences and vehicle registration documents and of the cross-border enforcement of traffic offences—I want to emphasise how important that is. There are fallback positions—for example, the 1949 Geneva Convention, which can be used to deal with driving licences—but they are complex and uneven. The end of cabotage and transit rights beyond those covered by ECMT permits will mean a considerable reduction in territorial and market access.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about haulage permits. Given that Community licences are free, what is the Government’s estimate of the likely cost of obtaining one of the alternative permits that the Bill enables? On trailer registration, the National Caravan Council has already voiced its concern that the Bill allows non-commercial trailers to be brought within its scope. How and when do the Government think that might be necessary? There is already an established NCC registration scheme. Are the Government going to duplicate that, which would of course mean significant additional bureaucratic cost and burden for people operating trailers? The Government have a voluntary registration scheme for trailers called the certificate of keeper, which is designed to deal with the issue raised by Germany having slightly different rules on trailers, involving inspection. However, only some 260 permits are issued per year. I gather that the Government have said that they cannot expand this scheme; perhaps the Minister will explain why.
The Government expect to have the trailer permit scheme in operation by the end of this year, so, clearly, work has been done in preparation for it and answers should be readily available. When will the Government consult the industries on this? What is their estimated cost of a trailer permit? What will be the basis for the cost—will it be the size of the trailer or the use? I also want to push on the definition of a commercial trailer. The briefing states that it will not apply to horse trailers, because they would be non-commercial, but what about horses being transported to horse shows? In the same competition, you can have professional riders and amateur riders, with the horses, I assume, separately classified. Perhaps the Government need to give answers on such issues.
I have a particular concern about the island of Ireland. The Government say that Ireland is by far Northern Ireland’s biggest trading partner and give various assurances that permits will not be required. However, their own briefing states that permits will be issued for travel on the island of Ireland only when it is at the agreement of the UK and Ireland, and that this could be part of a bilateral agreement or the UK-EU future relationship agreement. That means just about anything you want to make it mean, and I do not find it reassuring.
The Bill deals with only road transport but our industry and agriculture rely on the rail and maritime sectors, as well as air freight, of course. I have dealt with air freight in debate here on the open skies Bill that I have introduced, but I want to ask the Minister about the rail sector. Leaving the single European rail area will mean the end of the mutual recognition of operating licences, safety certificates, train driver licences and vehicle authorisations, among other things, and the end of the UK’s participation in the European Union Agency for Railways. In the maritime sector, leaving would mean the end of mutual recognition of seafarers’ certificates, of participation in the European Maritime Safety Agency and of free-as-of-right access to port services. The big question is: what are the Government doing to prepare for a no-deal Brexit and its impact on the rail and maritime sectors, as well as dealing with it in the Bill?
Finally, this Bill would not be necessary if the UK remained in the single market. It demonstrates that a hard Brexit will have a huge impact on the haulage industry, an industry on whose shoulders sits so much of our economy and our prosperity.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I get a sense from previous speeches—most of which have stolen the contents of mine, so I shall try to be short—that an awful lot of people are trying to understand the road haulage legal environment. That includes myself, and I admit to failing, so if I make assertions I will not be upset if the Minister tells me I am wrong.
It seems that in anticipation of multiple scenarios, the Government are doing three things: ratifying the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic; introducing a registration scheme for trailers; and introducing the capability of issuing permits. The 1968 Vienna convention was, I believe, signed at the time but not ratified. I got married in 1968 and that is a long, long time ago. It is difficult to understand why we have not ratified this convention earlier. My studies tell me that we depended on the 1949 Geneva convention before that.
The Vienna convention is now being ratified, which includes a process in this House—not that it is easy to notice that. The convention was laid in both Houses on 8 February this year and it will be dealt with under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. This is a most unsatisfactory process because the only way you would know it had been laid is if you had picked up the Lords business and minutes of proceedings documents, for the fact that it was being laid was publicised on one day only, as is the convention of this House. The 2010 Act allows 21 sitting days for any Peer to pray against it. This is not the same as a negative instrument but it would create a debate. Because I would have to take the debate, I shall not pray against it. Why are the Government doing that? I quote from their own Explanatory Memorandum:
“The UK signed the 1968 Convention on 8 November 1968, and has now decided to ratify it for reasons of uniformity, to increase safety and to facilitate international traffic”.
One of the foolish things I did was to get a copy of the convention. It is quite long and in oldish language, but I assume the key paragraph is paragraph 3 of Article 3, on page 7, which states:
“Subject to the exceptions provided for in Annex 1 to this Convention, Contracting Parties shall be bound to admit to their territories in international traffic motor vehicles and trailers which fulfil the conditions laid down in Chapter III”.
It then goes on to specifics. But essentially, it seems to be the technical requirements to allow a vehicle to move internationally, and includes specifications about licences and what is to be accepted as a licence. A consequence of our decision to ratify that, as I understand it, is that it implies that trailers should be registered. This brings me to the Bill, which covers the two other things I mentioned: the registration of trailers and the issuing of licences.
As a generality, we will support the Bill, simply because, as with motherhood, you cannot deny somebody who is trying to create a contingency. It is an absolutely mad situation, but you still have to support the necessary procedures to cover the contingency. The registration of trailers more widely would seem quite a sensible thing to do. I would be interested in the extent to which registration of trailers includes the safety requirements that the registration of tractors does. It seems to me that it would be an anomaly if trailers are not required under British law to be as safe as their tractors. I cannot see, more widely, why one should be allowed to pull a trailer that does not meet the same safety standards as the vehicle you are pulling it with, although that may be outside the Bill.
We come now to the more significant part of the Bill and the fact that the Government propose to create an administration scheme for the issue of permits. It would have been irresponsible not to but, frankly, it is far from desirable. It is undesirable because it will create costs in an industry that works on very small margins and because requiring a new permit to be carried will invite friction at borders. All we learn about this industry is that friction at borders will be a significant hazard to successful operation.
What does the future hold for us? There is a contrast between the United Kingdom and the European Union here. In the United Kingdom, we have weekends at Chequers; in the European Union, they have a Commission. The Commission does not seem to know about weekends at Chequers, but just gets on and pumps out this stuff. One of the things it is doing now is pumping out documents called “Notice to Stakeholders”. I have in front of me the one created by the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, dated 19 January this year in Brussels, and titled, “Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU Rules in the Field of Road Transport”. Its tone is hardly friendly. I quote:
“In view of the considerable uncertainties, in particular concerning the content of a possible withdrawal agreement, road transport operators within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/20094 are reminded of legal repercussions, which need to be considered when the United Kingdom becomes a third country. Subject to any transitional arrangement that may be contained in a possible withdrawal agreement, as of the withdrawal date, the EU rules in the field of road transport no longer apply to the United Kingdom. This has, in particular, the following consequences in the different areas of road transport”.
This four-page document goes into a number of areas, but in the part entitled, “Access to the profession/to the market”, there is the following statement:
“As of the withdrawal date, a Community licence issued by the competent authorities of the United Kingdom will no longer be valid in the EU-27. Hauliers established in the United Kingdom will no longer have access to the internal road haulage market in the Union”.
That is the document’s only bright spot in its four pages. It also states:
“However, the multilateral quota system managed by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (now International Transport Forum) would apply at that point”.
Hurrah, there is a fallback—until we look into what the fallback is. It is a convention or agreement—I am not sure of the right term—between 43 states, which includes all the EU states except Cyprus. The mechanics of that are laid out in an International Transport Forum document; that organisation now runs this scheme. Its document has many pages but I shall quote from one small part of it. Chapter 3, entitled “Issuing and limits of ECMT licenses”, states:
“ECMT licences … are multilateral licences, delivered by the ITF/ECMT, for the international carriage of goods by road for hire or reward by transport undertakings established in an ECMT Member country, on the basis of a quota system, the transport operations being performed: between ECMT Member countries; and in transit through the territory of one or several ECMT Member country(ies) by vehicles registered”.
Apparently, we have a process that we can fall back on.
However, the magic word is “quotas”. The quotas, we are told, have a maximum number—1,224—of multiple-use annual permits. The Lords Library briefing suggests that there are 30,060 certified copies of the Community licences. As far as I can see, that is the equivalent of the permit. The only problem is the difference between them—that is, the number of permits that would be available in this quota are some 4% of the certified copies that have been issued. The effect of this would clearly be catastrophic. Clearly, the Government anticipate the problem of not having enough permits, because they include in the Bill—in Clause 2(2)—a reference to how they will manage a situation where there are insufficient permits. They go on to say that the Bill will,
“include random selection and first come, first served”.
I cannot think of anything more terrifying than that system.
The Government anticipate failure and I have to say, with their present attitude to the customs union and single market, it seems that there is a very steep hill to climb. Failure would be unacceptable. Society could not exist. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out that, normally, societies avoid catastrophic situations. Sadly, looking back over the past century, often they did not. This could be just such a situation, be it in road haulage, air transport or maritime.
My only real question for the Minister is: can she set out how the Government plan to achieve transport agreements that will leave us with a viable and flourishing road transport industry?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, as always, the experience and knowledge in this Chamber has been extremely insightful, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Many noble Lords have pointed out the importance of the Bill to ensuring that there is no disruption to the haulage industry when we leave the EU, and of course I entirely agree. This is responsible planning to ensure that we are ready to deliver the outcome of the negotiations, whatever that may be. I think we all agree on our aim to retain the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. I welcome that agreement; it may be one of the few that we have during the progress of the Bill.
I apologise that the Bill was not announced in the Queen’s Speech, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The gracious Speech outlined that alongside the EU (Withdrawal) Bill there would be complementary legislation and that is what this is, but I apologise that it was not explicitly pointed out then.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Teverson, asked about costs and fees for both haulage permits and trailer registration. As I said in my opening words, the Bill provides powers for the Government to set and charge the administration fee. We are consulting on the details of the fees and charges for haulage permitting later this year. Again, as I said, we are doing this in order to minimise any additional burdens and costs for business. We are fully aware that this is going to be a cost for large and smaller haulage firms. The fees will be in line with the current international permit schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked for some examples. An ECMT permit for one year currently costs around £133 and a bilateral permit for one journey costs around £8, so that is the kind of ballpark figure that we are looking at. However, the exact nature and costs of the permit scheme will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, so we will be setting that out.
On the question of trailer registration, the Bill again provides the powers to set the fees to cover the administration. Again, we are aiming to minimise those as far as possible in order to reduce any burden or cost to businesses. There will be no ongoing annual fees associated with trailer registration. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about numbers; we expect around 80,000 or so will be registered. Once the trailer is registered, the only further fees would be for any subsequent reissue. The system for that is still in development and the cost is still to be determined. We have been doing quite a lot of exploratory work on this and are confident that the registration fee will be significantly below that of the current vehicle registration fee, which is £55.
On caravans, a subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the scheme will apply only to commercial trailers over 750 kilogrammes. We are speaking to the caravan society, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to further clarify that.
I raised the issue around horses and whether, if a horse was travelling to race abroad on a commercial basis, that would count. I was reassured that horses in that case would be in an all-in-one vehicle; I do not quite know what to call the vehicles, but they would not be in a trailer horsebox. My colleagues tell me that a horsebox is an all-in-one vehicle, rather than a horse trailer, so they would be covered. However, I am going to go back and clarify that further.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the permit application process and how it will work, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned HMRC. We are working with an existing organisation, the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, on the system to allocate haulage permits. That will be building on existing IT systems to create an online permit application system. Obviously hauliers are already familiar with applying to the DVSA for paperwork related to domestic and international travel, so we hope that they will welcome this. Again, we are committed to trying to minimise any additional requirements, and we are working closely with industry to develop those plans. The aim is absolutely that we will be able to take applications and issue permits in advance of exit day, and we are on track to be able to issue permits in late 2018.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, are the Government so well advanced in their thinking on the permit scheme that they have scoped out an IT system with one of the providers? Are they in negotiation with companies that do outsourcing on data and so on to try to work out exactly what sort of system they might want to put in place and think about what sort of contract they might want to set?
Baroness Sugg
We are working with the existing IT system at DVSA, so there would be no additional contract. I can certainly provide the noble Lord with further details on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the implementation period. Obviously, this is being discussed. The Government have been clear that the implementation period will be based on existing rules and regulations. I hope that we will reach agreement on that soon, which should provide some reassurance to industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the recognition of driver qualifications. The treatment of drivers’ certificate of professional competence will—again—depend on the outcome of negotiations with the EU, but our objective is absolutely to ensure that following our exit from the EU, CPCs will continue to be recognised.
The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Berkeley, asked about access for foreign hauliers, including cabotage. These, again, are important issues for negotiations that we are considering carefully for any future arrangement. In any scenario, there is existing domestic legislation to provide appropriate access for foreign hauliers coming to the UK, so the Bill does not address that specifically. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, it is an important part of the negotiations, and it will obviously be part of the discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and others mentioned ECMT permits. The permitting system operated by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport is an international agreement entirely separate from the EU and will not be part of our negotiations. The ECMT permits currently allocated to the UK are little used and we have absolutely no intention of allowing them after we leave the EU.
As much as I would love to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a timeline for our transport negotiations, I am unable to do so. We are working closely with industry to understand its requirements and priorities, and have been doing so since the result of the referendum. We represent those views to the Department for Exiting the European Union. That department and the Department for Transport stand ready to move forward with the transport negotiations as soon as they begin.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, spoke about optimism. I agree with him that we do not want to return to rationing. We are optimistic in these negotiations and am pleased that at least my noble friend Lord Attlee shares that optimism. It is absolutely to the mutual benefit of us and the European Union that we maintain liberal access; 84% of the freight transported between the UK and continental Europe is operated by EU hauliers, and it is in both our interests that we have a successful outcome.
Lord Berkeley
If this goes ahead and we have licences here for drivers and trucks to operate on the continent, we will presumably need some approval process. Perhaps it would not be a taxing system but it could work alongside the customs declaration for all the 80% of foreign trucks coming into the UK—either into Northern Ireland from the Republic or from the continent. Has that been taken into consideration?
Baroness Sugg
Certainly not in the context of the Bill. I apologise for going back to this, but exactly what that will look like is a matter for the discussions with the European Union as part of the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked about the reservations to the Vienna Convention on Road Transport. We will be making reservations in respect of six sections of the convention, relating to jaywalking, parking direction and so on. They apply only domestically and will not affect the other countries. It is usual practice for countries, on ratifying the convention, to put forward such reservations. We do not expect there to be any issue on that.
Lord Snape
If that is the case and it is all so simple, why have we not endorsed the Vienna convention over the past 50 years?
Baroness Sugg
We have been relying on the agreement that we have with the European Union, and because we are leaving the EU we have to bring forward something else.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked questions around the convention process. We are following the usual process for Command Papers and have done our best to highlight this issue. The convention is detailed and the Secretary of State has offered a meeting with all Peers and MPs to discuss the Bill and the convention. As the noble Lord pointed out, there is a process to discuss the matter further on the Floor of the House and I would be delighted to do so if anyone would wish to.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of safety for trailers. I do not believe there is a safety requirement in the Bill, but I will take that suggestion away and look at it further.
Earl Attlee
My understanding is that the tractor unit is subject to the plating and testing regulations, as is the trailer, and they are also subject to type approval regulations that are already in place.
Baroness Sugg
I believe that to be the case, and that therefore the Bill will not affect safety, but I will clarify that and write to my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Attlee asked about penalty drafting within the Bill. We have drawn up the penalty levels from the original 1975 legislation so the offences are consistent with that. I am told that Clause 8 puts the offence in respect of a permit scheme in the Bill along with the penalties, which are summary only. Clause 17 enables regulations to be made which include the offences and penalties. Clause 17(6) restricts those regulations to include summary offences only, but perhaps I can write to my noble friend further on that.
On Ireland, the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, all rightly highlighted the importance of ensuring that we get the legislation right for the island of Ireland, and I should like to say a few more words about that. The Bill does not create a permit regime or a hard border on the island of Ireland. Again, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is no hard border. We want trade and everyday movements over the land border to continue as they do now. Half of the imports and exports by road are to and from Ireland and 89% of this trade is going between Northern Ireland and Ireland. There is no history of restrictions on road haulage, and that must remain the case.
To make clear the commitment not to create a hard border on the island of Ireland, we included Clause 1 explicitly to provide that permit regulations may not apply to journeys on the island of Ireland unless there is an agreement on the provision of permits between the UK Government and Irish Governments. To reiterate, trailers travelling between the UK and Ireland will not need to be registered. I very much agree that this is an important issue and something we need to keep in mind as the Bill progresses.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and many other noble Lords mentioned borders. The provision of a permit scheme, whatever its detailed design, is intended precisely to ensure that there will be no delays for UK hauliers at our borders or any other borders in relation to their permission to travel. The haulage permits part of the Bill relates to UK hauliers, but, as noble Lords mentioned, EU hauliers also benefit from hauling to and from the UK. The DVSA already carries out checks on vehicle operating standards on our road network rather than at the borders and we would expect that to continue and include checks for permits if those are required as part of the deal with the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised an interesting point on corruption. It is certainly something we must avoid. I will make sure that I am fully briefed on previous issues with the system ahead of Committee so that we can avoid them.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may make a suggestion: that the department bring in operators who were operating in the 1960s and 1970s. There will be some around and they will remember what happened.
Baroness Sugg
If we can track them down, we will certainly get them in. I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Perhaps I can take the noble Baroness back to an earlier point about trailer registration. I do not know whether she has looked at the department’s impact assessment, but it says that one of the indirect benefits will be improvements for road safety, and trailer registration is part of that. It strikes me that this is an opportunity, if the department wants to look at it that way, to secure some long-term benefits from trailer registration, and the Government might want to focus on it in their post-Brexit evaluation of road safety issues.
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion and will go back and study exactly where the safety requirements fall, and whether there is an opportunity within the Bill to further improve safety. I know that there is quite a lot of work on trailer safety going on in the department at the moment.
Earl Attlee
Perhaps I can assist the House. There is already a system of trailer identification to make sure that trailers are properly tested. The issue is whether there should be registration and therefore a number plate on the rear of the trailer.
Baroness Sugg
I thank my noble friend for that clarification.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the Commission’s paper setting out its general approach to the options for future partnership on rail, maritime and road transport. We think that is an opening position from the Commission, drafted with its own interpretation of EU red lines. We welcome its recognition of the importance of keeping transport flowing after we leave the EU. This is clearly part of the EU’s internal preparatory discussions and will not necessarily represent where negotiations will end up. The proposals are designed to be thought-provoking, and we are pleased that they will at least ensure that member states focus on transport issues.
Baroness Randerson
I understand the Government’s view that these EU papers are just an opening position, but actually they are a factual statement. How we move forward from that is another issue, but the papers are making a factual statement. Will the Minister address the fact that those papers cover rail and maritime as well as road? My question was: how will the Government deal with rail and maritime? Will there be legislation similar to this Bill?
Baroness Sugg
We do not currently believe that there needs to be legislation for the maritime and rail sectors. Obviously there is preparatory work going on, but we do not have any further updates for the noble Baroness on that. As and when we need to bring forward legislation to prepare ourselves, we absolutely will, in the same way as we have done with this.
The Government have introduced this Bill as part of the preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I say again that we are committed to ensuring that liberal access continues for the commercial haulage sector. We all agree on how important it is that that continues. We are confident that a future partnership between the UK and EU in this area is in the interests of us all, and we are optimistic about the negotiations.
This legislation shows that this Government are acting responsibly—I hope noble Lords will welcome the preparations, as many have, in various tones—in case preparations are required as we move from our current membership of the EU to our future partnership. My noble friend Lord Attlee rightly called this a sensible precaution, and I will pass on the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to the department for being so well prepared. Of course, there are many wider issues relating to leaving the EU that will be of much interest to noble Lords. Many of them are being debated at length in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. I hope that the sensible measures in this technical Bill will help ensure that the UK is prepared for all eventualities and I welcome noble Lords’ broad agreement on this, and their contributions to delivering it as the Bill proceeds through the House.
I thank again all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate this afternoon—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who, like me, are on their third piece of transport legislation today. We will carefully consider all the points raised, and I look forward to discussing them further in Committee. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Tuesday 13th March 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-I(a) Amendments for Grand Committee, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 61KB) - (12 Mar 2018)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 1
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“EU Community Licence arrangements
(1) It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement from the EU, to seek continued UK participation in the EU’s Community Licence arrangements.(2) If the continued participation referred to in subsection (1) is achieved after the passing of this Act, no Minister of the Crown may make regulations under sections 1 to 5 or 23(2) of this Act.”
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, you will have to bear with me; it is a while since I have had to do this.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to Grand Committee and hope that she enjoys it as much as we will. Amendment 1, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is very simple. Its aim is to ensure that the Government have as a negotiating objective continuing participation in the EU Community licence arrangements. Those arrangements have served the UK well. One might argue that they have created a frictionless regime for borders, are easy to understand and largely ensure safe passage of UK goods across the EU 27 and from the EU into the UK.
The Minister should welcome the amendment because it is surely what the Government want to secure in their negotiations. To put it into the Bill would give the freight industry the sort of confidence that it requires and demonstrate beyond doubt that the Government are very much on the industry’s side. If anyone needed reminding of the importance of freight to our economy, they need go no further than read last night’s Hansard. I have had the benefit of reading it, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, among others, was passionate in his arguments on behalf of the freight industry generally, but for our economy in particular, when he moved amendments on freight-related issues. In particular, his Amendment 104 to Clause 7 of the withdrawal Bill caught my eye. It has similar objectives to this amendment in the sense that any new procedures that we put in place should avoid increasing delays to freight transport. The only surefire way to achieve that is to continue the current scheme.
The volume of traffic between the UK and the EU is enormous. In 2016, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley reminded us, 67 million tonnes of unitised freight were imported or exported, of which 14 million tonnes were temperature-controlled. There are 3,000 trucks a day carrying temperature-controlled loads. In one year alone, 55 million UK customs declarations had to be made, and my noble friend says that this is likely to multiply fivefold after Brexit.
We want at all costs to avoid the queues we have seen when Operation Stack has had to kick in. That would kill our export trade and decimate our ability to move materials into the UK for industry and farming purposes. Seeking to emulate what we already have must be an objective of the Bill, and that is what my amendment achieves.
I look forward to the happy prospect of the Minister not just welcoming my amendment but agreeing to busily import it and incorporate it into the Bill. I cannot believe that the Government would want to create any doubt in anyone’s mind about their intention to be successful in their negotiations and to secure the self-same benefits for the road freight sector that we currently enjoy. I am sure that the FTA and RHA would welcome that certainty. I am confident that our farming industry would want it and that manufacturers, the pharmaceutical sector and, importantly, the construction industry would want it too.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I say just a few words about some of the other amendments in my name in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I have put our names to sunset provisions simply because, if the Government are successful, not only do the main provisions of the Bill cease to have relevance but we both feel that the clauses should cease to have a place on the statute book. These amendments are supported by the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee; I draw colleagues’ attention to the Constitution Committee’s report that has just been published. I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the group. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I signed Amendment 1 because it drew attention to the fact that, yet again, we have an example of the Government trying desperately to devise a way to maintain a position that we already have. They are fighting to keep the benefits that we currently enjoy as members of the EU. Although the Government have been quite innovative in their approach—in so far as there is any detail—the situation will clearly not be anything like as good as what hauliers currently enjoy.
The formulation in the amendment is similar to that used in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, for example, in which we urge the Government to pursue Euratom membership. The Minister will be familiar with my Private Member’s Bill on the open skies agreement; it is the same formulation. We have a perfectly good arrangement in the EU at the moment, which we will leave for something less satisfactory. This group of amendments ensures that the powers granted under the haulage permits Bill are not applicable if we stay within the EU’s Community licence regime—in other words, if we successfully negotiate to remain in some kind of positive relationship within the EU.
I draw attention to the very harsh words of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. They reflect the sort of thing that we have heard quite regularly recently, but they are rather stronger than we are used to:
“The Bill is wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”.
The committee also points out that:
“16 of the 24 clauses contain delegated powers, all of them subject only to the negative procedure”.
We have not even got draft regulations in order to see what the Government are aiming at.
It is clear that the Bill was written in a panic at the very last minute. It is the first instance I have come across of the Government legislating while saying that they do not want to and admitting that they do not know how the system will work. That is not how British democracy should work. It is yet another example of the destructive impact of Brexit. Having admitted that they did not want to have to legislate in this way, the Government should have included in the Bill some sunset clauses or the use of only the affirmative procedure. As it stands, the Bill is not worthy of a democracy.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in their amendment. Noble Lords will have to forgive me if I sound even less coherent than usual today. I am suffering from what everybody else would call a cold, but, being a man, I believe it is something far more serious. Nevertheless, I am still here.
I would have thought, as my noble friend implied, that the Government would be in favour of the proposed new clause. As the noble Baroness said, this is rather last-minute legislation. In a way, it is understandable, because we still do not know how far negotiations have gone where these matters are concerned. I promised myself not to make a Second Reading speech and will not, but I found it surprising during the Brexit discussion to find so many road hauliers in favour of Brexit because they were not happy with the status quo as it then was. Now, of course, they are a lot less happy at the prospect of a status quo no longer existing. The main concern, at least of those whom I spoke to, was about cabotage; there is little mention—in fact, I do not think there is any—of cabotage in the Bill, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether any discussions which have taken place with the rest of the EU have concentrated on this aspect of the road haulage industry.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness mentioned the number of lorry movements from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EU; there are a hell of a lot coming the other way—I understand about three times as many. We have expressed concern about the likelihood of Kent being a lorry park if no arrangements are made in light of this amendment, but if three times as many lorries are coming into the United Kingdom as leaving, it would be possible to imagine northern France also becoming a lorry park. That is not to say that I share the optimism of those who say that there will be an agreement because these matters cause even more dislocation to our European partners than they do the United Kingdom. Again, it is difficult to tease from the Government where exactly we are in the negotiations. We await the Minister’s response to this amendment. My view is that it might be something that the Government are happy to support. If she says that, at least we will have started the Committee off on a happy note, even if it is not repeated—although I hope it will be—during our deliberations. I support my noble friend and the noble Baroness and hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support all the amendments in the group, and am grateful for the kind words said about me by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton and our debate last night.
The noble Baroness may be right that there are many things wrong with this Bill, but it is a great deal better than nothing. It affects only drivers’ permits and trailers. Last night in the discussion on Amendment 104, we discussed many other issues relating to cross-channel and cross-frontier freight and all the customs issues that went with them. As I think I said last night, it would be good if we had had a separate Bill for that so that we might have gone into the detail, but here we are. We had a very good Second Reading debate. My worry, which is contained in Amendment 7 in my name, is that when we discussed at Second Reading Clause 2, which is to do with the number and allocation of permits, it seemed to become quite confusing. One noble Lord—I cannot remember who—warned against the “random selection” in Clause 2(2) because it was greatly open to abuse. Perhaps that should be removed.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 6 and 11 in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I do so in my capacity as chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The first thing I need to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is that it is a bit unfair to characterise my committee’s report as having “very harsh words”. The noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Thurlow and Lord Lisvane, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan do not do harsh. Further, if one looks at my committee’s report, one will see that we have made five recommendations, two of which say that it would be nice to have a sifting committee and two of which say that we should have a sunset clause, as proposed in Amendments 6 and 11. The first recommendation suggests that it would have been helpful if the Government had given us some examples of the type of regulations necessary. If those are “harsh words”, I think the noble Baroness is living in cloud-cuckoo-land, if I may say so.
Baroness Randerson
Can I clarify that? Having used the term “harsh”, I then used the precise words that are in the report. Anyone reading these proceedings will be absolutely clear that my definition of “harsh” is based on the words used in the report. It might be in the eyes of the reader rather than the reality of the situation.
Lord Blencathra
I thank the noble Baroness. Our report does say:
“The Bill is wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”.
It goes on to say in paragraph 4 that:
“We appreciate that the position remains unclear for a variety of reasons”,
which explains why we think the Bill is skeletal. I hope my noble friend the Minister can give us a few examples of the sort of regulations that may be necessary.
On Amendments 6 and 11, the Government’s helpful Explanatory Memorandum says that:
“The power has been left to delegated legislation rather than included in the Bill because the terms of international road transport agreements are as yet unknown. The provisions put in place, if any provisions are needed at all, will reflect the terms agreed between the UK and the EU or other countries for the carriage of goods”.
The wording in the Explanatory Memorandum is almost identical on Clauses 1 and 3, to which these amendments relate. That is why we simply say in our committee’s report:
“Given that regulations under clause 1”—
and Clause 3—
“might prove to be unnecessary, we recommend that the Bill should contain a sunset provision, extendable if necessary, to remove the regulation-making power in clause 1 if it does in fact prove to be unnecessary”.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on tabling that amendment on behalf of my committee. I had been a bit negligent in putting it down myself, so I am grateful to him and I would be grateful if the Minister, in due course, could respond to the points made.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, regarding Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not think we should tie the hands of government. If we set something in stone in primary legislation, it will be to our disadvantage and our opponents’ advantage. However, I very much hope that the negotiations will result in the absolute minimum of friction, for the reasons so well explained by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, observed that there are no draft regulations in sight and that this is a framework Bill. That is not surprising, because we do not know what the negotiated agreement will look like. However, the Committee will be aware that if the Bill is passed, it will strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises an important point in his Amendment 7. I would like to see no restrictions on permits—more or less free issue—with one exception, which I am sure he will agree with. Is there any scope for denying permits to non-compliant operators if they are in trouble with the traffic commissioners or the Vehicle Inspectorate? I do not expect an answer from my noble friend the Minister this afternoon but perhaps she could write to me in due course. As I say, I am for no quantity restrictions but I do not think we should put this into the Bill because it would tie the hands of Ministers when they are negotiating Brexit.
Lord Berkeley
I understand the noble Earl’s comment in suggesting that Amendment 7 may not be a good thing to put into the Bill. But he will remember that when this was debated at Second Reading, there was much discussion of the allocation of permits. Does he not agree that there needs to be some wording to ensure that the allocation, if it has to happen—I share his views that it should not and that there should be enough for everyone—should be seen to be fair? Perhaps he has some other ideas to replace my proposed new clause in Amendment 7.
Earl Attlee
I assure the Committee that I will not be tabling amendments but I was alarmed by some of the history of permits that we looked at during Second Reading. That is something I do not want to see because it constrains the market and competition. I would much rather see permits issued more or less freely, with that one exception: that we could see it as an opportunity to make things more difficult for non-compliant operators.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I might be the only person in the Room who has run on one of these permits, which was some 50 years ago. I have some permit documentation, going back 30 years, in front of me now. I want to talk about what happened then and what we should avoid happening in the future.
We were carrying our own goods, exporting them and importing components. When we were exporting goods, we had to run on either non-quota or quota—non-quota was a defined group of products that we carried if we were going to an exhibition. For example, I remember going to a clock exhibition in Switzerland, and we had to get a non-quota to carry to Basle there. If we showed at the Paris Porte de Versailles in France, again we would run on non-quota permits but if we were running goods of our own manufacture, we would have to carry a permit. The undersupply of permits was a real problem.
The Minister sent us out a letter during the week in which she talked about electronic management of these systems. To some extent, that might work but I will come to a problem that might arise. The problem in the late 1960s and 1970s, when I was involved in this business, was that there were a lot of forgeries out there. Many truckers who could not get permits would forge them and, when they got to customs frontiers in Europe, bribe customs officers to get passage into another country. As I said at Second Reading, I saw this happen myself. I remember that the customs officer would almost wink and people would drop notes in an old jar standing on the counter. People knew what was going on and it was widespread. I never got involved in it myself, but I observed it. People used to get quite angry about the attitude of some customs officers. They would ask you to open the back of your truck to see what you were carrying, as if they were checking against the bills of lading—the document which indicated what goods you were carrying—as if they were to be given a tip for the pleasure of having your truck opened. It was examined, not properly but in a very curious way, with nods and winks. That went on a lot and I am worried about it.
That was one of the abuses. The next one—it was not even an abuse, as people just turned a blind eye to it—was the selling of permits. Some companies had more permits than they needed whereas others were starved of them. Someone told me on the phone the other day that the going rate, even in the 1980s, was something like £250 for a permit, depending on where you were. When they were carrying expensive goods that was a minor cost to pay, because it was transferred on to the people whose goods they were. If there is electronic control, the chances of abuse in that form are very remote.
We come back to the number of permits. If there is a shortage—and the French, the Dutch and the Belgians may argue for one—it will mean that when you load your truck in the UK you will have to drop your load at Antwerp, Amsterdam, Ostend, Zeebrugge, Calais or wherever. A French lorry will come and pick it up and get the business. At the moment, many British hauliers are able to carry right across Europe. If we do not have the permits to run in Europe, the Europeans will get the trade and all our lorries will be doing is running them across the channel, dropping them, then taking the tractor unit home. In the real world, there could be many problems. I know that this is a skeletal Bill and it may not even happen, but if it does there is going to be a lot of trouble and people are going to be angry.
Lord Snape
I do not doubt the situation outlined by my noble friend, but will it not be to the advantage of British hauliers, to a certain extent, if the system applies the other way around? If there are three times more lorries coming to the UK than going from the UK to Europe, will the British road haulage industry not benefit enormously? Judging by what he said, loads coming from the EU will have to be dropped in Dover or wherever.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I do not know. That may well be, but I want a straightforward system. I want the number of permits to be sufficient to meet the demand and not have to fiddle around with whether we reciprocate or not. I want to avoid all that.
Finally, I turn to what the permits are. In the old days, we had quota and non-quota permits. If we get ourselves into trouble in this area of negotiation, we should try and widen the description of non-quota. Earlier in my contribution, I referred to non-quota covering exhibition goods—which is what we ran. Because the rules are set so tightly if we have to go down this route, we might well be able to widen the description of non-quota to cover what would otherwise come under quota. I do not know if the Minister is with me on that. That is because the regime for non-quota permits is different from the quota regime. On the quota regime there will be a lot more restriction, because non-quota permits are not as frequently used so, if we widen the non-quota permit arrangements, some of that trade may well be transferred over to non-quota. I am sorry if I have not made that altogether clear, but I am sure that in time it will ring correct.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will speak to Amendments 6 and 11. However, before I do, maybe I will be allowed to allay the shock of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who looks at me aghast at the fact that I am not at Cheltenham today, supporting, as I always do, matters sporting. There is a related sporting issue that is relevant here. Thoroughbred racing and breeding is a truly international industry, with significant routes in Europe, and a key element of the success of Cheltenham, and indeed the whole of the thoroughbred, racing and breeding industry, is the current tripartite agreement—the TPA—between the UK, France and Ireland, which facilitates 25,000 movements annually between the three countries for racing, breeding and sales purposes. It is very important that that is kept in place and that we look, for example, at electronic passports in the future to protect that industry.
Lord Snape
I never doubted for a moment, knowing the noble Lord as long as I have, that if it came to a choice between duty and Cheltenham, duty would obviously be first choice.
Lord Moynihan
I pass swiftly on from the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, but I am sad that I am not in Cheltenham today—and, indeed, that I will not be there tomorrow, because I will be speaking on matters sporting, and racing issues in particular, in the Brexit debate on the relevant amendment.
I support the comments that have been made by my chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the context of Amendments 6 and 11. Bills that grant wide powers to Ministers on the basis of no clear policy are difficult to scrutinise, as the Constitution Committee highlighted, and therefore present a fundamental challenge to the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. Much of the detail of how these regimes are to be put in place is left to secondary legislation. In the absence of policy detail or the illustrative regulations—examples that my noble friend mentioned earlier—it is not at all clear to me how these powers will be used or whether they will be used. That is what led to what I believe—I speak in a personal capacity—was a constructive comment when we said that it was,
“more of a mission statement than legislation”.
I therefore hope that where there are exceptional circumstances, which in this case require the creation of criminal offences by regulations, they should normally be subject to the affirmative procedure. What can support that specifically in the context of Amendments 6 and 11 is the inclusion of sunset clauses, which would mitigate the constitutional concerns raised by the broad powers in the Bill and the uncertainty about how they might be used. That is an important constitutional issue; it is interesting that that was covered in some detail both by the Constitution Committee and the committee on which I have the privilege to sit, both of which were at one. I ask the Minister to take those into account seriously as we progress through the Bill, to make sure that there is an appropriate balance between the Executive and the legislature so that we have the opportunity in the future to have a rather more detailed look, both through sunset clauses and the affirmative procedure, at some of the key aspects of the Bill.
Earl Attlee
Supposing that the Government lay some negative instruments to deal with the outcome of the negotiations, and that they are extremely disadvantageous to our road haulage industry, it would be open to the road haulage industry to get on to noble Lords like myself and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Snape and Lord Campbell-Savours, who could pray against the negative instrument in the first 40 days and say no to it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want to correct the record on something. I said that we ran on quota permits but we ran on non-quota permits. I just checked my notes.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I did not read Hansard for last night’s debate; I was there. There is no doubt about the extent of the concern expressed by Committee Members last night about permits and trade and the impact on society. I therefore support Amendment 1. Having been a negotiator, I was alerted to the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, so I looked at what it said—that:
“It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement from the EU, to seek continued UK participation in the EU’s Community Licence arrangements”.
I have to say, as negotiating briefs go, I have rarely seen one less prescriptive. It simply expresses a direction of travel and, broadly speaking, I support it. Similarly, I support Amendment 7, which once again gives more guidance than anything seriously prescriptive from a negotiator’s point of view.
I am grateful to read the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I think we have an amendment for every recommendation but I will check that before the next sitting. It would be easier if we had correspondence and the Government gave in in advance. We have here what one might call a contingency Bill—that is, a Bill to create an Act of Parliament against a contingency. All the committee is saying is that it is wrong to leave powers lying about. That relates specifically to Clauses 1 and 3. On Clause 1, the report states:
“Given that regulations under clause 1 might prove to be unnecessary, we recommend that the Bill should contain a sunset provision, extendable if necessary, to remove the regulation-making power in clause 1 if it does in fact prove to be unnecessary”.
In almost identical terms, Amendment 11 refers to Clause 3. In examining Clause 2, we could not see any reason why the same logic should not apply, so we have also proposed Amendment 10, which refers to Clause 2.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The proposed amendments would enshrine in the Bill an objective in negotiating the EU withdrawal agreement and, should a certain agreement be reached, Clauses 1 to 3 would cease to have an effect.
I will speak first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which seeks continued recognition of Community licences issued by the UK in the negotiations. As I outlined on Second Reading, the Government’s objective is to maintain the existing liberalised access for UK hauliers. Road haulage is at the heart of the £110 billion of trade that takes place between the UK and the EU every year. We are confident of success in the negotiations, as the continued movement of goods is in the interests of both the UK and the EU.
As noble Lords have pointed out, access is currently secured through participation in the Community licence arrangements. Outside the EU, only EEA members are currently party to the Community licence system. Although continued participation in the Community licence arrangements could be one outcome, the best way to secure mutual recognition and continued access for our hauliers will be through negotiations. I am afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in saying that we do not feel it would be right, or beneficial to our negotiations, to place any negotiation objectives in the legislation. As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, that would tie our hands.
The Government will take all reasonable steps to see that there are no restrictions on the movement of goods. This can take many forms, including the Community licence, mutual recognition of the operator licence or a permit-based agreement. Many international agreements that are permit-based do not restrict the numbers of permits exchanged; indeed, some of our existing agreements do not require permits at all, including our agreement with Turkey. As I said, our aim is to continue the liberalised access we enjoy today.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Will the Minister pause for a moment? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that Amendment 1 would set the objective in stone. It would not. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, it simply says that an objective of our negotiations should be essentially to retain what we currently have. What is wrong with trying to do that? How does it tie the Government’s hands? I cannot see that it ties their hands at all. The amendment simply says that that should be an objective. If it is only an objective, what do the Government feel binds them in any way?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would have no difficulty at all in convincing the courts that the matter was set in stone.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
I am not here to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his absence. I am keen to hear the Minister give her explanation, which is what the Committee needs.
Baroness Sugg
I will try my best, although I may not be as clear as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As I said, the existing Community arrangement is currently only for EU members and EEA members. When we leave the EU, we will not be either of those. What is suggested is one option, but there may well be an equally satisfactory option, such as an unlimited permit system or, as I said, mutual recognition of operators’ licences. We want to be able to keep those options open and not to be sent down the road of agreeing to the Community licence. There is no reason why a permit that replaces the Community licence could not provide the same level of access as exists currently. That could well be our negotiation objective.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I take the opportunity to reassure him that of course the Secretary of State will take all reasonable steps to meet the demand for permits from UK hauliers. We regularly meet industry to understand its requirements and priorities, which will be reflected in our detailed negotiations with the European Union. While the amendment would not tie our hands in the negotiation, I hope that what I have said gives the noble Lord confidence that it is not necessary to include this aim in the Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I would like to press the question of how these will be allocated. Clause 2(2) says:
“The methods that may be specified under subsection (1)(d) include random selection and first come, first served”.
What does “random selection” mean? How can we randomly select? Is it like a lottery? What about “first come, first served”? Is it a postal arrangement? We need more detail. I do not like this sentence being in the Bill and I think that it should be removed. If you go into negotiations with that in the Bill and a civil servant in Europe reads it, I think that I would know what to do in those negotiations.
Baroness Sugg
I understand the noble Lord’s concern. Later, we will discuss Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which addresses these issues. There is an explanation and, with the noble Lord’s permission, we will address it then.
The amendments on a sunset clause suggest that, should recognition of Community licences be secured as part of our negotiations, Clauses 1 to 3 should cease to have effect. I understand the intention and I agree that we do not wish to create delegated powers if they are not going to be used at any point in the future in relation to EU exit, but I would like to set out why this Bill has a wider application than just to our road haulage access with the EU. It should also apply to the European Conference of Ministers of Transport multilateral permit scheme and our bilateral agreements with non-EU countries.
While these non-EU agreements have, until now, been dealt with under administrative powers, now that we are introducing this Bill we think that it is important that those agreements are brought in scope, so that there is compliance and consistency in the administration, allocation and enforcement of permits with whatever agreement we reach with the European Union. There would be problems with having different legislation covering similar permit schemes. We are keen to ensure that UK hauliers can use one online system to apply and get permits for the EU as well as non-EU countries, as that would reduce burdens on them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Do I understand the noble Baroness right? Is she seeking to incorporate the ECMT scheme within the parameters of the Community licence? Is that part of the objective of the negotiations?
Baroness Sugg
No, not exactly. If the outcome of the negotiations is a permit-based system, whether unlimited or whatever, yes, we would use this legislation for the allocation of other permits for ECMT and non-EU countries. As I said, that is to simplify the system, have everything in one place under the regulations and allow hauliers to have just one point of access. Beyond the first regulations made under this power, they would need to be updated and amended as our international agreements, whether they be with EU or non-EU countries, change over time. We would need to retain the ability to create regulations under the Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Let us take the Mont Blanc or the Brenner Pass. A truck turns up with a permit which is handed over in the office. Will there be some sort of IT connection between that customs post on the Brenner with a central data point in the United Kingdom, so that it can check whether it is a valid or a forged permit? If so, we do not need particularly sophisticated documentation, because all along the line there will be an IT check on what is seen abroad. Can the Minister give us that assurance?
Baroness Sugg
I understand the noble Lord’s point. Sadly, I cannot speak for what will happen in the EU until we have concluded the negotiations. Within the UK, that is absolutely the idea: there would be a system to check on these permits. The noble Lord makes a very good point: we will seek to minimise corruption in future, but that will be subject to negotiations.
Lord Berkeley
On the issue of fraud, I have come across people involved in the delivery of trucks. There appears to be a way you can avoid being limited in your hours by the tachograph because it does not stay with the person, it stays with the truck. That has probably been the case for 20 or 30 years. What have we learned from that and how will we prevent the same thing happening in future with these licences that my noble friend has spoken about?
Baroness Sugg
Absolutely. I agree with the noble Lord that that has happened in the past. We are working with the DVSA on how to better enforce compliance, on both this and future licensing systems, and we will continue to do so.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned the tripartite agreement between the UK, France and Ireland. We have been looking at how best to ensure that the racing industry is not affected by this Bill and is protected. However, I will take away what he said and will look at it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Can I ask another question? I am sorry to keep coming back, but I will try to get all my questions out of the way at the beginning. What about the transfer of permits? Will there be some sort of mechanism to ensure that one haulier cannot sell a permit to another haulier? Perhaps we could have that assurance.
Baroness Sugg
I am afraid that until we know the exact system of the permits, we will not be able to give the noble Lord that assurance. Obviously, we need to avoid there being a false market for these permits. We will look at how permits are allocated and if they are limited in any way, which we hope they will not be, we will certainly consider how to avoid that. Again, the allocation system should make sure that additional permits are not allocated to people who are not using them. It is certainly something we will consider.
I hope I have addressed the need for this legislation, regardless of the agreement reached with the EU. I understand the sentiments of noble Lords in proposing these amendments and welcome the discussion it has enabled. However, as I said, we do not believe that the Community licence system is the only way to proceed and therefore do not think the Bill is an appropriate place to set out that negotiation objective. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, it is the tradition in Grand Committee to agree to withdraw amendments, and I shall shortly do so. However, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. I thought I gave her a rather generous invitation to accept Amendment 1.
There is something I find more puzzling still. Over the weekend I extended my reading to take in the international road freight permits policy scoping document. While it does not give us a lot more information, paragraph 1.6 says that the Bill is intended to support the Government’s aim of continuing the liberal access for commercial transport to the EU. It goes on to say that the importance of keeping essential trade flowing is recognised by the EU and is strongly in the mutual interest of both sides, and the industry is therefore confident that a deal will be secured to ensure that essential trade flows will continue without any restriction on access.
I take the argument that this is an opportunity for the Government to look at other ways in which haulage could be permitted, not just in the EU but more widely. I welcome the observation made by the Minister about the way in which they are going to try to simplify the permit scheme and, it seemed to me, bring schemes together to look for a simple way forward in the future. The beauty of the Community licence approach is that it is very simple. Once the primary point has been satisfied and you get the standard international operator’s licence in place, things flow from that. Therefore, I do not think that it is too big an ask to try to have that as an objective in the negotiations.
I will obviously undertake to read what the Minister has said in her reply, but I think it likely that I shall want to bring back this amendment, or one very similar, at Report. I do not think we have heard enough from her to persuade me otherwise, hard though she has tried this afternoon. Our haulage industry requires a bit more certainty and a sense of the Government’s direction of travel, what they have in mind and what their objective is.
If I have one fundamental objection to the Bill, it is that it is only a framework and is entirely skeletal. That much is very clear, not least from the reports that have been prepared by the Constitution Committee and the DPRRC. It is not a very satisfactory Bill, because we will end up having something skeletal as a contingency—that is what this Bill is. If we have to press the button and make it go live—to make it work and make it govern the way in which haulage operates as an industry—the Government will end up having to colour in a lot of the blanks that the Bill leaves, and will have to take rather urgent action to do that at a time when most of us, not least the industry itself, will be worrying about issues relating to Brexit.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his help in attempting to clarify things for her. I am grateful for the support I have had this afternoon for Amendment 1, across the Committee. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, Amendments 2, 4 and 5 in my name come from a question I have about Clause 1: why do drivers transporting goods to Northern Ireland get singled out? We know that the Republic is going to remain in the single market and that Northern Ireland is not. I see no difference between the requirements for a permit, or anything else, for drivers going between Northern Ireland and the Republic, between Northern Ireland and the UK—I assume that there is no need for a special licence between Northern Ireland and the UK—and between Northern Ireland and continental Europe. There is an added complexity to the licensing system which is not justified. What is the difference between drivers in Northern Ireland and those in other parts of the UK going to other parts of the European Union? Finding that out is the purpose of these three amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name also deals with Northern Ireland. It is a probing amendment, seeking an explanation from the Minister. Following an “international agreement”, Clause 3 allows the creation of regulations prohibiting an operator of a goods vehicle using it in specified circumstances. This creates obvious problems for the Irish border. If an international agreement were able to prohibit the travel of goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, this could lead to a diminishing sense of the common identity that has developed in the years following the Good Friday agreement. It also presents a practical problem, as the avoidance of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would not be possible. We all know that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that she wishes to avoid a hard border, but you are going to have a problem delivering that if checks are needed on the border. Whether the operator can cross the border or not, it is the checks that are the issue.
The Bill suggests that there is a sensitivity about travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Our amendment simply strengthens that reference. We obviously do not want to imply that there should be checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK—quite the contrary. I therefore want to emphasise that the amendment is to investigate how this provision would work and in what circumstances the Government anticipate that they might have to use it. It would obviously be a lot easier for everyone if we kept to the current arrangements.
Lord Snape
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I am confused about the continual references to Northern Ireland in the Bill before the Committee. Bearing in mind the years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, is there some specific reason why the Government are—“harping on” would be the wrong phrase to use—continually mentioning Northern Ireland in the Bill?
We need to seek some clarity from the Minister about the permits as well. What information does she envisage appearing on the permit? Will the permit be in the name of the driver, the vehicle or the company? Will it be for a specific journey or a period of time? Again, following my noble friend’s amendment, why are there specific references to Northern Ireland? It is and will remain part of the United Kingdom; I do not envy those in the negotiations that will take place between the Government and the Democratic Unionist Party but, for the moment, we have to say that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Whatever amendments we pass to the Bill will therefore apply equally in all parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister can help us where the permit system is concerned. Will there be a difference in the permits for Northern Ireland, and exactly what information do the Government envisage setting out on those permits before they are issued?
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I admit that to a fair degree I am not sure what the Bill says about Northern Ireland. I am not entirely sure what it will say about Northern Ireland, with or without these amendments. One thing I know about Northern Ireland is that before you say anything about it, you have to consult a lot of people to make sure you get it right. Accordingly, all I will say is that our position is to support the Good Friday agreement. We will examine what has been said so far and what the Minister says before determining our position on this group.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling these amendments and allowing a discussion on the important issue of haulage between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I take this opportunity to reiterate that this Bill does not create a permit regime or hard border on the island of Ireland. Clarity about this issue is of great importance, given the Government’s commitment to having no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls. We must preserve north-south co-operation, of which transport is a priority area for the North/South Ministerial Council, established under the Good Friday agreement.
The regulations brought forward under the Bill may prohibit a goods vehicle from undertaking an international journey to a country outside the UK, unless they have a permit, where an international agreement has been concluded requiring permits to be carried. In relation to Ireland, we have included an additional requirement that the Secretary of State must certify that the Government of Ireland have consented to the use of permits on journeys on the island of Ireland before this comes into force. This has been included to recognise and respect the long history of co-operation with regards to transport on the island of Ireland; the Government believe it is an important addition to the Bill.
Clause 1 is drafted to make it explicitly clear that regulations requiring permits for journeys on the island of Ireland will not be introduced without that clear agreement; we have singled it out because of the importance of ensuring that there is no hard border.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Just to clarify, if the agreement reached with either the EU or the Government in Ireland was such that they consented to a permit regime being introduced for haulage through Ireland, does that not envisage a situation where there might be a hard border?
Baroness Sugg
The clause as drafted ensures that there has to be a direct agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Ireland before any such scheme is introduced. It aims to avoid exactly that.
Lord Berkeley
Does not the question of requiring the Government of Ireland to consent to the use of permits apply to the whole European Union? In other words, are we allowed to use these permits unless the EU accepts them as a valid document? Does that not apply equally to the rest of the EU, not just Ireland?
Baroness Sugg
The permits would need to be recognised by the EU to be used. As I said, this is an extra clause to ensure that we can also have a separate agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom before anything is put in place.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Picking up on my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s point, does that mean that there has already been some negotiation between our Government and the EU on the possibility, or prospect, of a permit scheme having to be put in place? Are the negotiators aware that this contingency legislation has been drafted and do they see it as a practical way forward, with all other considerations put aside?
Baroness Sugg
As noble Lords will be aware, there have been many conversations between the EU and the UK on Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. Obviously, that was addressed in the December agreement. I am afraid that I am unable to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—despite consulting widely, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said—whether this specific piece of legislation has been discussed with the EU in detail. I will find that out and write to him. The example we have given in Clause 1 is an attempt to provide clarity on how the prohibition of using a goods vehicle without a permit in regulations may be limited, so it does not apply to journeys on the island of Ireland. It is designed to show that there is flexibility to agree something different on the island of Ireland, which is why we believe it is important to include an illustrative example.
Moving on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the Bill allows for a range of outcomes while also meeting our commitments on north/south co-operation as set out in the joint report. We do not think that the amendment as it stands will allow us that same flexibility. As we have not yet agreed the arrangements for haulage for when we leave the EU, we want to keep that flexibility to ensure that any agreement can be implemented. The Bill does not give the UK Government the power to restrict the number of trucks crossing the Irish border; it gives us the power only to implement any new cross-border arrangements that are agreed directly with the Republic of Ireland. As I say, both the UK and Irish Governments have made clear their commitment to avoiding a hard border and preserving cross-border co-operation in any scenario. There is no question of either Government agreeing to such restrictions on cross-border haulage.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on permits and what they will show, obviously we are consulting carefully on that, but we expect it to be the name of the company—as opposed to the truck—its validity and its unique number, which is similar to what we have on the Community licence.
Lord Snape
Would that permit be worded in exactly the same way if the journey originates in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Sugg
We expect that the permits would be the same; it is just that the agreement on how the permit system is enacted would be made only if it was subject to a direct and separate agreement between the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Would a company based in Ireland but travelling through the UK require a permit?
Baroness Sugg
If its journey would then go on to the European Union, yes, it would. However, if it was going just to the UK, that would fall under the agreement.
I understand that these amendments are designed to ensure that there are no new restrictions and to get clarity on the issue of the island of Ireland. We are committed to this goal and believe the current drafting of the Bill has that intention; as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, highlighted, it has been extensively consulted on. However, I will take noble Lords’ comments on this—
Lord Bassam of Brighton
I am sorry about this but on the permits from within Ireland that means a company based in Dublin, for example, would require a UK government permit to travel through the UK to go to the rest of Europe and beyond. Have we consulted with the Irish Government on that issue? It seems an important consultation to undertake. What if they are not happy for us to have a permit scheme which will apply to companies based in Ireland? I do not know how many of those there are; possibly not that many, although I am sure there are a sufficient number to be a burden on their businesses. Have they actively considered that?
Lord Berkeley
Before the Minister responds, I will widen the question a little. My noble friend mentioned the example of a lorry starting in Dublin and going through the UK to the continent, and asked whether it needs a permit. That is why I tabled Amendment 14B, which we shall come on to in due course, to ask whether foreign trucks need a permit to enter the UK. Surely it does not make any difference whether it is delivering from Dublin to the UK or going through the UK to deliver to Paris, as it still needs the same licence. Is my assumption correct?
Baroness Sugg
The noble Lord is correct. We will move on to discuss cabotage, which is an incredibly important issue, whether it be for Republic of Ireland hauliers or UK hauliers. We continue to work with industry to understand its needs. We have spoken to those within the island of Ireland and to a certain extent those in the EU about the Bill. As I said, the exact arrangement on cabotage will be subject to negotiation, so I cannot provide a precise answer at this stage on exactly what that truck from the Republic of Ireland travelling to the UK and on to France will need, because it will depend on the outcome of the negotiations.
As I said, the clause is an attempt to provide clarity on the issue around the island of Ireland. I will take away noble Lords’ comments, consider them carefully and look again at the wording. The reason for this provision is to single out a potential issue and provide reassurance that there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may not agree that it does that, so I will take it away and look at it in detail. But for now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for some pretty long and detailed explanations. I can see the political need for something like this. On the other hand, when one sees what has been going on in the last six months, where the Irish Government have clearly allowed the European Commission—probably quite rightly—to do all their negotiations for it as just another member state, that gives cause for reflection. I shall reflect with colleagues and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I move Amendment 8 simply because I believe two things. First, we cannot contemplate a situation where there are not enough permits. If we have a permit system, we must negotiate a position where there are sufficient. That is the principal reason for my moving the amendment: to emphasise that point, to allow people to speak to it and for some of the passion of last night to come through on the back of it.
If there is a limit, it is unthinkable that it should be a matter of random allocation or “first come, first served”. How do you build the future of your business, which is to a degree capital intensive, while depending on employing staff to line up at some government office with sleeping bags to sleep overnight to be first in the queue as if it is Wimbledon, or plan your investments on the basis of how their names might come out of some hat? First, we should not contemplate a limit on the number of permits; secondly, I cannot believe that these words were put in a Bill, as it cannot be a serious suggestion to this extraordinarily important industry that it would be required to behave like that to carry on trading. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I support the initial comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. It would be a disaster if we had to regulate the issue of permits in the way provided for, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us that we will take all necessary steps to avoid such a situation. However, I think that it is a sensible provision in a Bill as a backstop, while recognising that it would be terrible in the way if we found ourselves in such a situation as the noble Lord described.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on this. Pretty much every year, I try to get tickets to go to Glastonbury. You go on the website at 9 am and are still there at 10.30 am, and you suddenly discover that your youngest daughter has got tickets but you have not. There is something clearly wrong about a system that does that in my family, let alone anywhere else. The notion that we might have some random process—first come, first served or whatever—is clearly something that we should not allow ourselves to sign up to.
I want to hear on the record some reassuring words from the Minister. This may be a vague Bill, a schematic Bill, a framework Bill and all the rest, but this matter needs some clarification.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, “first come, first served” implies immediately a limited number of permits, a shortage of permits and problems in the industry. I want to read the general conditions from one such permit issued nearly 35 years ago, which civil servants may find useful during the negotiations. It is quite short, but raises a number of issues. Under “General Conditions”, it states:
“This authorisation, together with the journey record mentioned below, must be carried on the vehicle and be produced at the request of any authorised inspecting officer. It authorises only the number of journeys indicated. It is not valid for national transport. It is not transferable. The carrier is required to comply, in the territory of each Member State, with the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of that State, and in particular with those concerning transport and traffic. This authorisation must be returned to the issuing agency within fifteen days of date of expiry. Before each transport operation, the holder of this authorisation is required to prepare any journey record provided for in bilateral agreements. Such journey record must be returned at the same time as this authorisation”.
So it is a fairly complicated process for the hauliers.
If it is not used within 15 days of the date of expiry, it is returned, but that permit has already been allocated to a specific journey—if that is what it says in the terms and conditions. Is that permit then written off? Does it affect the total number or permits that are allocated, or can we simply allocate a substitute permit, having declared that permit to be written off? I am asking this because, if a limited number of permits are allocated, there is going to be some argument about where they are going. I am trying to establish how we calculate the total numbers that are allocated.
I have been thinking about the earlier intervention by my noble friend Lord Snape. He talked about it being of benefit, in certain circumstances, to our haulage industry. There is a problem there, because we want to avoid that. If we are going into these negotiations on the basis that we want enough permits to supply all the demand, the last thing we want to do is starve the Irish of permits. If they need them, they should be given them, because that helps our case in the negotiations with the European Union.
Baroness Randerson
In her reply, will the Minister clarify exactly what these permits will be? The background briefing that her department issued referred to single-journey permits and multiple-journey permits. It referred to the European Conference of Ministers of Transport permit system. Having researched this, I believe that the number of permits available under that system would be absolutely tiny. Where are these permits going to come from? What is going to regulate them? Are we going to dream it up ourselves or base it on the international system? We need a bit of clarity on this.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords again for their contributions to this debate. I assure noble Lords that this provision is not intended to allow these methods to be the only approach used, or for these to be used without the use of other criteria. We are in the process of negotiating with the EU on how UK hauliers will operate in the EU 27 after our withdrawal. As I said, we are confident we will secure an agreement which allows them to operate without restrictions on market access. If we do agree a permit system, “no restrictions” would mean unlimited permits. The exact nature of what will be in the permits will be down to the international agreement with the EU. We do not have details of that yet, but I imagine that it would follow the international information which is included on them. I will take back the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I will look in detail in Hansard about what the exact restrictions on that permit are. I am not sure that we would repeat them in a future system.
In including this, we are attempting to be prudent in ensuring that the industry would be able to continue to operate under a range of different outcomes. It may be that, depending on our future partnership agreement, in some circumstances, the demand for permits may exceed the available number. As I said, that is not the aim of negotiations or what we are hoping for, but we have a duty to plan for that, as a contingency.
One of those outcomes could see the permit scheme we agree involving a set quota of permits. The Bill allows us to set criteria to allocate those permits, should we need to. The detail of the criteria will be setout in regulations and guidance. We have set out some examples in the scoping documents. In such a case, criteria such as the economic benefit the permit would bring would be reflected. Of course, a more sensible way of allocating permits would be the best outcome. However, if the use of those criteria—set out in the regulations—was not sufficient to balance demand versus supply, we may need to apply a further method such as random allocation to decide between applicants. For example, if we were able to clearly allocate 90% of applications because of the economic case, we could then use a first come, first served basis or random allocation to allocate the other 10%. As I said, and as noble Lords have made clear, we want to avoid a system with a limited number of permits, but we need the ability to allocate them should we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of their being limited.
Baroness Sugg
I was coming on to that. It might be appropriate and fairer to combine a number of criteria and approaches to different types of permits. For many of our current permit schemes with third-party countries, such as Morocco and Ukraine, the number of permits is significantly greater than the take-up and this is not expected to change. In these circumstances, the optimal approach is first come, first served, which we use at the moment.
It would of course still be possible for the Government to bring forward a proposal to use these specific approaches for the EU by putting them in regulations alongside other criteria and methods. As I said, we discussed that further in the policy scoping note.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry. The transmission on the audio equipment was very bad when you were answering the question I asked. It was impossible to hear because the audio went wrong, so I repeat my question: if that sentence were not in the Bill, would it make any difference? Why not just remove it?
Baroness Sugg
As I said, we may use that system for current non-EU agreements and agreements with third countries, which we discussed before. That is the system we currently use because we have an excess of permits to demand. That could be on a random basis or on a first come, first served basis.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
I am sorry. If we are in one of those desperate situations where there is a shortage of permits compared to what we need, retaining that subsection is extremely damaging because it means that, in most circumstances, we cannot allocate on a needs basis. I should have thought that there are certain things we need to import or export that have a high degree of priority. Having that clause drives a coach and horses through that, does it not?
Lord Campbell-Savours
Before the Minister answers, can I ask her to take this away and discuss it in the department? I think she may get different advice when there has been a full discussion.
Baroness Sugg
I absolutely agree that we will need to put criteria in place in the unfortunate situation of there not being enough permits to go round. Of course we would do that; I hope I explained earlier that this would give us the ability to allocate the remainder of the permits if those criteria could not fairly decide what the allocations should be.
I entirely understand that noble Lords are concerned that the methods of allocation appear somewhat arbitrary when viewed in isolation. The intention is that when we bring forward the regulations—which will have all the criteria set out in the policy scoping notes—the industry will see that there is an objective and equitable approach. The option of including these criteria as part of the approach is an important contingency.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
The thing about regulations is that they are unamendable. You either buy the package or you reject the lot. This provision does not terribly help, because it could end up contradicting the regulations. That is why my noble friend is suggesting that the Minister might want to take it away to give it a bit more thought. I am struggling to think of a set of circumstances where these two things will work.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Can I add to that intervention? I can give the Minister another criterion. What about regional considerations, which might well be in our favour?
Baroness Sugg
The reason we put these two methods in the Bill and left other criteria and approaches for the regulations is based on legal advice. Perhaps the Committee would allow me to set it out.
Although there is no specific reference to the exercise of discretion in the Bill, all regulation-making powers and the regulations state that the Secretary of State “may make provision”, which obviously involves the exercise of discretion. Decisions on the allocation of permits will involve an element of discretion in both setting the criteria and applying them to determine which operator gets a permit. Discretion in the Secretary of State’s decision must be in accordance with public law principles, so it must be lawful, rational and procedurally fair, and decisions may be challenged by way of judicial review where they do not comply with those principles.
To be clear that the Secretary of State is able in certain circumstances to allow the use of first come, first served or random allocation, they have been included in the Bill. Where the criteria set out in regulations and guidance are not sufficient to allocate all the permits, the Secretary of State is able to use that discretion to allocate permits on a first come, first served basis. It is best included in the Bill in accordance with public law principles.
I understand the noble Lord’s point. We have had extensive discussion on this. It is based on very clear legal advice that if we were not to include it, we could not use it at any point. Although we do not want to use it for the allocation of permits, because I entirely agree that that would not be fair, I will take it back and discuss it further with the legal team to clarify. I understand why it standing alone in the Bill causes concern.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister. While she is doing that, could she come up with some precedents where the first come, first served principle has been used and, if it is buying tickets for sporting events, or whatever, whether it is appropriate for this?
Baroness Sugg
I certainly will. As I said, we currently use it in certain non-EU agreements, but this is obviously the first time we will be partially using it in an EU-UK agreement. Let us not forget that we are all hopeful that we will not need to include it, but if we do, it is incredibly important that we get it right in order that it is fair. I will take it away, discuss it further and see whether we can get across the same principle and ensure that we are not subject to legal challenge in a way that is more acceptable to noble Lords.
Earl Attlee
When my noble friend takes it away, can she also have a look at why we do not simply auction the permits? We auction all sorts of things: oil exploration rights, for instance. They are very valuable and they are auctioned. That seems a much more sensible way to allocate a scarce resource rather than first come, first served, which seems to have all sorts of difficulties alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, although he shakes his head vigorously.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Earl would prefer to see a lorry load of caviar coming in rather than basic food.
Earl Attlee
I made it quite clear that I do not think we should go anywhere close to being short on permits. We are talking about disaster if we are short on permits. As we know perfectly well, the Bill’s provision is just a long-stop measure, but I am glad that my noble friend will be taking it away.
Baroness Sugg
Currently, the scoping document does not include a provision to auction. That is a new one on me, and I think there will be various views on it. We are of course discussing what criteria should be used and that is subject to consultation, so I shall be happy to feed in my noble friend’s thoughts.
As I said, I understand the issue. I will take it back to see whether there is anything that we can do. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, if the Minister comes back with an agreement where this subsection is needed, she will have failed, and if she fails, the use of these criteria would be unreasonable. The Minister and I have already done spaceports and lasers. She has a commendable record on bringing back compromises; I hope that she does so in this case. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“(3A) Before exit day, the Secretary of State must publish a report outlining the content of any agreement with the EU over the allocation of permits for UK registered vehicles to operate in the EU.(3B) In subsection (3A), “exit day” has the same meaning as in section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 14B in my name.
Amendment 9 is quite simple. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a report saying what is in any agreement that has been made on the allocation of permits for UK-registered vehicles to operate in the EU. I do not need to go into it in any more detail than that. We have had a good discussion about that this afternoon, and I am sure that the Minister will welcome this. She will probably say that she is going to do it anyway, and if she is not going to, she jolly well should. However, there is a reciprocal problem that we have not discussed so far—although my noble friend Lord Snape mentioned it—which is about EU lorries coming into the UK. Amendment 14B would allow the Government to make regulations to issue permits for non-UK registered vehicles to come into the UK. This would include vehicles, as I said earlier, from the Republic of Ireland.
Does the Minister agree that there is a need to issue such licences? I hope that she does, because otherwise, EU lorries will roam around the UK freely, doing exactly what they like, presumably doing cabotage for several months before they run out of fuel. It seems unfair, and I am sure that the European Union negotiators will accept that there has to be a reciprocal arrangement. Does the Minister envisage an allocation of permits to each member state, or will there be one lot of permits to cover the whole 26 or so member states—apart from Ukraine and places like that, because they are not within the EU? If the answer is, “No, it is an EU one and that’s fine”, will the Republic of Ireland to be happy with that, and how will it get its allocation—will it be separate or together?
I can see from past experience that the French and Dutch Governments in particular may want more than their fair share, or more than what we may think is their fair share, so there is the question of how we would deal with that.
Lastly—I hardly dare go back to this question of first come, first served—but how will it be done? I cannot say much more than that, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. These amendments have been laid to ensure clarity of purpose in the Government’s strategy. Amendment 12 seeks to get the Government to lay a report within a month of the Bill passing on forecasts of how the permits regime will affect the efficiency of haulage and in every year following. Amendment 13 asks that within three months of the Bill passing the Government produce a report setting out their expectations for future arrangements between the EU and the UK with regard to road haulage. Amendment 14 suggests that within three months of the Bill passing a report on the costs of the future international haulage permit scheme be published.
It is essential to business continuity that the industry knows what the Government are up to and what their expectations are, what forecasts are being made and, most importantly, what costs they are likely to incur should the scheme in the Bill need to be implemented. It is fair to say that the impact assessments published were delphic in the extreme on cost estimating. No figures were given, but there were a lot of words to suggest that there is an expectation that companies in the small and medium-sized haulage sector might seriously struggle with the cost when permits are introduced, particularly given that, on the face of it, it is going to be a full cost recovery system.
The Minister will say that it is too early and that we have not got to the point at which we need to do a lot of this, but at Second Reading she gave some indication of what the range of costs might be for individual permits. We need more information, and there ought to be an obligation on the Government to produce reports setting out forecasts and expectations for future arrangements and costs. Without those things, we will not have certainty in the industry, and the industry definitely needs certainty. From my discussions with the FTA I know that it is concerned not so much about the scheme itself as about how it will work, what the details of implementation will be, the burdens that it will place on its businesses and the likely impact on the haulage industry in the UK generally. These are not unreasonable concerns. We, as responsible legislators, ought to focus on that. I hope that the Government can come up with some answers and will commit to producing reports and assessments of the sort that these amendments describe.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want to concentrate on Amendment 14, which refers to cost. I will refer to documents that I have from 30 years ago, which deal with the costs at that time. What interests me is how the costs are split between various categories. Again, civil servants might find this useful. I have with me a non-quota permit for France and a non-quota permit for Italy. The price I refer to now is an indicator for one country, so obviously if a truck were passing through a number of countries the totals would be multiplied. On a single journey to France, 30 years ago, a permit was £2.80; a multiple-journey permit valid for two journeys was £3.40; a multiple-journey permit valid for three journeys was £5.10; a multiple-journey permit valid for four journeys was £6.80; and a period permit was £50. That is for one country; as I said, those figures have to be multiplied for permits for more than one country.
The office in the United Kingdom that received that money was in Westgate House, on Westgate Road in Newcastle upon Tyne. That is where everything was organised from, and as my origins are in the northern region and as that was my former constituency, I hope that if we go into this business again, which I hope we will not, permits will again be allocated from somewhere in the north of England, and in particular from Newcastle.
I have with me also the detail that is required for a permit. I want to go through it, because it is quite onerous and people should reflect on these matters before we go down this route. The form, which is from more than 30 years ago, asks for: the full name of applicant; address in full; British operator’s licence number, the traffic area in which it was issued and the date of expiry, and for Northern Ireland operators a freight operator’s licence number and the date of expiry; details of vehicle, including make, registration number and MOT plate; the maximum permissible laden weight; the unladen weight; the maximum permissible load; the date for departure from GB; countries to be traversed; date of entry into country, in this case Italy; the town and country where the goods were loaded; the town and country where the goods were unloaded; the nature of the goods to be carried; the weight of the goods to be carried; the estimated total length of journey on the continent; and whether the vehicle will cross the Italian frontier by rail or Kangarou service on the outward or return journey. That is a lot of information.
When we are in these negotiations, we should try to minimise the amount of information that hauliers are required to provide, if possible. I have talked about what would happen with frontiers; I remember occasions when trucks were stopped because a mistake had been made in the permit allocation. Under the current arrangements, that would incur demurrage charges. The former Transport Minister will know all about demurrage charges; I think I remember a debate he was involved in some time ago. Those charges can be very high: the freight operators at Dover talk about a current rate of about £250 a day. So, a hold-up as a result of a mistake on an allocated permit can be very costly. Therefore, there is a need to minimise the amount of information required.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I rise to speak specifically to Amendment 12, to which I added my name, but also to the group as a whole, because it covers the cost of all this to the haulage industry: the cost of UK-registered vehicles operating in the EU; the efficiency of haulage after Brexit; future arrangements for the international transport of goods; and the cost impact. I have a slight feeling of Groundhog Day. I will spare your Lordships much of the detail, but I have been through this once in the previous 24 hours, during the EU withdrawal Bill debate, when we covered some of the same territory. For the sake of variety, I will say a few different things because there are plenty of things to say.
A report came out today—hence it was not the topic of my speech last night—by Clifford Chance and Oliver Wyman. It estimates that the costs to business of Brexit in terms of customs arrangements, additional legal and bureaucratic requirements and haulage requirements in relation to customs arrangements for goods in transit will be £32.8 billion. I always measure things in relation to £350 million, for reasons that might be obvious to some noble Lords here; that figure comes out at roughly double £350 million a week. That is a very significant issue and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, illustrated the situation so well with original documents. I recall that, a year ago, one of the haulage organisations—forgive me, I am delving into my memory and cannot remember which one—sent us a briefing about the costs to the haulage industry. It illustrated them by saying that, depending on the type of goods being carried, driving from the UK to Italy and back could require 64 different pieces of documentation. In this day and age, I am sure that would not be pieces of paper, but people have to fill in the forms online in just the same way. Anyone who spends as much time filling in forms online as I do will know that it is very easy to make one of the mistakes referred to by the noble Lord.
Last night, we talked about delays at the ports. Dover is a particularly stark example because of its geographical configuration and the built-up area around it. That all adds to the cost, and the issue of permits and other documentation is key to getting the lorries through Dover and all the other ports as quickly as possible.
The amendments address the impact of additional border controls and delays, the costs of which go well beyond the haulage industry. When we had Operation Stack—and Dover port is predicting worse queues than Operation Stack as a regular feature—it cost the police and council in Kent £1 million a day. All these other things add up, so it is so important that any permit system is simple, straightforward and as flexible as possible.
I also emphasised last night that we talk all the time about the cost to government, but businesses have to internalise and absorb those costs or pass them on to their customers. In the case of large companies, that might be quite reasonable over a period, but there are SMEs that have only ever exported to EU countries. They will never have dealt with custom systems before, and will not be familiar with the whole process. They will have to set up whole new departments and systems, which will be of significant cost to business and have significant impact on our industry. That applies across the board.
The Clifford Chance report picked out the impact on the car industry because car parts move across borders frequently during their production. The impact will be on car manufacturers not just in this country but in other countries bringing their cars and car parts to us.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government are doing some work on this and will soon be able to produce some hard figures. Reports have been published. They may be accurate or inaccurate, but the work has been done. Individual industries are doing that work. It would be very useful if we had some information on what the Government calculate will be the impact.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I see merit in some of the amendments. Clearly, we need to know the outcome of the negotiation and what the impact will be. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned demurrage, which is a good point. If you have a complex system, you can foul up. The problem for a small haulier is getting anyone to pay demurrage. It might be in the contract, but you try getting your customer to pay it for a small haulage business: you will struggle. It may be okay if you have a supertanker and your contract agreed on the Baltic Exchange, but for a little haulage deal? Forget it.
The Committee needs to consider the position of our EU partners. It is not in their interest to have a complex system either. We have the Hams Hall engine plant making BMW engines that have to go to Germany. We know perfectly well that automotive components go backwards and forwards several times, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said. It is in no one’s interest to have a complex system.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am not sure that is the case. If you are required to give your load to someone else, because you do not have a permit to run in Germany, you lose the business. A German tractor unit will take over your load and take it to its destination.
Earl Attlee
I agree with the noble Lord that the Government will have to negotiate the UK’s position effectively, but it is in no one’s interest—neither ours nor that of the other EU states—to have a complex system that harks back 50 years. The noble Lord has illustrated the problem very well: if you have a complex system, it will be horrendously expensive, and we do much more cross-channel trade now than we ever used to. I cannot see the driver of having a complex system. We may legally have to have a permit system, but it is up to the Government to negotiate as simple a system as possible, which I am confident they will do.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have just seen something in a non-quota document which might be of interest to Ministers. It is an Italian document stating that a permit is required for the transport of goods by means of an unaccompanied trailer or semi-trailer as well as by means of a motor vehicle with or without trailer or semi-trailer. It says that “articulated vehicle” means a tractor hauling of semi-trailer. If we really get into hard territory, we should be arguing on the gross tonnage of vehicles, because that might be a way of getting more permits. Our vehicles are 24 tonnes, 32 tonnes, 15 tonnes and 10 tonnes—I am not a transport expert; my noble friend Lord Berkeley will correct me. We may get an exemption for lower-tonnage vehicles in the event that we find ourselves in a corner on the allocation.
Earl Attlee
Of course, the noble Lord is thinking about a complex system. One might need a permit just to run vehicle registration number XYZ in Europe; it might be as simple as that; we simply do not know. The Minister will not give the indication because she is negotiating. It need not be horrendously complicated.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, this is the reports group of amendments; various reports are suggested. We have two amendments in the group, Amendments 13 and 14, but they all centre on the same issue: how is this critical, potentially catastrophic problem being solved and how much is it costing?
It is important to realise that this is not a second-order hard or soft Brexit debate; it has nothing to do with that. Whether it is a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, if this problem is not solved, we starve. Last night, it was clear just how concerned the House is about the situation. There is an argument that, because it will cause them pain and cause us pain, the world will be rational. The trouble is that the negotiations are being led not by businessmen or exporters but by politicians. I hate to say it: in history, politicians have not always been rational. Our friends in Europe are feeling very bruised about Brexit. They should probably be cheering because they are getting rid of us, but they are not; they are upset. Their club is being challenged by our departure, so there is every possibility that they will not be rational.
The argument that the pain is the same from anything we get wrong, again, is not valid. If you put a border down the North Sea and down the channel so that nothing can cross it, the EU 27 will survive and we will not. This problem has to be solved. All that we are asking for in this group of amendments is to be told how it is happening. Whether we agree the amendment or not, I hope that the Minister will hear what we are saying, arrange one way or another to keep us informed of developments and convince us that the energy and effort that such an important issue requires are going into solving it.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, these amendments set out requirements to report on a range of matters related to road haulage, from the allocation of permits to forecasting how a permits regime will affect the efficiency of road haulage, what our future arrangements will be for transporting goods, the cost to the road haulage industry and the permit arrangements for foreign hauliers. As noble Lords have made clear, road haulage is essential to our economy. It is an indispensable enabler of much of the wider economy, too. I appreciate that the Committee’s concerns here are how the permits system may affect the movement of haulage between the United Kingdom and the EU, and any impacts on UK hauliers and the wider economy—the direct financial impacts to industry and the wider economic effect.
The key impact for hauliers alongside the use of permits, as highlighted by many noble Lords, will be any restriction of trade and the possible friction at borders, which is why we are obviously doing what we can to reduce that. I am afraid I cannot give any further information on the wider negotiations currently taking place, and can only repeat that a future partnership is in the interests of both sides.
In implementing this legislation, we will bring forward a straightforward system that minimises any additional burdens or costs for business arising from the scheme. I previously set out that there will be no new transport checks required at borders. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes that we produce a report outlining the content of any agreement on the allocation of permits, if they are required. When our agreement with the EU is settled, we will of course ensure that the haulage industry is properly informed and educated. As he predicted, I can say that we will publish the details of that scheme as soon as it becomes available. I am not convinced of the need to enshrine in the Bill the requirement to lay such reports before Parliament, as the information will be in the public domain.
Within the other amendments, Amendment 12 proposes that one month after the Bill comes into effect, and thereafter on an annual basis,
“the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament containing a forecast of how the permits regime will affect the efficiency of haulage”,
while the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled an amendment about reporting within three months of the Bill coming into effect on the arrangement of the allocation of permits. I will address those together.
Although I cannot provide detailed forecasts of the impacts on the haulage industry while we are in negotiations as we do not know the final deal, as I have said, we are aiming to continue the existing liberalised access we have today. Again as predicted, this time by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not believe that a requirement in legislation to produce a report containing analysis of how the permits scheme has impacted haulage is appropriate, or indeed even possible, one month or three months after the Act is passed as suggested, as negotiations may still be concluding.
However, I absolutely agree that it is incredibly important that the impact of any EU permit scheme—if that is required, and we are obviously all keen that it will not be—is assessed at an appropriate stage to take into account the application of the agreement itself, the administration of the scheme and the effect it will have on industry. If we need any new permit scheme, it is unlikely to have gone live within the timescales suggested, and we would not be in a position to provide any evaluation of its impacts. As I have said, we will publish details of the scheme as soon as they are available, but I absolutely recognise that there is a need to review the impacts. I will consider how best to do this ahead of Report and come back to noble Lords on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a point about information. Where possible, we aim to use existing information provided as part of the operator’s licence, and of course we will consult on all additional information needed and will aim to minimise that. He helpfully highlighted previous requirements, which certainly seem excessive to me. If we can use the negotiations to simplify the information needed on permits, we should certainly do that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, this should be as simple and straightforward as possible.
I turn to the amendments on foreign hauliers. The Bill is not directly concerned with the operation of foreign hauliers in this country, except to the extent that Clauses 10 and 11 allow for derogations from a permitting scheme in emergencies. With the exception of Clauses 10 and 11, the Bill is solely concerned with requirements on UK hauliers operating internationally and provides powers only for the UK Government to issue permits to UK hauliers. But in light of the amendments, and because how EU hauliers are treated in the UK is incredibly important, it is probably helpful to outline the Government’s current thinking on international hauliers operating in the UK.
As noble Lords have pointed out, foreign hauliers play an essential part in freight movements between the UK and the EU. Foreign-registered HGVs carry more than five times as much freight as UK-registered HGVs, hauling 40 million tonnes between Great Britain and the other 27 EU member states. While the UK remains an EU member state, we participate in the Community licence scheme, an EU-wide scheme that permits a haulier licensed in one member state to operate across the Union, including some cross-border and within-border trade in other member states. The arrangements we make with the EU should, of course, be reciprocal. Whether we will require a permit scheme for foreign hauliers, and how it will work, will be subject to negotiations with the EU in the same way as whether UK hauliers will require a permit in the EU.
If future arrangements require permits for UK vehicles to travel to the EU, it follows that EU vehicles would require permits to travel to the UK. If we did require a permit scheme it would be for other member states, rather than the UK, to organise the issuing of their own permits. That would not be something the UK Government did. How they allocate these will be up to them, but we will discuss this with them in detail. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on first come first served and random allocation. That is why the Bill does not address this.
Lord Berkeley
I thank the Minister for her explanation. To be clear, if each member state is to be allocating permits, what about the quantity for each state? Will there be more permits in total than we want and will we be able to limit them? How is it going to work? Will the European Commission do it? I think that would be a pretty good disaster, but it is for it to decide.
Baroness Sugg
I am afraid that the answer to that is that it is all subject to the negotiations. The noble Lord asked earlier whether we were doing this on an EU-wide or bilateral basis. We think that an EU-wide basis is the simplest way. Of course, we want to ensure that enough permits are allocated to countries, for example Northern Ireland and France, which we currently have a lot of dealings with. I go back to the point that we are hoping we will not need a permit system, but if we do it will be unlimited and allocation would therefore not be an issue. If it is limited, which it may be, then if the number of UK permits is limited, how the European Commission allocates them will be down to negotiation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
It is very important that we do not have to negotiate bilaterally because we could be held to ransom by some of the northern European states, whereas others might be more generous. If we cannot get through France, Belgium or Holland, what is the point of them in the states lower down?
Baroness Sugg
The noble Lord is quite right. We think it is best to negotiate this as an EU-wide agreement. Bilateral agreements remain an option should we need them, but we very much hope that we do not.
Lord Berkeley
Is there a precedent in the negotiations with Ukraine, or another country outside the EU? Does Ukraine negotiate bilaterally with every other member state or with the EU, and are the lorries allowed to roam freely within the EU once they have got in?
Baroness Sugg
Our current agreement with Ukraine is negotiated through the EU. I believe that Ukraine has an unlimited number of permits. I will go back and look at specific examples. Most of these negotiations are done with the EU as a bloc, as I say, not bilaterally.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Surely, the position is that if you are carrying your own goods it will come under one quota system and there should be no restriction whatever. If you are carrying other people’s goods, there might be a restriction. We should have that in mind when we negotiate.
Baroness Sugg
I agree, as I do with the noble Lord’s point on using tonnage within the negotiations, which I will pass on.
I will explain to noble Lords how the regulation of foreign hauliers is being handled in legislation. It is currently carried out under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, which requires any operator, whether based in Great Britain or abroad, to carry a Great Britain operator’s licence, failure to do so being an offence subject to a level 5 fine on summary conviction. However, EU hauliers are currently exempt from carrying a GB operator’s licence because they carry a Community licence under EU law.
If EU community licences are no longer recognised when we leave the EU, we will remove the exemption for EU hauliers and regulate their access to the UK in the same way that we regulate access for non-EU hauliers. Obviously, how we do that will be subject to negotiations; again, I make the point that we hope we will not need to do this because of the open access. We will do that by setting out the conditions agreed in the international agreement concluded with each country or with the EU, including whether a permit is required.
The recognition of EU Community licences in Great Britain will be removed using the power to correct deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU under Clause 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which, as noble Lords know, we discussed in detail last night. When that comes into force, it will enable the Government to correct EU retained law and UK legislation where reciprocal arrangements between the UK and EU, such as the recognition of Community licences, no longer exist. The new conditions—if any are agreed in negotiations—placed on EU hauliers, including carrying a permit, may then be put in place by using existing powers under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, if the Government consider that this is required. The same approach will be taken in Northern Ireland legislation.
Baroness Golding (Lab)
I am concerned about horseracing. As the Minister will know, horses travel from Ireland to England, into France and back again. Will they be exempt from this kind of operation or is there another scheme to deal with horseracing and all the gear they take to a race and then to bring it back? As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours just said, they are other people’s property as well as the driver’s own. It does not make any sense to me to get them involved.
Baroness Sugg
This came up at Second Reading, and we have consulted extensively with the horseracing industry to ensure that it does not affect it. Our understanding is that all-in-one horseboxes—as I will call them again—are used rather than trailers, so they would not be affected by this legislation, but we are working with the industry to ensure that this will not affect it.
The reason why I set out how we deal with this in legislation is to make the point that there is a system there for us to do it through the withdrawal Bill and the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, which is why we have not addressed it in the Bill, which relates solely to UK hauliers. However, as I say, we are hopeful that we will not need to use it.
Lord Berkeley
Before we leave that, I think the Minister is arguing—obviously, I will have to read the record afterwards—that we do not need these amendments because it is already covered by existing legislation. However, I would be interested to know two things. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours talked about the difference between owned goods in a lorry and third-party ones. Is that condition still there, and do we have to take it into account? After the noble Baroness’s intervention earlier, would it be possible to have a total list of all the different permissions that are needed to carry goods out of and into the country? I could put it down as a Written Question, but it is easier to ask it now. It would be quite interesting to have such a list of what permissions one needs. I do not suggest that the Minister answers this now.
Baroness Sugg
I will have to get back to the noble Lord on that in writing, but I will certainly do so before Report.
I will say a quick word on cabotage. The proposed new clause would enable the Secretary of State to allow cabotage for UK goods vehicles in the EU and for EU-registered goods vehicles in the United Kingdom. Cabotage is currently secured through participation in the Community licence arrangements. It may be that, depending on our future partnership agreement, permits would allow for cabotage rights and would therefore be dealt with using existing legislation, as I outlined previously—the goods vehicles licensing Act. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this amendment is not needed to achieve what he is seeking, as we already have legislative cover on that.
On the point around owned hauliers, I will have to get back to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to keep getting up, but it is not just about your own goods. Under the arrangements that I remember, it was own goods, works of art, fresh fruit and veg and exhibition goods. All that I am arguing is that it might be possible to widen those descriptions in the event that we get ourselves into difficulties.
Baroness Sugg
The noble Lord makes a valid point. I will have to go back and look at that in detail and come back to the Committee in writing.
As was covered earlier when we were discussing the reporting requirements, I agree that we must consider the impacts of leaving the EU on the haulage sector. That should cover both UK and foreign hauliers. We need to come up with a form of reporting on this; I do not believe it needs to be in the Bill, but I will consider that and come back with a proposal ahead of Report. Once again, I welcome the discussion that this amendment has enabled, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister. She has been very patient with the questions from me and other noble Lords. Obviously I shall reflect on what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, this clause refers to the payment of fees for the permits that we have been talking about. Currently, hauliers have to buy a licence to register as hauliers, but they are also able to have on request a Community licence, which will be equivalent to the permit and which is free. However, under the scheme that the Government envisage, Clause 5 gives them the power to levy fees for the permits. I want to know why the Government feel they should charge fees for something that up to now has been provided to the hauliers free of charge.
The hauliers seem to be suffering several times over. Rather than having this easy-to-access, free and on-demand Community licence, they now have to apply for a specific permit, pay for it, perhaps even queue for it if we are still talking about first come, first served—and all this when in the end they are going to have a much less convenient system.
My particular concern is for SMEs. Given that, when we discussed this informally, the Minister indicated that the amounts of money would be in the order of £50 or £55—if I recall correctly—clearly for a large haulage company operating vehicles on a daily basis, that will not be a massive amount of money and will be passed on to the customers, as is inevitable. However, this will be a significant additional cost for an SME. Can the Minister explain to us the cause of the Government’s decision to reclaim their costs, when clearly they have not done so up to now, whether they are open to persuasion that charging for this would not be a good idea and the basis on which charges will be levied?
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the noble Baroness raised some interesting issues, some of which I touched on earlier. When I read the impact assessment, I could see that there was clearly some consideration by the Government about the potential impact on SMEs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said. The assessment suggests that some SMEs would struggle. Clearly that worries us: we have a vibrant and viable haulage sector that works well and has served our economy well and we do not want to damage it.
I wonder what full-cost recovery really means and I wonder what extra the permit will be paying for. I saw reference in the impact assessment to a suggestion that inspections would be carried out—ones that perhaps do not currently have to be carried out—to make sure that permits are valid and do the job that they are supposed to do in terms of haulage operators being able to move across the EU 27. In particular, there was a suggestion on the trailer registration scheme that some benefits would accrue through an extra inspection regime. That may well be the case—we will have that argument another day and we have amendments that raise some of those issues—but what does full-cost recovery cover? How much is it likely to cost? What will the impact be on SMEs? What sort of inspection regime will take place? Will it mean an expansion in staff? The Minister suggested that the work will be undertaken by the DVLS, is it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Acronyms sometimes get the better of me. So, what will it look like? How will it feel? How will it operate? What additional burdens will it place on the businesses affected? Where will the inspections take place? I picked up the point made by the Minister that they will not necessarily be at ports, but ports may be the best place; I do not know. I have seen lorries subject to customs inspections at ports, which works very well for some operations. We need answers to all these questions.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want to ask a very simple question, which is slightly tangential to the amendment, about fuel dipping. Fuel dipping is where the authorities decide, for whatever reason, to test tanks to see how much diesel they are carrying. Of course, these trucks carry a lot of diesel. I do not know where I heard it, but I heard that some countries on the outer periphery of Europe fuel dip in truck tanks so they can charge duty on diesel coming into their country. During the negotiations, we should be aware of any possibility of fuel dipping by member states and make sure that it is excluded and prohibited.
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, yet again makes an interesting and important point about fuel dipping. It is a burden on the industry. I have to confess that I made a suggestion to do with the problem of foreign trucks coming into the UK with very large tanks of fuel, running around the UK and then leaving with tanks that are practically empty so that the Treasury gets none of the benefit of the fuel. I suggested that every HGV, UK or foreign, should leave the UK with a nearly full tank of fuel, but that suggestion did not find favour because it was thought to be contrary to EU rules. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises an important point.
The noble Baroness asked why we should charge. I come back to the point that we simply do not know what the negotiations are going to give us. We again hope for a simple system, but if we end up with a more complex system, naturally there will have to be charges—presumably cost recovery only, as it should not be seen as a profit centre. We need to remember that the cost of running a maximum-weight articulated vehicle is quite considerable—I do not know the current figures—so the cost of a permit in the overall cost of the operation will not be that significant. Whether it is an SME or a large operator, the cost per mile of an HGV is very high.
I have what might be a slightly tricky question for the Minister. We are cost recovering, but are we going to use the UK fees that we raise from our own hauliers to cover the cost of inspecting foreign trucks over here to make sure that they have a permit? If there is a 75%/25% split for contingency—where the 25% is the UK operators—25% of operators will be paying a small amount of money in but spending a lot of money on ensuring the compliance of foreign operators. Some people might have something to say about UK operators paying for the policing of foreign operators.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, the idea is that a lot of foreign trucks are going to be inspected. It does not happen at the moment very much, and if it is going to happen in future, there will have to be a very large increase in the number of inspectors and locations for inspection. The profit margin of most of these operators is very low, so the cost of a permit, which, as the noble Baroness said, may be only £50 to £85, may be quite a lot to some people. I am more concerned that it appears that EU lorries coming into our country will not have to pay anything because they already have a permit from their own country. Are we giving them an £85 advantage just to come here? I assumed that we would be able to charge them to give them a permit, but, as the noble Baroness said earlier, they already have a permit. There is something out of balance here. I do not know what the solution is, but I hope that the Minister can look at this. Perhaps we should have our own permit scheme, or else it should be free for everybody. It does not seem fair at the moment.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, this clause creates fee-charging powers for administering a permit scheme, which, understandably, is a key concern for the UK haulage industry. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the issue in detail.
The regulations under this Bill will apply to all the permit schemes that the UK has. Once we have introduced a robust legal framework for permit schemes it would be both necessary and sensible for the regulations to cover all schemes. They would therefore apply to potential permit arrangements for EU member states, existing and future permit arrangements with non-EU countries, and ECMT permits. This means that fees for permits for different countries can be consistent and consolidated in a single set of regulations.
Baroness Randerson
Can the Minister clarify something? In their examples of existing permits where there are bilateral agreements, the Government refer to both single-journey and multiple-journey permits. Multiple-journey permits are clearly a lot less bureaucratic, but single-journey permits are a lot less expensive. Do the Government have an image of which way they are going on this or whether they are going to have single and multiple-journey permits if required?
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am flying blind now—I should really know the answer to this question. When a British haulier travels in France now, I presume they pay a fee on the motorway. French motorways are very expensive. When a French haulier arrives in the United Kingdom, do they pay any charges for the use of our roads? I think not. If that is the case then we might like to raise this issue if we have any trouble with the French—particularly with the hauliers—in the course of the negotiations. It might not only be France; it might be that some other countries in Europe like to charge for the use of their motorways, such as the Italians, and I am sure that there are others as well. The Swiss get their share too—whenever I go through Switzerland they take me for a ride for 40 francs for my car alone.
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. UK hauliers will pay a charge on a toll road in France in the same way as anyone else.
We are looking into the HGV levy and how to use it better. It may be a method of addressing this issue and I will certainly consider that. I think there is still a toll road on the M6, so obviously that has happened in one case in the UK. However, there are not currently plans for the Government to introduce tolling systems.
On the types of permits, which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised, there will be many options, including, but not limited to, single journey, annual bilateral—ECMT have both of those—and annual multilateral. Exactly what permits we have will be subject to negotiations.
Returning to the HGV levy, foreign hauliers currently pay the levy and so make a contribution to the roads, but, as I said, we are looking at that in detail and I shall send noble Lords more information on it.
We have aimed for the clause to be clear on what fees may be charged for, which allows us to consolidate all the regulations on existing permit fees in one place rather than them being split across a number of regulations. This will give greater clarity to operators and hopefully will be simpler to follow and allow better scrutiny for Parliament.
We think we need to charge a small application fee to recover the cost of processing the application—that will be payable by all applicants—and an issuing fee to recover the administrative costs of issuing the permit will then be payable by successful applicants only. There should not be a single fee, either for application or issuing, because unsuccessful applicants would bear some of the cost for issuing permits or vice versa. Hauliers should pay for what they use rather than paying the same costs irrespective of whether or not they have a permit—should they be needed, which we all hope they will not.
We want to introduce separate application and issuing fees. There is a precedent within the haulage sector for charging fees in this way as its operator licensing regime has both the application and issuing fees made in the regulations under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
I apologise because at this stage I am not able to provide the Committee with specific figures of what the fees for permits will be. It will depend on the number and types of permits required by hauliers, which journeys are exempt and the cost of administering a permits scheme—if there is a permit scheme, which of course will be subject to the negotiations. We want to keep fees as low as possible and in the region of the existing permit fees. The noble Baroness referred to a few examples. The annual ECMT permit which allows any numbers of journeys costs around £133 and a single journey bilateral permit costs £8. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, we need to take into account how that will affect small and medium-sized hauliers.
On the capability for the checking of these permits within the UK, there will obviously be a need, should we have a permit system, for them to be checked. As part of the spending statement today, the DfT has received £75.8 million to deliver its EU exit programme. That will include reconfiguring DVSA and looking at that in detail. Again—I apologise for repeating myself—until we know the outcome of the negotiations we are not going to know by how much the capability of DVSA needs to increase and we will have to wait to see the exact costs.
The DfT is working with the Treasury to determine the appropriate level of fees. This will be included in the regulations to allow scrutiny by Parliament. As I say, we are doing everything we can to keep the cost low. It is a key consideration for UK hauliers and we are working closely with them as these plans develop. We will be working closely with small and medium-sized enterprises as well in order to keep these costs as low as possible. I hope that explanation demonstrates why we have a fees clause in the Bill and exactly what we will be using it for. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Berkeley
If a truck has to be checked statically in a car park somewhere, that will be quite expensive. The DVLA no longer has the system of excise duty licences on cars; that is checked by number plates. Is there a way of adopting a similar system for trucks—even for foreign ones? I know they have different number plates, but it would be much easier and would give a much more comprehensive range of checks.
Earl Attlee
What about the HGV levy system and the technology behind it? It uses ANPR to enforce it, so I should have thought that it would work automatically.
Baroness Sugg
The noble Lord and my noble friend make important points. Of course, we want to use IT systems whenever we can both to minimise the burden for hauliers and for Government to check on these things. The permit system may not be allocated to a specific truck; it could be allocated to a haulage company. That may be difficult, but we are exploring it. The current system is that the DVSA outside the port will pull over a truck and check it on the side of the road. That is one of the options that we are exploring. If there is a way to do it that is less expensive and more efficient, we will certainly do that.
Lord Berkeley
That is very interesting. I thought the permit would be allocated to a truck. If it is not, there seems to be more potential for fraud—by photocopying, for a start.
Baroness Sugg
The reason we do not think the permit will be allocated to a specific truck is to allow for flexibility, should there be a limit on the number of permits. It will enable hauliers to move them between trucks, so they are not restricted to only one truck going back and forth to Europe. On fraud, we are designing a system to try to ensure that it will be allocated to a specific company. It may give us the number of trucks that could use the permit. We could check the licence plates and other things. We are working through the issues on that. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for the amount of detail she has given on this. Certainly, it is sufficient that I will have to look at the record and quite possibly come back with some more questions. I am very grateful for the amount of further information she has given us.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Thursday 22nd March 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-II Marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 75KB) - (20 Mar 2018)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Baroness Randerson
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for compulsory registration of—(a) commercial trailers weighing over 750kg that travel internationally;(b) non-commercial trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes that travel internationally; and(c) all new commercial trailers over 750kg.(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for voluntary registration of all trailers not covered by subsection (1A).”
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to provide for compulsory registration of certain trailers. These requirements were suggested in the impact assessment by the Government as a possible registration scheme. We are simply suggesting that those requirements should be in the Bill. There is a number of reasons: first, as a general principle, this is an opportunity to flesh out this very thin Bill a bit in a meaningful way. It is, after all, a trailer registration scheme, and that is one of the two purposes of the Bill. If this amendment were on the face of the Bill, the Government would not be able to provide for a compulsory registration scheme for all trailers; in other words, this would narrow the scope.
The amendment would also give more clarity about the status of certain vehicles. On Second Reading and in our previous Committee sitting, several examples were raised regarding the uncertainty surrounding what categories would be applied to which trailers.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
The amendment refers to trailers weighing over 750 kilograms. Is that gross weight or net weight?
Baroness Randerson
It is, I gather, but that is the instruction from the Minister. We are working to the Government’s definitions.
This is a good opportunity to raise the issue of the voluntary registration scheme currently provided by the National Caravan Council, not to be confused with the Caravan Club. The council is an industry body which operates a very well-established scheme of registration. It is concerned that the Bill should not muddy the waters on registration. I am sure that it would like its own scheme to continue, but I am concerned that we do not end up with two different registration schemes with slightly different requirements and criteria. This will already add complexity to the existing situation, and we need to be careful that it does not become confusing as well as slightly more bureaucratic. How will the Government’s proposed scheme fit with the National Caravan Council scheme? Have she or her officials had discussions with the council, because it remains concerned about the issue?
Our other amendment in this group, Amendment 17, was drafted simply to help provide clarity to travellers who may, as a result of us not being a party to the community licence any more, be subject to different trailer registration requirements in different EU countries. The point has been made in debate here that Germany, for example, is quite stringent in its requirements on trailers. We are seeking to take the opportunity of this Bill to raise public awareness of the variation in the attitude between different EU member states to trailer registration. I very much hope that the Minister can give us some information to allay concerns.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 16 in this group. It is a probing amendment that would cover commercial and non-commercial trailers. It relates, along with Amendment 18 in the next group, to concerns raised by Karin Smyth, MP for Bristol South, prompted by a tragic case involving constituents of hers, Donna and Scott Hussey. Their son, Freddie, was killed in 2014 when he was hit by a trailer that had come loose from a Land Rover. The trailer’s tow-hitch was not secure as the position of its handbrake prevented it being properly locked down. The family and Karin Smyth have been campaigning ever since on the issue of trailer safety, and they have attracted support from successive road safety Ministers, including the current Minister, Jesse Norman. The National Trailer and Towing Association also supports legal changes.
My Amendment 16 simply says that there should be a compulsory register of trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes, regardless of whether it is used in the UK or internationally, and that the register should be maintained by the Secretary of State. It is pretty obvious that registration is essential as a requirement for regular safety checks. There is no evidence in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill as to why the Government have set the weight rules at 750 kilograms and applied the regime to commercial trailers only. Why limit the scope in the way in which the department is proposing? Why not take advantage of the legislative opportunity that this Bill provides to widen the scope of safety checks? The Freddie Hussey case is not the only example of failed safety measures leading to loss of life. The Husseys, understandably, have done quite a lot of research and have come across several similar cases.
The impact assessment says that the Bill presents an opportunity to improve safety through better regulations. This amendment seeks to probe this possibility. I also give notice, if I may, that, if I get an unsympathetic response from the Minister, I might want to push this issue on Report. I would, of course, much prefer to get there by agreement and co-operation. I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to this and I hope that the Committee will be also. When we come to Amendment 18, I will flesh out some of the thinking behind this approach and the trailer safety requirement, which I will move later.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of an interest that I have: I own one very large commercial trailer. However, it is extremely unlikely that I will be taking it on to the continent, and therefore it is not in scope of the Bill.
I have some sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The difficulty is that the burden on individuals and the cost of implementing it probably would not outweigh the benefits. However, his amendment as he describes it is about the need to test these trailers rather than register them. I share his concern about the safety of these trailers, particularly those under 3.5 tonnes that are used for transporting cars and goods. There is no requirement whatever for these vehicles to be tested; I myself have seen some in an absolutely terrible state. There is an issue, and the department needs to look closely at these smaller trailers because I have seen them involved in quite a few accidents.
We already test HGV trailers under the plating and testing regulations, but these trailers are not currently registered in the way that we are proposing. We will be registering some under the Bill in order for them to operate on the continent. Still, if the Government were minded to, they could bring these trailers under 3.5 tonnes in scope of testing by other means without using the Bill. So the noble Lord raises an important point; it is perfectly proper to use the Bill to raise the issue, but I do not think that this is the right vehicle—excuse the pun.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Could I ask some questions? First, have we an estimate of the number of trailers that fall under the various categories nationally that we might be able to talk about during the course of the Committee? Secondly, do we have any information on the number of accidents that have taken place? If so, do we know what proportion of those accidents have entailed the trailer being overloaded in default of other law?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Is the Minister going to grasp the general subject of trailer safety under this group or the next?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for their amendments on the requirements regulation for the trailer registration system. Our intention is to set out in the regulations the full scope of the registration scheme. Mandatory registration will apply solely to certain categories of trailers travelling internationally to or through 1968 Convention territories. This includes all current EU member states with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Malta and Cyprus. The distinction over limiting the application of the scheme to trailers travelling in 1968 Convention territories is important as it ensures that trailers used for any UK to Republic of Ireland journeys will not be subject to mandatory registration. The Government have been clear that we are committed to ensuring that no hard border is created on the island of Ireland, and the Bill will not create any additional requirements for trailers used solely for journeys between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The intended scope for the mandatory scheme, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and set out in the policy scoping document, is for commercial trailers over 750 kilograms and all trailers over 3.5 tonnes undertaking such journeys. The convention is not concerned with the registration status of trailers weighing below 750 kilogrammes, which is why we have used that bracket. I will explain our thinking on trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes shortly.
The setting of all the details of scope in regulations is done in order to offer clarity to trailer users and allow the regulations to clearly cover all matters relating to registration. However, I sympathise with the noble Baroness’s point about having some certainty on that; that is why we have included them in the policy scoping documents and are consulting with the industry. The fact that they are not in the Bill will also allow us to consult further before setting the exact details. While we are clear that mandatory registration should apply to commercial trailers over 750 kilograms, further consideration is needed on whether larger, non-commercial leisure trailers should be covered by the regulations made under the Bill.
I am not sure how heavy my noble friend’s trailer is, but from our engagement with industry, we are confident that trailers over 3.5 tonnes are very limited in number—I fear that we have been unable to come up with exact numbers. However, in light of this, we are considering whether the registration scope should be mandatory for these trailers and we want to consult on this further with the sector before making a final decision. For that reason, and because we believe all of the details should be in one place in the regulations, we do not want to set these categories out in the Bill at this stage.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I did not hear an answer from the Minister to my question about the number of accidents.
Baroness Sugg
I apologise to the noble Lord for not addressing that point. We do have some figures, which will be discussed on the next amendment on safety, but I will look into the issue in detail and write to all noble Lords.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is there any chance that we could have those figures before we get into the next amendment? The Minister’s reply will be at the end of the debate and we may not have an opportunity to hear them otherwise.
Baroness Sugg
I am afraid that we do not have the detailed figures on trailer accidents ahead of the next discussion.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for her reply. As usual, she has indicated that she is in discussions with the National Caravan Council. I am content with that. I will look carefully at the details of the reply, particularly in relation to the National Caravan Council’s registration scheme and its requirements.
The noble Lord asked about the size of the sector. As an illustration, the figures I have show that in the last year there were 65,000 new caravan registrations and sales—and that is only one sort of trailer. The National Caravan Council’s scheme registered more than a third of those, so it is an important scheme that already exists and it is important that it fits alongside the Government’s proposals. Obviously, I will come back to the Minister if I have any further questions, but at this moment I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“( ) Regulations must provide for the compulsory registration of trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes kept or used on roads, whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom, in a register kept by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I will restrain myself except to pick up a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Clearly, he is concerned, as I think all of us are, that we do not overburden the regulatory field. I understand that, but I think registration is an important element of safety and it has to be in place.
This takes me back to a time when I was responsible for food standards regulations as a national official. In the Food Safety Act 1990, the Government got it right because they insisted that we had to have a system of registration for food premises. At the time, I thought that that was all well and good, but there was insufficient regulation on top. Nevertheless, the Government were right to insist on proper registration, and the proper application of regulations and standards began to apply after that; the sector has improved immeasurably since. I would apply the same logic to this area of regulation and I hope that the noble Earl will be sympathetic to that. I agree with him about vehicle testing. That is addressed in Amendment 18 and I will comment on that in a moment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend the Minister, my trailer weighs 27,000 kilos, not 3,500 kilos. I also control what I call the little trailer which weighs only 17 tonnes.
I want to put forward one further argument in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. These 3.5-tonne trailers are often lent out among friends. Quite often people do not own their own trailer but they know someone who has one and they borrow it in the hope that it is in good mechanical order. Generally speaking, you do not have the time to check that it is in good mechanical order, and even if you were a little concerned about it, it is a bit of an insult to approach someone with a view to borrowing their trailer and then say, “I am not towing that”. For practical reasons, you might be towing a trailer that really is not quite right.
On the noble Lord’s point about why registration is needed, I shall repeat what I have said. Currently, HGV trailers used in the UK are not registered but they are tested annually. There is a Ministry plating certificate on the vehicle which is linked to the trailer’s chassis number. The current system has everything that the noble Lord wants to see in order to have a proper system for testing trailers, so I do not think that registration of these trailers, as his amendment would require, helps on the safety position. However, I urge the Minister to think carefully about the principle that the noble Lord has set out as regards the testing of trailers because I have concluded for myself that there is too much of a risk with these 3.5-tonne trailers. I have seen too many examples of poor ones. It is not a matter that we need to legislate for at this point. The Minister has all the powers she needs to deal with the problem, but she ought to think about it.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. The Explanatory Notes on Clause 12 state:
“These regulations may provide for mandatory or voluntary registration and additional provisions that may be required”.
The road haulage industry is pretty well regulated and most companies abide by the regulations. However, there is a fringe in that industry which, to put it kindly, gets away with something if it can. For that reason I support Amendment 16. However, I think that the entire clause is a bit vague. When I see words like “may” rather than “shall” in government legislation, I worry about exactly what the outcome will be. The Minister might like to ease our fears on compulsory registration.
It is not for me to discuss it, but Amendment 15 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, suggests a tightening of these regulations and proposals. I hope that as far as compulsory rather than voluntary registration is concerned, the Minister has heard what my noble friend has had to say, regardless of whether he presses the point with his usual ardour.
Lord Snape
With respect, if we could not have a response from the Minister last time, for procedural reasons, may I speak on the clause stand part?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord certainly can speak on clause stand part.
Lord Snape
Then perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to reply to the points I made earlier when, in my view, my noble friend prematurely withdrew his amendment without us hearing the full response from the Minister about whether it is voluntary or otherwise.
Baroness Sugg
I apologise. I thought I covered that in my response. We do not think there should be a mandatory scheme for domestic trailers. We think there should be a mandatory scheme only for the trailers that are going to countries in the 1968 Convention. We do not want to impose an unnecessary burden on the 1.4 million people who use trailers domestically.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“( ) Regulations must make provision for mandatory safety standard requirements which all registered trailers must satisfy, with inspections of such trailers to be undertaken on an annual basis.”
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, this amendment follows on from Amendment 16. Basically, I am asking the Government to introduce a scheme for mandatory safety standard requirements, which all registered trailers should then comply with. The amendment asks for these to be conducted on an annual basis.
Obviously, the amendment will not bring back Freddie Hussey but it might prevent deaths such as his occurring in the future. This was a terrible and tragic case. Mrs Hussey was with Freddie on a footpath and he was crushed by a huge trailer that came loose. They were simply doing what most parents and children do every day—walking along a footpath—and he was cut down by a 2-tonne trailer. His parents ask simply: how can vehicles more than 1 tonne in weight which travel at speed—and, if they come loose, will not stop—not need safety checks? It is madness. An MOT or safety check could have prevented this and picked up on the bent handbrake. It was the bent handbrake—obviously not properly serviced—that caused the problem.
A trailer can often—and in many circumstances will—weigh more than a car and other vehicles on the roads but obviously if trailers are in the wrong hands and are not well maintained and have not been properly checked, they are lethal. As we know from recent terrorist attacks, vehicles are lethal weapons and they kill people—large numbers of people. The safety issue here is paramount.
Paragraph 58 of the DfT’s own impact assessment says, under “Indirect benefits”:
“Trailer registration may also bring about safety improvements by facilitating enforcement of existing regimes related to trailer roadworthiness … the act of completing registration may prompt owners to check and address any roadworthiness issues”.
That is blindingly obvious but, as the impact assessment says, if road safety improvements can be made, the modest reductions in accidents could result in significant societal changes and improvements. Mr and Mrs Hussey might argue that young people—always more vulnerable on or near roads—would be less likely to be the victims of other people’s negligence.
There is a powerful argument behind this safety requirement on trailers. I think the department and the Minister ought to seize the opportunity to make some progress on it. While in general this piece of legislation is there only because of the disaster of Brexit, it would be nice if we could take the opportunity to make use of it to improve safety standards. As I said at the outset, the Husseys are not the only ones who have suffered a loss as a result of poor maintenance, inadequate inspection and the lack of a more rigorous testing regime. I have not seen hard data in terms of numbers but they have a lot of anecdotal evidence and copies of cases reported in local newspapers of young people in particular ending up the victims of poor trailer maintenance. It is something we should take seriously. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made that point rather well earlier. It is a concern. Because this is an underregulated sector, we have to use the opportunity to better regulate it, secure long-term improvements and reduce the number of deaths on or off the roads that are caused directly or indirectly by trailer malfunction and poor maintenance.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I am in a little difficulty on aspects of this, as I was saying to my colleagues before coming to this meeting today. I shall delicately go through my reservations. I accept that trailer safety is very important. As my noble friend has pointed out, in the Hussey case the trailer concerned weighed 2 tonnes. That is a pretty big trailer. I can understand that where big trailers are involved there is a need for some sort of regulatory arrangement. What troubles me is in Amendments 16 and 18. Amendment 16 says:
“Regulations must provide for the compulsory registration of trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes kept or used on roads, whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom”—
in other words, effectively all trailers. Amendment 18 says,
“with inspections of such trailers to be undertaken on an annual basis”.
In other words, a little trailer—one of these aluminium boxes that you buy in Halfords for a couple of hundred quid—would have to go in to some sort of MOT-type station for an annual test. I have to say to my noble friend that I have great difficulty in going down that route. Big trailers can of course do a lot of damage.
The answer to this is to make it mandatory, where you have the clipping mechanism for the trailer, to put a lock and chain on as well. That would give an extra element of safety over and above the mechanism in the male and female, they call them; I do not know the actual term. If you had some sort of chain and lock arrangement on smaller trailers, in my view that would be quite sufficient.
We should be very careful about introducing a system for smaller trailers with an annual inspection that could affect hundreds of thousands of people and put them to what I would call unnecessary expense. People are going to complain that it costs 30 quid to test your trailer every year, and that is after you have registered it as well, and it only cost you a couple of hundred. In my view, when it comes to small trailers the situation would be exactly the same as in Scotland over air rifles. The Scotland Office estimates that there are 500,000 air rifles in Scotland, but I am told that up till now only 15,000 people have taken out licences for them so, if those figures are correct, we have criminalised nearly half a million people in Scotland who have so far failed to take out a licence on air rifles. I am worried about systems where you impose on people responsibilities that, on reflection, we might think are really gold-plating what my noble friend has raised, which is an extremely important issue of safety. I apologise to him if I have in any way undermined his case, but I do so with the greatest of respect.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I apologise for starting to get worried that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was not going to move his Amendment 18 so I have spoken substantially. However, this gives me the opportunity to raise another argument in support of the general thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment, while being quite sure that we should not put it into the Bill.
Not only is it a question of the tragic accidents and injuries that the noble Lord referred to, but quite often you see these relatively small trailers causing an accident and disruption on the strategic road network. That can be really expensive to the economy. I hope that my noble friend can write to us before the next stage to tell us how many incidents Highways England has recorded of small trailers causing an incident. Often, because they are badly maintained, because their wheel bearings are shot and because the person using the trailer does not realise that the wheel bearings are shot, you see these trailers littered on the strategic road network—the motorways—with a wheel fallen off or bearings collapsed. That causes an awful lot of inconvenience to other road users, so there may be an economic case, forgetting the tragic cost of the accidents.
One point on maintenance is that there is a safety check as well as an MoT. You could require the trailer to have an MoT or you could require it to have a safety check by going to a garage to give it the once-over, which might achieve an awful lot of what we want without all the bureaucracy that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, worries about. The judgment is, of course, a matter for the department.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, when I was 17, I owned a motor car which was six years older than I was. It was in the days when a good tyre was one where you could not see the canvas. I was happy with my motor car. Suddenly the dreadful news of the MoT fell on the world. My motor car, which cost £7 and 10 shillings—about 200 quid, I suppose, in today’s money—had to have an MoT. In the early days of the MOT, you still did not need tread to get through, you just needed not to have canvas. We were terrified: this was going to be the end of the world for the motoring community. In the real world, it has not turned out like that at all. The MoT has progressed and become more refined. As we were discussing on another Bill in a similar area, 90%-plus of road accidents are now down to the driver. Vehicles are now extraordinarily safe because of this progressive legislation.
We talk about a small trailer, but even the smallest trailer weighs about half the weight of the vehicle pulling it. It will have kinetic energy similar to the car. We have a system to manage the kinetic energy of the car called the MoT, drink-driving rules, and so on, and we have created safety in the car. Here we have on the back an almost unregulated vehicle with its own kinetic energy. The case for managing that at first sight looks overwhelming.
Conversely, we need to understand the incidence. This goes to the centre of modern lawmaking, because if it is sensible, it is about proportionality. We do not have the data in front of us, and therefore we will not formally support the amendment at this stage. The arguments made by my noble friend about the nanny state effect and the community feeling that it is unreasonable are real.
I hope that the amendment will secure the Minister’s attention on how to reach proportionality. If there are few accidents and very few fatalities, then arguably the proportionality argument says, “Don’t interfere any more”. If that is not true, however, then the Government of the day have to look at it very carefully, explain to us what the research is, convince us that it is top of the agenda in terms of progressing regulations and come to a situation where society accepts that if there is to be regulation it is worth while.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I could speak again, because I have been reflecting on what was said. There is another way to deal with this, which is why I intervene: we have gross weight figures. If we had a few more court cases about people using trailers that exceeded the gross weight, that might send out a message “pour encourager les autres” to comply with the law. That is one way to deal with it, along with the lock and chain. I am talking about the smaller trailers, which are worrying me, and which comprise the great volume of trailers.
I come to my second point. I do not have a trailer at the moment but until a few years ago I did. It was a small trailer, probably half the size of one of these desk tops here. We used it once or twice a year. If you are registering it, MoT-ing and all that, that is quite an expense if you use your trailer very rarely. As I say, unless they are in business, people do not drive around with their trailers all the time. They are for occasional use.
There are circumstances in which an MoT could be applied, and that is when a trailer has a brake. If it has a brake, it really is a different piece of machinery. All that most trailers have is a wire that connects the vehicle to the trailer to feed the lights—nothing more. However, where you have a trailer with a brake, my noble friend’s case holds water that there might well need to be some sort of system. I imagine that the two-tonne trailer that my noble friend referred to had a brake; I do not know.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Since we are in declaring-interest mode, I, too, used to have a trailer a few years ago. It is the point about the brakes that interests me, because it seemed to have an automatic brake on the driveshaft when it connected to the car, so when the car was accelerating or driving normally the trailer was dragged, but when one put on the car brakes, the momentum of the trailer pushed forward on a hydraulic ram that automatically activated the rear brake. I have no idea what it was called, and I am sorry that I cannot describe the technology more accurately, but many trailers have these automatic brakes that come on when the vehicle brakes.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I did not know about that; I did not know it existed. Knowing the noble Lord’s former constituency well, he probably had a fairly substantial trailer. It was probably pretty large because he represented a very rugged area.
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, makes a good point about the size of the trailer. Trailers up to 3.5 tonnes can be operated by a brake system. The point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was that on the overrun brake system with a handbrake, the handbrake should be applied automatically in the case of trailer breakaway, but of course if it is not properly maintained that will not happen. A trailer with overrun brakes is much more complicated and there is much more to go wrong, whereas a tiny trailer of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is referring to has just two wheel bearings and a couple of tyres—that is basically it—and there is not that much to go wrong that a reasonably competent driver cannot detect. When the department looks at this, it may conclude that the bigger trailers with overrun brakes need to come in scope but that the economic and safety case has not been made for tests for the light, little ones that the noble Lord is referring to.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The difference of course is that one is more likely to be a commercially operated trailer as against one which is owned by an individual using it for general purposes.
Lord Snape
Desperate though we are to hear from the noble Baroness, and I know that she is equally desperate to put us right on this amendment, I am concerned about the tone of the debate. My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has talked about the nanny state and not wishing to overregulate trailers. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said that this is about small trailers. He had one himself that he drove around the countryside and everything was fine. However, noble Lords ought to reflect on the fact that no matter how small they are, these trailers can travel at a fair old speed, depending on the mood of the driver. Even a small one breaking away on a motorway, for example, could cause an enormous amount of carnage.
I spent my working life in the railway industry, where the smallest wagon is inspected on a regular basis. That is probably the reason the railway industry has gone for a decade without killing a passenger in a moving train accident. The same does not apply on our road network. For my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe to talk about the nanny state ignores the fact that we are still killing a couple of thousand people and seriously injuring more than 10,000 on our roads. The smallest trailer, if badly maintained, could play its part in adding to that carnage.
My noble friend shakes his head, but he must be aware of the issues when he is driving on a motorway. Because of the lack of traffic police these days—we can play a game called “spot the traffic policeman”; the only time I see one is when I watch the television because I do not see any on our roads—I have been overtaken by people dragging those little trailers that my noble friend has just referred to. They drive in a cavalier way at 65 or 70 miles an hour, although strictly speaking they are supposed to be restricted to 50 miles an hour. If one of those trailers were to break away at 70 miles an hour, I do not care how small it is, it could cause a great deal of carnage on the road. I disagree with my noble friend’s view that the nanny state should keep out of legislation in this particular instance and I think that there is a proper case for inspection and regulation. I hope that the Minister will refer to it when the happy time comes and she is allowed to respond to the debate.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I cannot sit still any longer. I have listened carefully to the debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I have driven a trailer. For about 25 years I would pull a trailer once a year for our summer holidays going camping. It requires a different driving technique and I agree with the noble Lord that even a small trailer, if it has not been hitched properly, has been overloaded or is being driven badly, can be extremely dangerous.
I have decided to take part in this debate to ask the Minister if she agrees that the Government should look at the issue of trailer safety in the round, although this Bill may not be the place to do that. However, it is obvious that years ago in the minds of people at the Department for Transport, there was an association between the size of the vehicle being driven and the danger posed. I notice, having reached a certain age where one has to apply for a new driving licence, that without separate permission and a test, you are not permitted to drive large vehicles even if you drove such vehicles in the past. The concept that as you get older, certain aspects of driving are more difficult, has been applied to the issue of size, so I think that there is a case for the Government to look at the issue of the safety of trailers as a whole, not only in the context of the Bill.
Baroness Golding
My Lords, I, too, would hate to be left out of this debate. I have been driving for 65 years and I have never seen an accident caused by a trailer. I have never seen one tipped over at the side of the road. However, having said that, times have changed. These trailers are much more powerful than they used to be, so we ought to look at the legislation and decide what needs to be done.
Lord Tunnicliffe
On a note of personal explanation, I am seized of the risk of trailers: there is clearly a strong case for regulation and testing. Nevertheless, there are at least 1.5 million vehicles that would have to be tested and therefore the issue of proportionality should be properly considered. To get to the bottom of this, we need good data. As a minimum, I expect from the Minister a commitment to gather data so that this can be carried forward.
Earl Attlee
I was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman for transport in your Lordships’ House; if I was in the noble Lord’s position again, I would make exactly the same speech.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate. First, I will cap the stories of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about tyres and MoTs. When I first got a car, also aged 17—I am probably older than the noble Lord—I was driving along quite happily and suddenly there was a nasty clunk and the car went down on one side. I looked out of the window, wondering what had happened, and saw a wheel going past me—it was mine.
Obviously, Freddie’s death was absolutely tragic. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot imagine what those parents must be going through. Of course, we take trailer safety incredibly seriously. The issue was discussed at Second Reading, but I will go into it a little bit further to explain the point.
The UK has a world-leading road safety record, which extends to trailers. The number of casualties as a result of collisions involving a towing vehicle is relatively low compared with other road user groups. There has also been a steady decline in incidents and breakdowns involving a trailer since 2009. There were still around 5,000 incidents per year, equating to 13 incidents per day, as of 2015. The Government are committed to continuing to make progress on this.
The key safety issues for trailers generally relate to how vehicles towing trailers are driven and how securely the trailers are attached to vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said. It is important that we continue to improve safety through education, enforcement and improving the safety of vehicles. Almost all new trailers are already subject to type approval ahead of their entry into service, and in the case of larger trailers an annual testing regime is already in place. I appreciate that noble Lords may well be familiar with these measures, but it may be useful if I speak about this a little more.
The current type approval scheme applies in much the same way as motor vehicles are subject to approval before they can be legally sold in the UK. It has been in place since 2012. Approvals are generally issued for a type of vehicle on a model-by-model basis. I can give reassurance that overwhelmingly under this regime all new trailers are subject to type approval before entering into service, with very limited exemptions. These exceptions include certain agricultural and forestry trailers, and trailers not intended to be towed by a vehicle with a maximum speed over 25 kph.
In the case of imported units, or self-built trailers which have not been type approved, there is a scheme in place for individual approval. To ensure that this system operates correctly, the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency already has the power to undertake inspections or tests of a trailer as it sees fit. The annual testing regime applies to most commercial trailers weighing over 1,020 kilograms and almost all trailers weighing over 3,500 kilograms. As my noble friend Lord Attlee mentioned, commercial trailers in this category are subject to the DVSA issuing consent to sell prior to entering into service, at which point a ministry number associated with a manufacturer’s number is allocated to an individual trailer, and it is plated accordingly. This test is applicable on an annual basis from 12 months following the date at which the trailer is first sold or supplied. The test may be undertaken at a DVSA facility or an approved testing facility, although in all cases the test is completed by a DVSA inspector and to a consistent standard. In 2016-17, around a quarter of a million trailers were subject to the annual test.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The Minister gave us a figure for the number of accidents. I wonder whether she could look at the number of fatalities and write to us with that information.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
Absolutely, I have that information here. Trailer and caravan-related collisions accounted for 2% of the 1,787 total number of those killed or seriously injured in collisions in 2015.
Lord Campbell-Savours
But that does not tell us what happened or give us the explanation for the accident. It may well have involved a large trailer that was overweight; small trailers might be excluded. In case there are amendments on Report, perhaps the Minister can give us some information on that matter.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
Yes, absolutely. We will look further into it and see what other data we can find.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, although I am grateful for it and for the information she has given us. I think that one death is one death too many, and the case I mentioned was particularly tragic. Let us be clear about this: it involved a tonnage lower than the 3.5 tonnes level. Nevertheless, it was clearly sufficiently heavy to be fatal. As I understand it, the victim was crushed by the weight of the trailer, and that was obviously the cause of his death.
The circumstances of the crash are such that although the driver, who was brought to court, was clearly responsible for the death, he received a sentence of 200 community hours and a six-month driving ban, whereas had he been over an alcohol limit we all know that he would likely have faced a term of imprisonment, because that is what is applied. Had he been on his mobile phone, quite possibly a similar penalty would have been imposed, but because it related to a defect, the penalty was rather different. One can understand the anger and frustration of the parents: they want a sense of justice. That is why they have a web page calling for justice for Freddie. While we can all express sympathy, we will never bring Freddie back, but they are very compassionate people and they want to make sure that something is done that drives down the number of fatalities, however low it is. I accept that 2% is quite low, but there are a large number of accidents: 5,000 was the figure given, and 1,700 killed or seriously injured is in itself no small number.
I accept the general point that road safety has been steadily improving over the years, largely because of improvements in vehicles and because we have become better drivers as a consequence of improved training and so on. But I think there is still an issue here. The weight level needs to be lower. More work needs to be done on this. Although obviously I will withdraw the amendment today, it would helpful if we could have some further discussions before the next stage of the Bill, and I retain the right to bring a similar amendment back—perhaps an amendment that the department and the Minister would find more agreeable—on Report. This is a significant issue and we should always try to do as much as we possibly can to improve safety. After all, it is the steady accretion of intelligent regulation that has driven down the number of road-related accidents and deaths over time. For instance, going back to the 1960s, people were not that happy when safety belts were introduced but they have made a massive difference to the outcome of road traffic accidents, as have many other features that have mandatorily been imposed on motorists, including alcohol limits, which have made a very significant difference as well.
We should always look for those opportunities and, as the impact assessment says, this is one. It is a question of getting the balance right between regulation and continuing as we are. I make a strong appeal to the Government, the Minister and the officials to give that some further thought, because there is more we can do here.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, I shall speak also to Amendment 20. These two amendments say in effect that if a trailer is registered, it must have a registration mark and that registration mark must be fixed to it. The Minister will probably call my attention to the Interpretation Act or something. Really, it is just a probing amendment to receive an assurance from the Minister that these “mays” will in practice be interpreted as “musts”. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If it is about fixing the certificate to the trailer there will be a danger that that can be easily removed, particularly on small trailers. On timber trailers there will be a particular problem, so if the Government were to go down the route of smaller trailers, which obviously I hope they do not, they may have to find some way of burnishing it into the wood or people will simply steal certificates and put them on their own trailers. If it is an aluminium trailer, again, it could be unscrewed unless it was riveted on in some way. All I am arguing is that if we go down this route, let us have a system that works and does not allow people simply to—if I may use the term—nick a certificate from one trailer and put it on to their own trailer for a few days while they are using it and then return it to the original trailer.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am going to enjoy this because I am going to be extremely mischievous. A moment ago my noble friend the Minister mentioned abnormal load vehicles. Sometimes an abnormal load vehicle is a simple trailer—quite a big one, but relatively simple. However, other abnormal load trailers comprise modules of axles and various types of frames that are bolted together for different purposes. It is not exactly clear what the trailer is, and this could present a problem when such trailers travel on the continent. I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to come back to me on this right now, or even to write to me, but perhaps her officials could give some thought to abnormal load vehicles made up of modular components where there is not simply one trailer on to which a number plate or a ministry registration plate with the chassis number can be bolted, because they are outside the scope of plating and testing.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I will take the opportunity to reassure all noble Lords that once the scheme is operational, all trailers will be assigned a registration mark following a completed registration application and the payment of the appropriate fee. That will be followed by the issuing of a digital document to the registered keeper which shows the assigned registration mark which the keeper will use to obtain the registration plate from the supplier.
Although amending “may” to “must” could appear to be a small change, it would have consequences that must be considered carefully. The rest of the powers in Part 2 may be exercised. As I have said, the Government are fully committed to delivering the scheme, but we think it is right to have discretionary powers. Using an example from later in the Bill, Amendment 20 would require the registration mark to be displayed on a trailer at all times following registration, but whether the trailer is used domestically or internationally could change over time as and when the trailer is sold, so we do not think that it should be mandatory at that point, which is the reason we have taken discretionary powers. But I reassure noble Lords that the registration process will happen as the scheme becomes operational.
My noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, again made an important point about fraud. We are considering that issue carefully and are consulting on the regulations with the industry. We will also be considering the different types of trailers and how the registration mark should be fixed to them. I am afraid that I do not have a response for my noble friend on modular components, although I very much wish I did. I will look into it further and come back to him.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I think that that was a satisfactory answer and I will read it with care. I hope it boiled down to the fact that the overwhelming volume of the trailers that are registered will have a mark and it will be fixed to them. The second-order advantages, particularly in terms of theft, will come in only if the general approach is overwhelmingly positive. I note that the Minister is nodding, which I hope will go in the record. With that nod, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 17 (offences) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in moving Amendment 21, I will speak also to Amendments 24, 25 and 27. This group and the next group of amendments are vehicles to effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Constitution and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I hope the Minister will agree with everything I have to say because traditionally the Government respect those committees for the very careful work they do. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, here. I am sure he will speak to these amendments. The work of these committees is essential to keep our law sensible, balanced and correctly scrutinised.
The 11th report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, published on 8 March, says at paragraph 7:
“If there are exceptional circumstances which require the creation of criminal offences by regulations, they should normally be subject to the affirmative procedure”.
It then goes on to talk about sifting. Clause 17(7) of the Bill says:
“Regulations under this section may not provide for an offence to be punishable with imprisonment or with a fine exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.
But clearly there is a criminal offence and as a general rule we do not believe that any criminal offence should be introduced with a negative instrument. I hope the Minister will agree.
Turning to the subject of Amendment 27, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says:
“Although the Government do not currently know what regulations under clause 2 will contain or how significant they will be, the Government propose that the negative procedure will always apply to such regulations. For the reasons given at paragraph 9 above, we recommend that there should be a sifting procedure”—
I will come on to that—
“allowing a scrutiny committee to recommend an uprating of the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure”.
Paragraph 9 says:
“We also recommend that there should be a sifting procedure for regulations under clause 1—akin to the one we recommended for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—allowing a scrutiny committee to recommend an uprating of the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure”.
The Select Committee on the Constitution also made some references to Clauses 8 and 17. Therefore, for simplicity’s sake, we recommend that all the regulations under Clauses 1, 2, 8 and 17 should be subject to a sifting procedure which can decide whether any should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, as the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I am delighted to say a few words on Amendment 27. No doubt my noble friend the Minister swotted up on all the briefs and the grand issues relating to Brexit and European trailers; little did she know that she would have to hear confessions from Members on all sides of the Committee about their experiences driving good trailers, big trailers and dodgy little trailers—and wheels falling off.
I am not sure whether I can trump the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but as a boy up on the farm in the Highlands I was able to drive a tractor by the age of 10 and drive it on the highway by the age of 12. When I was allowed legally to drive a car on the highway, my first car was a three-gear Ford Prefect which, on a long downhill slope, I once got up to 62 miles an hour—I could drive the tractors a bit faster.
The Delegated Powers Committee has recommended the sifting committee procedure for Clauses 1 and 2. We recommend it for Clause 1 because, as we say in our report,
“the content of any regulations made under clause 1 will depend on future international agreements … there is no current indication as to what regulations under clause 1 might say or how important they might be, if they are needed at all … it cannot be known in advance that the negative procedure will always be suitable for regulations made under clause 1 … it might transpire that some regulations made under clause 1 might require the affirmative procedure”.
On Clause 2, to shorten our report to the basics, we cite the Explanatory Memorandum which states that,
“it is not yet clear what sort of a regime or regimes will need to be introduced and, in the interest of ensuring that the provisions cater for agreed scenarios and are not too wide, it is necessary to legislate by way of secondary legislation once negotiations have been concluded and the nature of any permit scheme that needs to be introduced is clear”.
We say:
“Although the Government do not currently know what regulations under clause 2 will contain or how significant they will be, the Government propose that the negative procedure will always apply”.
For that reason, we think that there should be a sifting mechanism where colleagues in the House can decide which ones are tiddly statutory instruments and the negative procedure is okay and which ones require the affirmative procedure.
We stress in paragraph 10:
“We are not seeking to make a sifting mechanism a general feature of our legislative landscape”—
we are not seeking to attach it to every Brexit Bill.
“However, the circumstances of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union have given rise to unique legislative challenges”.
We know that next year we may have 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments to get through, perhaps in a short period of time. In those circumstances we have recommended the sifting procedure to the House. I know that the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, has rejected that already, but we recommend it for the Bill because the first five clauses begin with the words, “Regulations may”. That is almost unique. Because there will be so many regulations and some will be routine, trivial and therefore not crucial, some will be mega important and may require the affirmative procedure, we commend the sifting mechanism—exactly the same procedure as we identified in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, using the same secondary legislation scrutiny procedure, not creating any new all-singing all-dancing committee—to the Committee, and I commend it to my noble friend.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, my Amendment 23 is an attempt to tackle the issue in a parallel manner. It takes on board the Delegated Powers Committee report which I think we can say was not entirely favourable. Last week, I quoted the committee as saying that the Bill is,
“more of a mission statement than legislation”.
As the noble Lord just said, the committee specifically referred to Clauses 1 to 5 all beginning with the words, “Regulations may”. It also chastised the Department for Transport for not producing some illustrative regulations alongside the Bill and urged us to probe the Government in Committee. I am trying to follow its advice.
As the committee report highlights, 16 of the 24 clauses contain delegated powers, all of them subject only to the negative procedure. Amendment 23 attempts to rectify this, ensuring that the substantive clauses of the Bill are subject to the affirmative procedure.
I also want to note that the Constitution Committee said specifically that Bills like this are difficult for Parliament to scrutinise and—this is the key phrase—present a fundamental challenge to the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. Given the reference just now by the noble Lord to the number of statutory instruments that we have coming through, it is important that we continue to maintain a more stringent attitude to SIs than is indicated by the Bill as currently written.
Amendment 21 particularly highlights Clause 17, which would give the Secretary of State the power to create offences by statutory instrument. Labour’s Amendments 24, 25 and 27 relate to the sifting committee for statutory instruments, which was recommended in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I believe that these are very sound suggestions and I support them. There are good reasons for adopting a more rigorous attitude towards this and I am sure that the Minister would be the first to admit that at this stage the Government do not have absolute clarity as to how they are going forward. To my mind, that is an even stronger argument for why we should have some form of sunset clause and sifting to ensure that the important elements of this Bill are properly scrutinised in the future.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have no idea why your Lordships keep banging on about affirmative orders and want everything to be done by the affirmative procedure. It is good that we have my noble friend the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with us, and we have his counsel. However, in my opinion, and it may be wrong, his committee keeps recommending the affirmative procedure when it is not appropriate.
These are insignificant matters. We are talking about having an international permit for heavy goods vehicles and about registering trailers. The Bill does not provide for significant or severe penalties—they are limited in the Bill. But my noble friend the Minister can make drastic changes by means of negative instruments. For instance, using Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, she can change the construction and use regulations, having decided one day that every car must have a 20 kilogram dry-powder fire extinguisher. That would be really painful and a tremendous waste of money, but she can do that under the negative procedure. Or she could put a requirement in the construction and use regulations that it is very easy to fall foul of. That would be undesirable, but again, she can do so under the negative procedure.
It there was a problem with the regulations that will arise from this Bill or with a negative instrument—perhaps the penalties are too severe, although they are limited, or have other unintended consequences—the negative instrument can be prayed against; I think the praying period is 40 days. Industry and stakeholders have very good means of alerting Her Majesty’s Opposition to any problems with new regulations. If there are undesirable effects, the Opposition and other parliamentarians have a range of tools they can use to flag them up. Her Majesty’s Opposition can require a negative instrument to be debated on the Floor of the House, and they can also make sure that it takes place in prime time.
Baroness Randerson
I recall the noble Earl saying similar things last time, but he knows as well as I do that the precedents for that kind of activity—that kind of movement against negative instruments—indicate how difficult it is to actually change anything. He knows there is an outcry if we try to deal with things like that in the way that he describes. Is it not therefore better to have a more precautionary approach? Although the issues here might seem small, the big issue of whether we can trade properly abroad and with our neighbours is fundamental to the whole economy. I think the noble Earl would accept that the tenor across the Room today has not been that of a group of people seeking minute regulation. There has been a very reasonable attitude towards increasing regulation.
Earl Attlee
On the precautionary principle, the problem I have is that we are using precious time to debate things that we do not need to. When I was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I dealt with affirmative orders while thinking, “Why in God’s name are we debating this?” One day, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, came in with a defence order—a Foreign Office order or something. She made a big speech, and I just smiled at her and then the order went through.
The other point that the noble Baroness raised was about the difference between an affirmative order and a negative one. The ability to debate it and to change it is no different whether the order is affirmative or negative. The only difference is whether it has to be debated or whether it gets debated only if we can flag it up: our ability to amend it is no different. I am going to get killed now.
Lord Blencathra
I will try smiling at my noble friend to see if he may back down slightly. I admit that there are times when my committee says, “The negative procedure here is wholly unacceptable and this should be affirmative”—but not in this report. Here, we say, “The Government don’t know, the Explanatory Memorandum doesn’t know and we don’t know how many regulations there will be, which ones will be important and which will be less important”. They might all end up being negative or they might all be so crucial that they are affirmative, but I trust my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to make a sensible judgment on this—
Lord Blencathra
I know some Members of this Committee will be reassured by that.
All we are saying is: let the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee look at the proposed regulations, as we suggest for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Let the committee sift them and conclude, as I think it probably would, that 80% of the regulations in the main will be suitable for the negative procedure and the remaining 20% should be affirmative, and then it can recommend that to the House. That does not stop the House, the Opposition or others ensuring that other negative regulations are prayed against, but suggesting a sifting mechanism is not a demand that everything be made affirmative. On this occasion I am not banging on that everything should be affirmative; I am banging on about giving the sifting committee a chance to make a decision that the House can accept or reject.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend is the expert. When I made observations about procedure and so on, was I incorrect in any respect?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I suggested that the only difference between a negative order and an affirmative one was our ability to flag it up for debate. We cannot actually change a negative order or an affirmative one; we just accept or reject them. My point is that we are actually no better off in holding the Government to account whether an order is affirmative or negative. If the industry flags it up as a problem, we have all the tools that we need to hold the Government to account.
Lord Snape
Before the noble Lord answers that, I have a question. I know he was never the noble Earl’s Chief Whip but, in the days when he was a Chief Whip, would he have felt that a smile would have made a difference?
Lord Blencathra
In my time as Chief Whip in the other place, I tried to model myself on Lord Dixon, whose style I rather liked as Chief Whip of the Labour Party.
I think what my noble friend means by “flag it up”—I stand to be corrected because I am not an expert on procedure—would require praying against it, and that would take some time. The sifting procedure that we propose is a 10-day system where, when the statutory instruments went before the sifting committee, the SSLC, they would be flagged up within 10 days to go to the affirmative procedure. That satisfies the Government’s requirements that it be done expeditiously.
We accept that next year we will possibly have hundreds of regulations coming through. I know that we want to get some though in advance—we may get many through—but we could have a period next year where we have a huge batch of regulations to get through because we are leaving the EU. Some may need to be done by 29 March while others may be done later, but we will not be able to have a 40-day praying period: we cannot take all that time to decide whether a regulation being passed by the negative procedure might need to go up to the affirmative procedure. The sifting procedure we have proposed is not like the super-affirmative procedure, which is far too slow. The special procedure we have proposed in this amendment, as well as in the EU withdrawal Bill, will allow for a rapid sifting so that recommendations can be made for a regulation to be upgraded to the affirmative procedure.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend is very helpful. I cannot conceive how any regulation under this Bill would need the affirmative procedure, but we will see what the Minister says.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we proposed this amendment to stimulate this sort of debate. We felt that the recommendation from the committee was particularly sensible because it was proportionate. In fact, it will probably allow the committee to make sure that very few orders have to go through the affirmative procedure, and that is why we hope the Government will accept the amendment. It is a practical way of dividing orders, given the fact that, at this time, we do not know what sort of orders will come in front of us.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I recognise and fully welcome the point that appropriate scrutiny should be given when considering regulations. As discussed, there are a number of ways that this could be achieved. Noble Lords have proposed a number of amendments that would apply the affirmative or sifting procedure. Some of these build on the recommendations made by the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. I thank the committees for their work; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that their work is absolutely essential to making our lawmaking better. I fully understand the support of noble Lords for these recommendations but I am afraid I would like to set out our thinking on the different clauses at some length.
Clause 21 stipulates that regulations should be subject to the negative procedure. In this, the Government are following the precedent of the haulage operator legislation already in force across the UK. As such, we believe the powers we have drafted are suitably limited and proportionate for the delivery of a permit scheme, and for the delivery and enforcement of the trailer registration regime. We also believe that the negative procedure provides for an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
I turn to Clause 17 on offences. As my noble friend Lord Attlee highlighted, there are safeguards in Clause 17 limiting the Secretary of State to creating summary-only offences. Again, that is consistent with other offences created within the Bill. The second safeguard is that for some of the offences created in regulations the Bill requires that an appropriate defence must also be included in regulations, although I do understand the noble Lord’s concern around how offences are usually treated. One other argument for doing this in the way we have proposed is that everything would be set out in regulations in one place. But, as I said, I take the noble Lord’s point and will consider that further.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would extend the affirmative procedure not only to Clause 17 but additionally to Clauses 1, 2 and 12. I want to spend a bit of time on the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 as they affect non-EU related issues. The clauses were designed to put into effect agreements with the EU and other countries on international haulage. What will need to go into the regulations will not only reflect what has been negotiated with the EU but also, as we discussed last week, what has already been agreed with third countries. As well as providing flexibility while the outcome of the negotiations is unknown, the negative procedure for these regulations also acknowledges that future amendments to permit schemes would not be restricted by requirements to return to primary legislation on each and every occasion, which if they were affirmative we would have to.
In Part 2 of the Bill, the provision of Clause 12 allows for the creation of the registration scheme that will enable users of UK traders to satisfy fully the conditions in the 1968 Vienna Convention. The detail of that scheme, as with existing vehicle registration powers, may need to adapt to meet future requirements. We will be consulting on the detail of the trader registration scheme with industry, and again we will be replicating many aspects of the existing vehicle registration scheme that is created under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, such as setting out the process for issuing registration documents and specifications for registration plates. Regulations for vehicle registration made under that Act are made under the negative procedure. Once that scheme is in place, we may need to amend or update the regulations over time—for example, as the DVLA processes change. To give an example, the equivalent regulations for motor vehicle registration have been amended 12 times in the last 10 years. Those are our arguments for not having the affirmative procedure throughout. As I say, I understand noble Lords’ concerns about the first time that these regulations come in.
The sifting committee procedure proposed is similar to that set out in Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that is currently before the House. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, the process of leaving the European Union has certainly thrown up some unique legislative challenges, not least for our noble friend Lord Trefgarne and the sifting committee. The requirement was included in the withdrawal Bill, given the issues and significant powers that, of necessity, are provided by that Bill. We think the proposed powers that we are considering here are far more limited and primarily technical in nature, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said. This amendment as it stands would also require Parliament to go through the same procedure for regulations made in respect of our arrangements with non-EU countries, which provide a sufficient number of permits for the levels of trade. I do not believe the agreements need such scrutiny.
I point out to the Committee that Clause 8, which is referred to in the amendment, would set out in the Bill the offences and penalties for failing to carry a haulage permit and failing to comply with an inspection. There is no power to make regulations under Clause 8 itself; it simply relates to regulations made under other clauses, so in this case there would be no regulations for the sifting committee to consider.
On the question of timing, I think we all welcome the news from Monday that the UK and EU negotiating teams reached another important milestone in the Brexit process by agreeing the terms of a time-limited implementation period, but of course as a responsible Government we want to continue to plan for all scenarios. We need to take responsible and, importantly, timely steps to ensure that the haulage industry can prepare. As we have said before, we are hoping to get the scheme in place by the end of the year, and obviously we would need to get everything through before then. I admit that the timetable is challenging.
We are working closely with the DVSA and the DVLA to align the systems, but stakeholders have already raised with us the pressure that they will be under involving the registration of vehicles. The run-up to Christmas is the busiest time of year for hauliers, and of course they are asking for as much time as possible. I am keen for us to give them sufficient time to put in applications, and I am sure noble Lords will also support that aim.
I recognise that the aim of the amendments is to ensure that Parliament can take appropriate scrutiny, and I want to consider that carefully. I am conscious that Parliament needs sufficient time to properly scrutinise legislation but, as I said, I am sure that noble Lords will also be alive to the interests of UK hauliers when making judgments on handling. As we have discussed, there are various options available to ensure that the regulations are subject to appropriate scrutiny. I have listened to the arguments made today and I will consider them carefully ahead of Report. At this point, I hope the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“( ) No regulations may be made under sections 1 to 5 or 12 to 18 of this Act unless a draft of an instrument containing those regulations has been laid before both Houses of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I refer once again to the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, particularly to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. Someone devised these wonderful words in paragraph 2:
“The Bill is wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation … Clauses 1 to 5 all begin: ‘Regulations may …’ … 16 of the 24 clauses contain delegated powers, all of them subject only to the negative procedure”.
Paragraph 3 states:
“It would have helped us had the Department for Transport, in addition to providing a delegated powers memorandum, produced some illustrative regulations alongside the Bill. As it is, we are in the dark because the devil will be in the regulatory detail.
We appreciate that the position remains unclear for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, the Minister may wish to assist the House in its consideration of the Bill at Committee Stage by providing illustrative examples (however tentative and qualified) of at least some of the regulations to be made under the main delegated powers in the Bill”.
That has not proved possible, so we have tabled the amendments to give effect to the desire expressed in that paragraph. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, my Amendment 28 in this group is to Clause 23. It provides a sunset clause which would cause Clauses 1 and 3 to expire after three years, which is a period that the Secretary of State could extend by affirmative resolution. This was recommended by the Delegated Powers Committee.
Amendment 22 to Clause 21, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, requires the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the regulations he intends to make under Clauses 1 to 5 and 2 to 18 before the House within three months of the Bill passing. I understand the purpose of this: to improve scrutiny and introduce a sunset clause, but I am not sure that we support the three-month timeframe in this case. We expect the Secretary of State to consult thoroughly before making the regulations and, to my mind, three months is not a realistic period. I understand that the need to make law quickly has to be balanced by the need to make law well, and that always requires consultation, but the Minister has our sympathy if she has to keep to a three-month timescale. I think that that is overly ambitious, but the principle of a period within which the work has to be done is very good.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness’s amendment. I have general concern about Acts of Parliament hanging around on the statute book that have not been commenced. I have drafted an amendment that I have not used yet—I will willingly share it with the noble Baroness—and discussed it with officials, along with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Some pretty high-profile bits of legislation have hung around causing hellacious problems when the Government did not implement them. I have sympathy with her amendment, but I suspect that there are reasons why it is not appropriate for the Bill, although we need to stop legislation hanging around that has not been commenced.
Baroness Randerson
To clarify, the reason for this is that with most Bills we pass here, the Government believe that they need the legislation—whether we like it or not—and have a clear idea of how they are going to implement it. This Bill suffers from a number of uncertainties over exactly how it is going to work in practice and even whether it will be needed. It is worth remembering the Minister’s opening words, which were to the effect that this was a Bill the Government hoped they did not need.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
The amendment I have in this group is just to tease out when the Secretary of State might bring forward the licensing arrangements. We would like to have some idea of the timetable. I accept that this is a Bill the Government do not want to use and I suspect that the industry would rather they did not either. Most of us would think that it would be better to have the current system than what is on offer here, not least because operators will end up being charged. But I would like some idea of the timetable and how the Secretary of State intends to organise these regulations.
I rather take to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is very valuable for Clauses 1 and 3. Obviously, I support Amendment 22, moved by my noble—and good—friend Lord Tunnicliffe.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, this debate relates to the previous group of amendments, although the Government’s view is slightly different, as I will explain.
As I said, we aim to pass regulations under the Bill as soon as possible to implement both the trailer registration scheme and the permits scheme. However, we cannot be sure that this will be within three months of it passing because, as well as having to reflect a full and proper consultation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, it will have to reflect the agreed future haulage arrangements with the EU. The implementation period may also extend the time by which we may need to make regulations; certainly with regard to the permit registration scheme.
We fully understand the practical implications of not having a permit or trailer registration scheme in place. As I said, we will bring forward regulations in good time to deliver these schemes. I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a specific timetable at the moment. We do not believe that we should include this specific requirement in the Bill simply because it may not be possible to deliver it.
Moving on to the sunset clause for the delegated powers in Clauses 1 and 3, which is similar to the recommendation from the DPRRC, I understand and indeed agree with the intention of sunset clauses to avoid creating new delegated powers that may be not be used, but we do not believe that to be the case with this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is right to say that we hope we will never use this Bill for the EU agreement because obviously we hope that we will have continued liberalised and open access to our European neighbours, but we will be using the legislation in Part 1 to regulate for permits for international road haulage by UK hauliers once regulations made under it come into force. This means that it would cover all the permit schemes where UK hauliers are required to carry permits, whether that be unlimited in the European Union or whatever may come from that, if needed; existing and future agreements with non-EU countries; and, indeed, the ECMT permit scheme—which we have not heard about so far today.
If the agreement between the UK and the EU does not require the use of permits, the regulations will not prohibit haulage to EU member states without a permit, but they will for other agreements. We believe that the regulations under Clause 1 should also continue to allow us to regulate the permit requirements of our existing and future international agreements, so the delegated power will not be left unused and a sunset clause would be unsuitable in this case.
I understand the concern about using EU exit legislation for other purposes but I hope that noble Lords do not view this clause as granting new, wide-ranging delegated powers. Clause 1 is a re-enactment of Section 1 of the International Road Haulage Permits Act 1975, which the Bill will repeal. This enables the Government to regulate permit arrangements with other countries, and it is important that our preparations for leaving the EU provide a consistent legal basis for all the permits we administer. The amendment would not only restrict the use of the clause, it would also be a restriction on the existing powers the Government already have under the 1975 Act.
Moving on to Clause 3, again we do not believe that there should be a sunset clause in this specific case for a different reason. It allows for the relaxation of the requirement to carry a permit in exceptional circumstances, and we need to use that to cover existing international agreements. I apologise—that is the same reason as for the first group.
Beyond the first set of regulations made under the Bill, they would need to be updated and amended as our new international agreements change or as permit agreements are made. That deals with the temporary exemption.
On the trailer registration part of the Bill, I re-emphasise that regardless of what agreement is reached with the EU, we would still enact this to align with the Vienna convention. I recognise that the amendment would provide for a sunset clause to be extended, but given how we are seeking to introduce the regulations under the clause, we would inevitably need to seek to extend it indefinitely, so we do not think that it would be beneficial.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Have I missed something? Has an estimate been made of what the registration fees are going to be?
Baroness Sugg
We do not have an exact estimate for the registration of trailers at the moment, although obviously we will aim to keep the fees to a minimum and on a cost-recovery basis. We will use our existing systems to issue them.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Could we be given some idea of what the fees will be by Report? The figures will certainly influence the debate on smaller trailers.
Baroness Sugg
We will do our best. We have examples of existing similar schemes and we are talking about figures in the area of £10 or £20. We do not have fixed rates because we do not yet know the extent of the registration scheme, and therefore how many marks will need to be issued. However, I will produce as many details as I can and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Finally, and more broadly on the same issue, the registration scheme will be a one-off registration, will it not? It will not be an annual registration scheme.
Baroness Sugg
It will be a one-off registration scheme unless the trailer is sold or subject to change of use. At that point the change of ownership would need to be registered. However, it will not be done on an annual basis.
Lord Campbell-Savours
So effectively the trailer will have a form of log book. A log book is used to register changes of ownership.
Earl Attlee
Perhaps I may help my noble friend. I refer to the V5 registration document that presumably the trailer must have when it is sold. There is of course an advantage in that the buyer of the trailer would have more confidence that the vehicle had good title, so it is not a total loss.
Baroness Sugg
Yes, it would follow the same information that is contained in that log book, but in order to do the full registration, when ownership is changed it would have to go through the DVSA system so that we were informed of that and could issue the permit.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The reason I am trying to get these things on the record is that they will influence the debate on smaller trailer units.
Baroness Sugg
I fully understand that and will send the noble Lord more details on it. To go back to the fee, as I said, it is very difficult to determine the exact cost but I understand that it is an important consideration. We are confident that the fee will be significantly less than the current vehicle registration fee, for example, which is £55, but we are not able to provide any more detail on that at this time. That also goes towards trying to ensure that we get the right balance when deciding which trailers need to be registered and which do not, why we have not included 750 kilogram trailers and why we do not think this should be mandatory for domestic use—it is a not insignificant cost for a family going on a camping holiday once a year.
I hope I have explained why, in this case, the legislation will not go unused, despite whatever agreement we reach with the European Union, in the case of either the permit scheme, which will be used for existing and future schemes with other countries, or the trailer registration scheme, which will come into effect anyway because of the earlier convention. In the light of that, I hope that this discussion has reassured the noble Lord to the extent that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I will study the Minister’s response with care and decide whether to bring forward anything on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) Before making any regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Road Haulage Association;(b) the Freight Transport Association;(c) the National Caravan Council;(d) the Caravan Club;(e) the Institute of Grocery Distribution;(f) the British Retail Consortium;(g) the Food and Drink Federation; and(h) such other persons or organisations as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I will be brief on this amendment. The DPRRC report mentioned that the Government have given no examples of the regulations that they intend to make under the Bill. Given the wide-ranging consequences these could have—not just for industry but also for hobbies and leisure; indeed, for the whole of life—it is essential that there is full consultation before regulations are put before Parliament. We have suggested a range of organisations; some are obvious and some are less obvious, but I am absolutely sure that it is not a comprehensive list. However, it is presented here as an opportunity to ask the Minister about the details of how the consultation will take place, the nature of the consultation and which organisations will be consulted. I can see immediately that the list we have put forward—apologies come from my noble friend Lord Teverson who is at Defra discussing the marine safety audit—does not include, for example, trade unions, given that there are obviously employee interests in this as well as employer interests.
I do not need to delay the Committee any further. It is simply a question of whether we can have some details on the consultation process. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, to cut my contribution short, I shall quote from page 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“A consequence of ratification is that unregistered trailers could be turned away at the borders of other countries who have ratified the 1968 Convention. Therefore, for operational reasons, a trailer registration scheme needs to be implemented”.
I would have thought that critical to the process of consultation was the AA, because at our borders that organisation is the last port of call for people who need advice on what is going to happen when they go abroad. The leaflets that it circulates are about subjects such as travelling abroad, insurance arrangements and health arrangements. You can pick them up in its kiosks at Dover, or I suppose at any port where you have a roll-on, roll-off ferry system. They should be made available. That is my case, and I hope the AA is consulted.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. I am not sure we should have a list in primary legislation because that gives the Government top cover if they have not consulted someone. However, just as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested the AA, I would add the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. That is an extremely important point.
My point about negative instruments is that if interested parties have a problem, they can flag it up with us. However, if they are not consulted about it or if they are consulted but do not get anywhere at the official level, they can approach parliamentarians and we can take it up with the Government. We have a parliamentary toolkit that we can use. The noble Baroness makes an important point about consultation, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, Ministers and officials in my department have been engaging with stakeholders on an ongoing basis throughout the development of the Bill, as have the departmental agencies responsible for the development of the respective systems associated with the Bill, and obviously that consultation will continue as the Bill progresses through both Houses and the regulations are drawn up. While we are not able to provide illustrative examples, we have given as much information as we can in the policy scoping documents that were circulated and form the basis of the further conversations that we are having with stakeholders.
We will have further consultation with the broad range in the coming months, including all those referenced in the noble Baroness’s amendment and many more. We speak regularly to the AA, the RAC Foundation and DHL. We had a round table with the industry a couple of weeks ago in London, there will be another one on Monday in Birmingham and we will continue to do that. Obviously we want to get these regulations right and make them work as best they can for the industry, whether it be the National Caravan Council, the haulage industry or any of the people who are affected by this. There will also be a public consultation on regulations in both parts of the Bill later this year to allow a further contribution to the process.
The department takes very seriously the need to consult. As I have said, we are fully aware of how both haulage permits and trailer registration will have an impact. We want to ensure that the regulations under the Bill are appropriate for those affected by them and minimise any burden as much as we possibly can. We are already involved in ongoing discussions in order to understand their views and concerns. We do not think a statutory consultation is necessary on top of that because it would be of limited value. I am happy to keep noble Lords informed of our consultation, and I think they will be pleasantly surprised by how much we are doing.
I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendment and indeed grateful for the opportunity to explain our consultation plans further. I hope that this discussion outlines why we do not feel we need anything further on consultation in the Bill and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Snape
My Lords, in that list of the great and the good, the most obvious omission was touched on in the closing remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: the trade unions are not mentioned. What consultations have taken place with the trade unions? After all, it is their members who will be driving the wretched things from here to the continent and back again, so I am sure the Government will bear in mind the need to take the trade unions along with them regarding their proposals.
Earl Attlee
Before the Minister answers, if she amended the construction and use regulations, would she consult the trade unions about that?
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend makes a very good point as always. No, we would not consult trade unions unless it were relevant to do so.
I understand the noble Baroness’s and noble Lord’s point: many of the people who will be affected by this will indeed be employees travelling to and from the continent. We need to make sure that the regulations work for them as well as employers, and that the people who will be responsible for registering the trailers and applying for the permits are consulted too. We have not yet had any formal consultations with the trade unions, but I will certainly take that away and we will look to involve them at the appropriate point.
Baroness Randerson
In view of the Minister’s response, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Tuesday 17th April 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 80KB) - (13 Apr 2018)
17:32 - Division on Amendment 16 - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 212 - Amendment 16 agreed.
Lord Whitty
“EU Community Licence arrangements
(1) It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement from the EU, to seek continued UK participation in the EU’s Community Licence arrangements.(2) If the continued participation referred to in subsection (1) is achieved after the passing of this Act, no Minister of the Crown may make regulations under sections 1 to 5 or 23(2) of this Act.”
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 1 was put down by my noble friend Lord Bassam. I am pleased for him, but regret that he is still in the air between the Aegean and Gatwick and therefore unlikely to make it for this amendment, and possibly for the whole sitting. I hope that he nevertheless comes back refreshed. I am therefore taking on the responsibility for an amendment for which he has argued.
At earlier stages of the Bill, the sheer volume of road haulage traffic between the UK and Europe has been spelled out. Some 67 million tonnes of freight traffic passes through our ports, the frontiers of Europe, the Irish ports and the currently virtually invisible Irish border. The way in which that traffic currently moves, under the provisions of the European Community licensing arrangement, is as close to frictionless as you could get. Whatever the outcome of Brexit, whatever deal we vote on in a few months and in a few years, virtually everyone in the business wants to have a system that is as close as possible to the current European Community licensing system. That applies to the main companies, the FTA, the Road Haulage Association, Unite the union, and to exporters and importers. They all want to keep roughly the present system. That also applies to European importers and exporters. It ought, therefore, to be an object of negotiations that we retain something close to the current system in the long term, even beyond the transition period.
In that sense, we all know where we would like to be; and this Bill, as has been pointed out, is a contingency Bill to provide for a situation where we fall short of what virtually everybody recognises as the optimum—being close to the present system. I was not present in Committee but I spoke at Second Reading, and I concede that it is sensible to have such a contingency. However, we also know from the policy documents that were provided to us at the beginning of the process for this Bill that—according to the rather Delphic words in the text of the Bill—we envisage and propose to go back to a system that existed prior to us being in the EU. No doubt that will be updated and eventually digitalised but it is a pretty clunky system that, in the old days, relied on quotas and bilateral deals. The Bill would allow for regulation providing for a different system, but at the moment the only system on offer is one that reflects trading patterns and technology that are now long past.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to three amendments in this group. I have added my name to Amendment 1, which is a retabling of an amendment put down in Committee by the Labour Party that would put on the face of the Bill that it is the Government’s objective to secure continued participation in the EU’s Community licence arrangements. This is another example of where a perfectly good arrangement currently exists in the EU but we will be leaving that arrangement and undoubtedly, I fear, moving to a less satisfactory situation. These amendments, as a group, are intended to encourage the Government to make the best possible arrangement with the EU for the future and to move to the best possible set of arrangements in the circumstances.
The amendments tabled by the Labour Party will almost certainly also ensure that the powers granted under this legislation will not be applicable if we stay in the EU’s Community licence regime, and that is very similar in principle to the sunset clause that I tabled in Committee. My Amendment 2 carries on this theme, because our argument is that the Bill should be applicable only with its original intended purpose, which is to make provisions for after we leave the EU, and that it should not be used as an opportunity to tidy up existing law. We often hear the phrase “skeletal Bill” but this is a “coat-hanger Bill”. It is possible to put any garment you can think of on this coat-hanger because it is drawn so broadly, and it is very difficult to see where the Government might go with it. Therefore, I believe that it is in everyone’s interests to keep the Bill to its original purpose.
Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, refers to the new permits regime and attempts to ensure that there is agreement in the future between the Government and the EU.
Finally, our Amendment 7 would make it a negotiating objective of the UK Government that there must be reciprocity regarding the number of UK-registered hauliers travelling to the EU and vice versa. This is a key issue. The view of haulage industry leaders is that we have to do all we can to ensure that there is an agreement, because, in their eyes, it is certain that the system proposed here will not work. The Freight Transport Association says that last year 300,000 journeys to the EU were made by British trucks and that 103 permits were issued, as those were all that were needed. If the Government are to adopt the permit system, a massive scaling up will be required to cope with that volume of traffic, but I think it is unrealistic for the Government to believe that they can scale up quickly and satisfactorily to that extent.
There are other issues which the transport associations are very concerned about and which these clauses do not deal with. After Brexit, WTO rules will require a significant increase in the number of checks. However frictionless a system the Government manage to create, ensuring that there are a limited number of checks to be made, WTO rules will kick in and will require checks to be made on a much bigger scale than now.
Simple precautionary measures are bound to be required to deter people intent on cheating the new system. There is also the unlikelihood, in the eyes of those who engage with the system at the moment, that the new computer-based system that will have to be devised by HMRC will be fully functional in the less than three years that we have left before the end of the transition period.
Then, of course, there is the issue of bringing 85,000 businesses up to scratch—that figure is from the NAO report. Currently, those businesses export only to the EU. Therefore, although they are exporting frequently—on a daily basis in many cases—they have never made a customs declaration. These businesses have no processes in place and no departments dedicated to that. If you add to that increased border delays caused by non-tariff aspects of the Bill, such as the end of mutual recognition of standards, there must be every incentive to reach an agreement, because there will be huge impediments to trade.
This Bill deals only with part of these issues. It makes no reference to the mutual recognition of lorry driver qualifications or to a shortage of skilled workers—13% of trucks on British roads are driven by EU drivers. Therefore, we are keen, through these amendments, to encourage the Government in every possible way to ensure that they make an agreement. I fear that we are not in a strong position on this, but the Government have to make every effort. Unless they do so, there is a huge chance that our major haulage companies will move abroad. There is already talk of companies seeking to register abroad in order to trade more easily. None of us wants that to happen.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 7 in this group, Amendment 3 being in my name. Before I do so, I note the comments from the Chief Whip a few minutes ago on what noble Lords are supposed to do during Report stage. I question the second point, which says,
“a member to explain himself in some material point of speech”.
I do not imagine that the Minister will be able to answer that, but I hope that we all explain ourselves.
I support all the points made by my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The noble Baroness said that this is a coat-hanger Bill, and she is probably right, but I suggest that it is a great deal better than nothing. There are many other sectors being debated in the context of Brexit for which there is nothing. We should give the Government a bit of credit for this, albeit that the Bill as it stands is pretty defective in many of the solutions that it comes up with. My conclusion, along with that of the noble Baroness, is that the system will not work anyway.
It is worth mentioning that, although this applies to road haulage, the border checks that we are all concerned about cover a very large number of different issues. Previous speakers have mentioned some of them. The easy one, actually, is customs. If that is done well and the IT system works—there is a big question about that—much of the work can be done in advance and, in theory, there would be no delays at frontiers, provided that it all goes smoothly. We discussed the drivers in Committee and their need for permits for vehicles and trailers and then we get into the interesting bits, which are the responsibility of Defra—plant and animal health and welfare, foot-and-mouth and rabies. You cannot check for those away from the frontier; it has to be done at the frontier. I do not know how many trucks per year would come under that, but they probably all need inspecting.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I would like to amplify what the noble Lord said. The effect on the logistics industry will be almost catastrophic if Brexit goes ahead. Are the main players in that—the FTA, the RHA, the Rail Freight Group and the Port of Dover—freely able to make their representations, or have they been made subject to some sort of confidentiality clause, which is a gagging clause, which stops them making representations?
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, may I help the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his question about the rules of debate? If he were to make a point that I had not understood, I could ask him to clarify his point and he would then be allowed to get up a second time to do that, just briefly.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lords opposite said and there is very little that I take issue with. They made very good points indeed. But my position is that we are sending Her Majesty’s Government in to negotiate the Brexit deal. The last thing that we want to do is unnecessarily to tie the hands of our negotiators and perhaps find out at the last moment that that hand-tying exercise has compromised our negotiating position. I sympathise with the points that noble Lords made, but I do not have sympathy with the amendments and I hope that my noble friend will advise the House not to accept them.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
The groaning silence means it must be my turn. With the words of the Government Chief Whip ringing in my ears, I will try to be as brief as possible. My noble friend Lord Berkeley covered the issue with faint praise, and I join him in that. The Government are ahead of the game in this area, but it is a game that we do not really want to be in. He was right to emphasise the inspections, checks and so on. I hope that, as with the coat-hanger Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the point on reciprocity is noted.
The main amendment in the group was addressed by the overall comments of my noble friend Lord Whitty. It is almost impossible to appreciate the sheer volume of the road haulage business. I do not know about other noble Lords, but because of this Bill, I have been forced to learn quite a lot about the industry. I see that the Minister nods her head; so has she, clearly. What I am more familiar with is the queuing effect of delays. It happens in the railway environment where a nicely worked out procedure can be subject to a delay of only a matter of seconds, but if the queue is long enough, chaos will ensue. I am particularly cautious about wonderful computer systems. Most people will sympathise when I say that big computer systems in the public sector are rarely delivered on time and on budget. The truth is that such systems rarely are, and we hear about that in the public sector. They are very difficult to deliver, and in many ways this computer age of ours is still in its infancy in terms of the difficulty of using these machines for large-scale practical applications.
The chaos that could arise from the systems at a port not working properly could lead to what at least we rather soft westerners would think of as “starvation” where having only vegetables in their season might start to become a reality instead of a gimmick in a fancy restaurant. The transport of food stocks which are time critical could become awfully difficult. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us extremely strong assurances that the intent of Amendment 1 is in fact the Government’s intent. I hope my noble friend will not press the House to divide on this issue, but to convince him not to do so, she will have to give us strong assurances that it is recognised that the best possible outcome is a system as close as reasonably practicable to what we have. It is almost a schoolboy statement, but I really would like a pledge signed in her blood.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak first to the various amendments relating to the negotiation aims, which address the points made by many noble Lords on the continuation of the Community licence regime, before moving on to why we need to make the regulations irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations. I hope I have been clear on the Government’s objective throughout the passage of the Bill: we want to maintain the existing liberalised access for UK hauliers. A mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU will support the objective of frictionless trade. We are confident that our future relationship with the EU on road freight, as part of our wider continuing relationship on trade, will be in the mutual interest of both sides.
These amendments would enshrine negotiation objectives in the Bill. On their overall principle, I must be clear that we do not believe that an attempt to mandate a particular stance in negotiations, in the way that these amendments would, is appropriate in the Bill. We will need flexibility to be able to adapt our approach in different areas. I am afraid that I shall not be able to accept these amendments, but I understand that noble Lords need the reassurance that we aim to have in place the arrangements that we need to maintain continued access.
The current arrangements for road freight access between the EU and UK through the Community licence allow drivers to use a single permit for trips between all EU member states. The licence also allows transit traffic through EU member states. Several noble Lords have spoken about the advantages of the Community licence. I am aware of those benefits and that many hauliers would like to see it continue. While continued participation in the Community licence arrangements is one potential outcome of the negotiations—we will certainly discuss it—there are other means to replicate the access that the Community licence provides, which these amendments would rule out.
Our current liberalised non-permit-based agreements with some non-EU countries provide for mutual recognition of operator licences in lieu of the requirement of a permit. The UK-Turkey agreement is one such example. The EU has a similar arrangement in the EU-Swiss land transport agreement, where permits are not needed and mutual recognition is allowed. Our future agreement with the EU could be based on a similar scheme and, if that were the case, permitting would not be relevant. Including the objective to seek continued participation in the Community licence arrangements may make it harder to agree such a beneficial deal for our hauliers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has tabled an amendment to the regulations made under Clause 1 that would see them apply only to an EU member state outside the UK, rather than any other country. This would mean that the focus of this part of the Bill will be only on arrangements with the EU. The Bill creates the legal frameworks to deliver for any administrative system that might be required as part of the final deal, but it also caters for our existing bilateral agreements with countries outside the EU. It is important that the Bill enables the regulations to cover these agreements so that there is compliance and consistency in the administration of a permit scheme, the allocation of permits and enforcement in relation to permits.
Non-EU agreements have previously been dealt with under administrative powers. The Bill will repeal the International Road Haulage Permits Act 1975 and bring in an entirely new framework. It is in UK hauliers’ interests to be able to use one system to apply for permits for non-EU countries as well as any permits that may be required, but we are clear that we hope that there would be no such requirement under any new EU schemes. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that this is a coat-hanger Bill, but I am grateful to her for introducing me to a new term. It is important that we do all we can to provide consistency and certainty for the industry in how they can apply for permits and the methods of allocations for these permits. That is why the Bill should refer to all countries outside the UK and not just EU member states.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is quite right that the World Trade Organization’s most-favoured-nation rules apply to the road haulage sector except when there is an exemption or it is part of a wider free trade agreement, which is of course something we are seeking with the EU. The free trade agreement would cover sectors crucial to our linked economy, such as the haulage industry. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the Chief Whip’s statement, I believe that the words on today’s list were taken directly from page 130 of the Companion. I will not attempt to justify them further, but I am grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her intervention on that.
Noble Lords have raised the issue of borders, customs and border delays. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that much work needs to be done in this area, but this work is happening in consultation with industry. In the case of this Bill, the provision of a permits scheme—whatever its detail or design—is intended precisely to ensure that there will be no delays for UK hauliers at our borders or any other borders in relation to their permission to travel.
Moving on to the amendments relating to the wider need to make regulations, irrespective of whether we have a future relationship with the EU that relies on permits, I understand that there is concern about the inclusion of enabling powers in the Bill if they will not be used at any point in the future in relation to our arrangements with the EU. However, as I have outlined, the Bill covers existing permit-based arrangements so we would need to continue to use them.
As the Prime Minister outlined in her March speech, our default is that UK law may not necessarily be identical to EU law, but it should achieve the same outcomes. Specifically on transport, she stated that,
“we will want to protect the rights of road hauliers to access the EU market and vice versa”.
In direct response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we are not seeking to return to the arrangements that we had before becoming an EU member state. The Bill does not suggest an alternative system—that is a matter for negotiations—but simply puts in place a mechanism for delivering the outcome of those negotiations. That is the responsible thing to do.
I have been clear on the Government’s objective for the negotiations in relation to the UK haulage industry. We aim to stay as close to the status quo as is reasonably practical. That objective is shared by the haulage industry and noble Lords across the House. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary; it may have the unintended consequence of making the objective of continued liberalised access harder to achieve. I therefore hope that the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She made a number of points, which I take on board. I understand why she does not want us to tie the hands of the negotiators—the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made roughly the same point. I would have hoped that we could find a form of words that introduces the Bill that does not refer to the negotiations, but as a default situation, were we unable to preserve the Community licence scheme. Unfortunately, neither I nor my noble friend Lord Bassam have found a form of words, and it is getting a bit late in the process for this Bill. However, I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to accept that there could be a form of words that makes it clear that this is a contingency Bill. It might not go all the way back to 1973 or 1968, but it allows an entirely different permit-based system to operate. That is our default position if we are not to continue with the present system or something close to it.
Baroness Sugg
“( ) as to how the Secretary of State is to decide whether to grant an application for a permit, including provision specifying criteria or other methods of selection (which may include first come, first served or an element of random selection).”
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, in Committee we discussed the process by which permits may be allocated to hauliers in a future permit scheme, should there be one. I am bringing forward an amendment that clarifies the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations catering for all the different scenarios that may arise. The amendment does not change the Government’s policy on the methods that need to be available to allocate permits. Instead, in response to previous discussions, it aims to make legislation clearer on what regulations may include, while ensuring that regulations can be made specifying all the methods of selection we need to have available to us.
I understand that noble Lords are concerned about the use of these methods, so I will set out how we would use them and explain why they are on the face of the Bill. The Bill enables regulations to be made which provide that permits are required for a journey, if they are needed. Whether they are needed or not will depend on the agreements we negotiate. The Bill also makes regulations to make provision as to how the Secretary of State will decide whether a permit is granted. Regulations may specify criteria or other methods of selection. To ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that cater for different approaches, the Bill provides that the methods of selection may include an element of random selection and “first come, first served”.
On first come, first served, our existing permit schemes are undersubscribed, so our applicants have always received what they have applied for. For example, in 2017 we issued 66 permits for Ukraine from a quota of 400; for Georgia we issued six permits from a quota of 100. This means that permits are issued on demand, and in these cases it makes sense to issue permits as we receive applications—on a first come, first served basis. In the future, where there are more permits available than are applied for, we will issue permits to all eligible applicants.
This drafting, with reference to “first come, first served”, ensures that the Secretary of State clearly has the power to provide in regulations that permits may be allocated on that basis. This is clearly a simpler process for the Government and hauliers where the supply exceeds the demand, but it means that hauliers will not be asked for as much information and additional criteria do not need to be applied, which will keep the process as simple and quick as it can be.
Moving on to random selection, the Bill enables regulations to be made that specify how the Secretary of State will decide whether a permit should be granted. That provision can include specifying criteria or other selection methods, which could include an element of random selection. If the demand for permits exceeds supply, we will look to allocate them in a way that maximises the benefits to the UK economy and that is fair and equitable to UK hauliers. We will set out this criteria in regulations and the Secretary of State will provide guidance relating to the information that applicants must provide.
As I said previously, we will be consulting on the criteria to be included in regulations, but these could include relevant factors such as the need for an applicant to hold a valid operator’s licence, the environmental standard of the vehicle authorised to be used by a permit, the sector the applicant operates in, or the proportion of a haulier’s business that is international. However, there might be cases where the application of criteria does not enable the Secretary of State to allocate all the permits. It is necessary, therefore, that other methods of selection should be available. As I said, the exact details of any permit scheme, if needed, are yet to be determined, so we want to ensure that the Bill enables regulations to be made that address scenarios where the application of criteria needs to be supplemented by other methods of selection.
I have listened to concerns noble Lords have raised that all permits will be allocated randomly and that getting a permit could be purely a matter of chance, but this is not the case. Where random selection is used, it will not be used on its own without any criteria being applied. The change of drafting to,
“an element of random selection”,
is a constraint on the delegated power to ensure that random selection cannot be used on its own. I state again that, while we expect some of these provisions not to be necessary, in passing this legislation we must ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that enable a range of outcomes. That is the responsible thing to do.
We have made explicit mention of the method of first come, first served and random selection in the Bill to make it clear that the Secretary of State has these powers. Given that there might be circumstances in which these methods are used, it is appropriate that these powers are spelled out clearly in the Bill. This will ensure that there is no doubt that these powers are available to him and will provide transparency about what may be included in regulations. We have aimed to be open about the potential use of these methods and I have sought to set out the circumstances in which we envisage that these methods may be used.
I recognise the concerns raised about this wording and I hope that the detail and the amendment as set out will allay some of the fears about how the powers might be used. As I said, we will be consulting on the draft regulations. Additionally, the Government have tabled an amendment that will require the first regulations made to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will come to that later, but it will mean that noble Lords will have the ability to scrutinise the regulations and, in particular, the way in which the Secretary of State has used his power under Clause 2.
As I have stated, I am confident that we will reach an agreement where all hauliers who seek a permit can get one—if, indeed, we need a permit system—but, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for all outcomes. I hope that the amendment makes the intention of the clause clearer and that noble Lords will support it. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group. The noble Baroness has in part answered the issues it is intended to raise, but it is not very clear in the Bill, in which the criteria for granting a permit seem to be entirely an issue of allocation of numbers, in terms of either the number of drivers or the number of vehicles, and what is available for a particular country. The amendment attempts to say to Ministers that there also need to be some qualitative criteria as to whether permits are given.
In the way the noble Baroness described it, the consultation might include that, but I would like that to be a little more explicit. We need to make sure that the operators who apply for and are given permits have reached certain standards of performance in relation to safety and maintenance, and to the employment and training they provide for their drivers and others; in relation to certain financial criteria that enable them to be of good financial repute; and in relation to certain environmental standards, as well as safety standards.
I hope that the consultation will cover all those things. What the Minister has said clearly includes that, but it is slightly odd that the wording of the Bill does not refer at all to regulations. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could even more explicitly reassure me that these issues will be taken into account when criteria are established as to the suitability of operators to receive permits under the new system—if we need a new system.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, to take further the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I note that the Minister said that the Government would seek to maximise the benefits to the UK economy in the way in which permits are distributed—and that needs to be done in a way which seeks to enhance the good repute of the industry and therefore of our country. I was struck by a point put to us in a briefing from Unite, which suggests that permits should be linked to the good repute of the operator; for example, their record on driver infringements should be taken into account, not just to reward good practice but to incentivise further good practice. I raise this issue because I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government will be prepared to investigate such an approach, which seems a much fairer system than that suggested in Committee, when we talked about first come, first served and some kind of balloting system. There needs to be something to encourage good practice in the industry.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, of course I support my noble friend the Minister’s amendment. On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Lord was Roads Minister many years ago and I was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on transport. We had a lot of fun together and we made various improvements. The noble Lord will know that to engage in international goods vehicle operations, one needs an international goods vehicle operator’s licence—one can have an international licence or a national licence.
When the noble Lord was Minister, I would try to increase the standard required of all operators—not just international operators but national operators as well. Sometimes he took my suggestions—there was one issue on which we achieved an improvement—but, generally speaking, as happened with most Ministers, the Opposition’s suggestions would be turned down.
However, if we wanted to, we could raise the bar for having an international operator’s licence. The tests already include the need for good repute and financial standing. If an operator gets into trouble with their annual pass rate or the number of prohibitions they pick up on the roads, the traffic commissioner can remove their licence. However, the noble Lord is right: if you want to engage in international operations, you need to operate to a higher standard than national operations—because, let us face it, operators operating on the continent are representing the United Kingdom. So the noble Lord raises a good point, but it is already covered by the fact that, to engage in international operations, you need an international goods vehicle operator’s licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am not going to get involved in a debate about which of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, or my noble friend Lord Whitty was the better Transport Minister or Roads Minister: I think they were both good.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I was only a government spokesman. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was a policy-determining Minister; I was not.
Lord Berkeley
Well, maybe that will change someday.
To speak briefly to Amendment 4, I think the noble Baroness has tried hard to interpret the long debate we had in Committee about the method of allocation and we will have to see how it goes: I think we cannot go much further on it. However, I support my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 5 on these criteria, which Unite has quite rightly been proposing for the operators. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned, though, it is going to get even more unfair if foreign lorries coming here do not have to comply with the same criteria. We risk losing more traffic to foreign lorries: it is massively out of balance at the moment and will get worse. I am not sure how we do it, because the Minister said about a previous part of the Bill that we cannot legislate about anything to do with foreign lorries coming here. I hope she will reflect on the need not only to take into account my noble friend’s amendment but how to apply that to lorries that come to this country so that there is a fair balance.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I too welcome the movement that the Minister has shown in the redrafting of Amendment 4. The essence seems to me that there will be a series of criteria to determine who should get permits and that the use, particularly, of random selection will emerge only where the differentiation by the criteria shows candidates to be equal. In other words, the objective will be to have objective criteria that can do the differentiation process, and only when bids of equal merit are placed in front of the selection would we stoop, sadly, to random selection. Let us hope we never get there—let us hope that there are enough permits anyway.
The Minister met many of the aspirations of Amendment 5 and I hope she will repeat them in her summing up. I hope she will give some warmth to repute as a concept for selection. There is the idea of a single criterion—safe, environmentally okay, et cetera—but it is crucial to recognise that it is more complex than that. We need to look at an operator’s track record: do they consistently work to a high standard? Are they consistently a good representative of that industry?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on this group. I absolutely appreciate the intention behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and agree that we should expect our hauliers to operate to high standards. While we could include conditions on permits to cover the areas he raised, as my noble friend Lord Attlee points out, the operator licensing regime already requires this of operators and is quite an effective means of achieving this. We do not need to apply conditions to the use of a permit with a view to achieving exactly the same thing. That is not to say that we would not grant permits subject to conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised areas that we would absolutely consider within these conditions. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State the discretion to make regulations authorising the grant of a permit subject to conditions, but we do not want the regulations to impose such conditions; that would make the permit regime more complicated for hauliers if those conditions are already covered elsewhere.
I absolutely understand the query about why some parts of the criteria and not others are in the Bill: believe me, it is something I spent much time discussing with the Bill team. Having considered the public law principles relating to the exercise of discretion and the need, for example, to take relevant factors into account and not to take irrelevant factors into account, we have taken the view that it is preferable to include in the Bill the specific references to first come, first served and random selection, to make it absolutely clear that when considering the scope of the enabling power the Secretary of State has the power to include these methods in the regulations.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we want vehicles coming into the UK to meet the high standards that we expect of our own operators— even more so if we are using that as a criterion to allocate permits. However, Clause 2 enables regulations to be made only about permits issued to our operators, not permits for access to the UK by foreign hauliers, as the noble Lord acknowledged. The international agreements we set up with other countries will usually mean that a permit will be given only to a haulier who has that country’s equivalent of the operator’s licence. In a permit scheme with the EU, should we have one, all hauliers will have the operator’s licence governed by the same EU rules as we have at the moment. The best way to raise international standards is to continue to work with our partners to improve those standards.
I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we will indeed consult carefully with industry on the criteria used. She made a very interesting suggestion on good repute and that is certainly something we will consider warmly. Sadly, I have not seen the briefing from Unite. Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to forward it to me so that we can consider its suggestions, but I confirm that we will include trade unions in our consultation. We meet Unite regularly but we will ensure that we meet it when we discuss the criteria. If we are in the unfortunate situation of having to have a criterion, we should certainly use it to do what we can to improve the haulage industry.
I hope noble Lords will support the government amendment with the intention of trying to make the clause clearer.
Lord Berkeley
“( ) In negotiating arrangements for permits with the European Union or European Union member States, the Secretary of State must seek reciprocity in terms of the quantity of permits and the fees charged.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 I will speak also to Amendment 8. This is to do with the quantity of permits and the fees, which we have already discussed in relation to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Amendment 6 seeks to put in the Bill a proposal that when the Government are negotiating the number of permits, either with the European Union or each member state individually—if that is the way it is to be done, because clearly we do not know which way it will go—there should be reciprocity in terms of the number of permits and the fees charged. I would like to see this objective in the Bill.
I am sure the Minister will want to do this for the sake of the UK haulage industry, but it is something which sometimes gets forgotten and it is very important if we are to have a modern, thriving haulage sector here, both in terms of the quality, which we have discussed, and the fees charged. One would hope that the fees would be reasonable in comparison with the fees charged by many other member states. I include some of the newer member states in eastern Europe, where the fees may be very low, and that is one of the reasons that we get so many trucks from eastern Europe here because it is a lot cheaper for them to operate. I hope the Minister will take all that into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, two things above all concern the haulage industry in relation to this aspect of the Bill: the number of permits that will be available, which the Minister has already addressed, and the key issue of the potential cost of those permits. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said, it is, at least in part, about fairness—to give our operators a fair opportunity in competition with those from the rest of Europe. We should not be making it more expensive than we have to.
I raised this issue in Committee. In her response, the Minister made the point that if we made the EU permit free, the Government would just put up the cost of the operator’s licence to cover the cost of it. I can clearly see that point of view, so the amendment in my name is an attempt to balance that issue and shut off that exit for the Government by saying that, overall, the cost has to be proportionate.
What I am really trying to do is to urge the Government to minimise the cost of these permits. It is probably not terrifically significant for the big operators but for the small operators—the people who have just one, two or three lorries going to Europe—it is a very significant aspect of their cost structure, so I ask the Government to give the industry a break and make this as cheap as possible. There is also a symptomatic or symbolic thing in this decision: it has been free in the past, for very logical reasons because the EU has been an extension of our domestic market so people were therefore not charged extra for going there; but, symbolically, they are now to be charged more for the right to travel and transport goods overseas. It is therefore important that we keep that cost to the minimum possible.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises important points and I agree with them. That should be what the Government will negotiate for—equal access, reciprocity, et cetera—and I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell us that that is the case. However, once again, I would not like to see the Government tie their hands by agreeing to have the noble Lord’s amendment in the Bill, because it might be necessary to do something that does not quite meet the requirements of his amendment in order to achieve some other desirable outcome. I hope that he will reluctantly accept that point.
As to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I agree with the sentiment, particularly on the need to minimise the costs. I hope that if we did have to have this system, it would be just a technicality that a permit would be issued and the costs could be very low. Whatever we do, it must be on some form of cost-recovery basis where the international haulage industry pays for it, but there is the horrible prospect that, for some reason, the system that we will have to adopt is much more complicated and expensive to administer than the old Community licence system. The noble Baroness’s amendment says that the costs should not exceed that, which I suggest to my noble friend the Minister means it is not wise to accept that amendment. It will otherwise be impossible to recover the costs of operating the system. I entirely agree with the sentiment but I hope that my noble friend the Minister does not accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Randerson
Before the noble Earl sits down, I hope he will accept that the wording I used was not that it should not exceed it but that it should not be “disproportionate”.
Earl Attlee
I entirely accept the point. The amendment is carefully drafted but it would still have the undesirable effect.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we generally support the sentiment of both these amendments and hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances in both areas.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, as I said in Committee—I am keen to reiterate it now—our aim is to set fees on a cost-recovery basis and keep them as low as possible. We will look to minimise the costs to hauliers in using any permit scheme, should we need one. We are well aware of the tight margins that many hauliers operate within and will do all we can to reduce the cost of any permit scheme.
The Bill allows us to charge fees for permits and we propose to charge those fees, if needed, for the recovery of only the costs of providing these permits. The Treasury‘s guidelines, Managing Public Money, set out how such fees should be set and what elements can and cannot be included in that calculation. The Government believe that those using this service should meet the costs of it, rather than the costs being passed on to taxpayers more generally or going on the operator’s licence.
We will follow these guidelines in setting our fees, which means hauliers will not pay any more than they need to to meet the costs of the service. The best way to minimise permit costs for hauliers is to ensure that our systems are as efficient and effective as possible. I acknowledge the points made earlier by noble Lords about IT systems. For these permits, we are exploring how we can use our existing systems with a view to users having a single system for all our permit schemes. We hope that will simplify the process, and there is significant investment.
Lord Berkeley
Can the Minister confirm whether the cost of the permits that she mentioned will include just the operation of the system or will there be a requirement for hauliers to fund the setting up of some IT system that might, or might not, last several years or go wrong or anything else? I hope her answer will be that it is just the operation.
Baroness Sugg
The noble Lord has read my mind. I was about to come to the fact that I can confirm today that these fees will cover only the day-to-day running costs. The Government will cover the set-up costs of the scheme, which is being funded by part of the £75.8 million we have received from the Treasury as part of our planning for exiting the EU. I hope noble Lords and the haulage industry are reassured by that. I fully agree with noble Lords that we want the greatest possible access for road hauliers, coupled with the lowest possible costs to hauliers, but we do not believe that we should be asking the taxpayer to pay indefinitely for permits.
Before I turn to the specific amendments, it may be helpful to set out some detail on current fees. Fees are already charged in relation to some of our permit agreements with non-EU countries. They are reasonably consistent. For example, there is an £8 fee for a single-journey permit to any country with which we have a permit agreement, such as Ukraine. In our agreement with Morocco, we charge £50 for a 15-trip permit. The ECMT permit—referred to in the regulations as an ECMT licence—which allows unlimited journeys for a year, costs £133. All those fees have been set on a cost-recovery basis and give a good indication.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised reciprocity. First, on the number of permits, many international agreements, such as our agreements with Ukraine and Belarus, are permit-based and agreed under the principles of reciprocity. In circumstances where the agreed number of permits is used up, additional permits can be provided. We do that on a reciprocal basis because no country wants to limit the amount of haulage carried out. Under a future permits scheme, we would absolutely seek reciprocity in the number of permits so that neither side is limited and we are confident that that can be achieved. In the first group, we discussed amendments relating to negotiation objectives being in the Bill, and the Government remain of the view that they should not be included in the Bill.
Secondly, on fees, the arrangements for issuing and charging for permits are handled at a national level and the UK has no agreements with other countries that address the cost of their permits. We are not aware of any international road haulage as said, but? arrangements that has such an agreement. We set our own fees for UK hauliers and other countries set their own fees, including for permits for travel to the UK. To give some examples, in Ireland there is a separate fee for Community licences that we do not have. The Netherlands charges fees for both applying for and issuing ECMT permits, whereas we currently charge only for the issue of a licence. Other countries’ fees can be higher or lower than the fees charged in the UK, depending what the fees choose to cover.
Looking at equivalent charges in other countries, I mentioned the single-journey permit. The equivalent permit in the Netherlands costs around £4, slightly less than in the UK, but in Finland it costs £35, which is more than in the UK. In Norway there is no charge for permits, but it charges around £98 to issue a Community licence. While we charge £133 for an annual ECMT permit, it costs around £219 in Serbia, and in the Netherlands there is a fee of around £302 for applying and a further fee of around £121 for issuing the permit. I am afraid I have no details of some of the new EU members which the noble Lord mentioned. It is proving quite difficult to get hold of the details, but we will get them and consider them when setting fees.
If we have permits and seek an agreement on fees, other countries may wish to charge more. I think the examples I have given show that there is quite a lot of disparity between the charges. We do not want to seek reciprocity on fees because it could be unnecessarily complicated and it has never been done before, which may delay our reaching an agreement. As noble Lords are aware, we are keen to get an agreement in place as quickly as possible.
If we end up with a permit scheme, we may have to introduce fees, and we expect that other countries would do the same. They could be higher or lower than the fee charged in the UK depending on what the fees cover. While we will look at the international comparisons, the best we can do is to make sure the costs are as low as possible for hauliers.
As to exactly what the fees will amount to, I regret that I am not able to provide exact figures because that will depend on the negotiations and the cost of administering any permit scheme as required. However, I repeat my assurances that if permits are needed, we want to keep the fees as low as possible—in the region of the existing permit fees that I have referred to.
Noble Lords are right to highlight the impact of these fees on the haulage industry. We intend to have one set of regulations and permits that will include fees, and I am pleased that the later government amendment on affirmative regulations means that noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss those fees. Prior to the fee being set, we will of course consult fully with industry, including small and medium-sized businesses. I absolutely acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point that it has more effect on them than it does on the bigger hauliers. That is something that we will consider. The government amendment on consultation that we will come to later will make that consultation a statutory requirement.
I sympathise with the aims of the amendments but I hope noble Lords will agree that the costs are best met by charging fees for permits on a cost-recovery basis. If the permits are needed, the Government are committed to covering the set-up costs of the scheme and will do all we can to keep those day-to-day running costs as low as possible. The fees, if needed, will be discussed carefully in the consultation and will be subject to further scrutiny from noble Lords should our later amendment on the affirmative resolution be accepted. However, I confirm that we aim to keep the costs as low as possible. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. I had understood from our debates in Committee that there might have been one opportunity for us to negotiate the amount of charges with the EU as a whole. That is clearly not the case and the examples that she has given indicate that my amendment is not a good idea at all, which I now accept. All I can say before withdrawing it is that her department will have to negotiate with not just 26 member states but quite a few other countries around the outside. I hope she has enough staff with the right expertise to do that so that we do not have the cliff edge we were talking about earlier. However, I am very grateful for the information that she has given us, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“( ) If continued UK participation in the EU’s Community Licence arrangements is not agreed as part of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal agreement with the EU, regulations must provide an exemption from fees for UK registered hauliers for the period of five years beginning with the date on which the new international road transport permit scheme is introduced.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, there are three amendments in this group. Amendment 9 is another of my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendments. Evidently, either the European open skies aviation system or the Gatwick Express have not yet delivered him to this Chamber.
Amendment 9 deals with much of the territory that was discussed in the previous amendment. Indeed, it was discussed in Committee when the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, had an amendment to delete the whole of this clause. The amendment was intended by my noble friend Lord Bassam to be a compromise and effectively say, “Let’s not charge a separate fee for the new permit system for five years to avoid an unnecessary or unfair additional cost on the hauliers”. Some of this has been dealt with in the previous discussion, and the Minister has indicated that it may not be a large amount of money. Nevertheless, it is an increased cost in a sector that is facing other additional costs, as I explained in relation to earlier amendments—costs at the frontier, the cost of documentation and so on—and one in which margins are already very low and competition is particularly acute. A new permit system really should not require a new payment by the hauliers themselves.
The other complication was also alluded to by the Minister: at present there is no charge for the Community licence. The Government argue on occasion that the charge is covered by the operations licence—the domestic licence, in other words—but if that is the case and we move to a new system, I have not noticed the Treasury arguing on grounds of full-cost recovery that the operating licence fee should therefore be reduced. This is an additional and unfair charge on the haulage industry which particularly hits SMEs, and there are quite a lot of single-driver or two or three lorry operations in the sector.
I therefore hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a need to cushion the burden, and the amendment would give her the opportunity at least not to introduce it for several years, during which the totality of the new system could, hopefully, be fully tested, made completely digital and therefore reduce the cost recovery required. We could then perhaps end up with a rational system of what falls on the basic licence and what falls on the European licence. There is therefore still an argument for the amendment. Although I accept much of what the Minister said about the size of the cost, it is nevertheless an additional cost on a precarious industry.
The other two amendments, which are actually mine, relate to a different issue. This in part relates to concerns expressed by Unite the union that aspects of the Bill’s provisions, particularly this clause, suggest that the responsibility falls on the individual driver rather than the operator. The responsibility for meeting the criteria in the regulations to follow and for operating within the new permit system must fall to the operator. The driver, whether contracted or employed by the operator, should not be the person penalised, but the clause explicitly states that, in certain circumstances, it should be the driver who is penalised.
Amendment 10 recognises that the operation of the system will at some point become completely digital. That would make life easier for the driver and, indeed, the operator, in that the driver would not have to find umpteen different documents for a multinational trip and ensure that they were all up-to-date and in order, but could present all that on an iPhone or an iPad. Explicitly recognising that in the Bill would be useful.
My second amendment deals with the issue of the driver’s as against the operator’s responsibility. Clause 8(2) specifically makes the driver responsible for any breach of regulations by failure to show documents, but it is the operator’s responsibility that the driver should have those documents and the operator should ensure that all of his or her lorries are furnished with those documents. The idea that that is primarily the driver’s responsibility is wrong: it must be part of the operator’s responsibility.
I am not saying that it is intended to remove all responsibility from the driver. Clearly, the driver has a responsibility to co-operate with the authorities and if the driver is obstructive or obstreperous to the examiner or whoever is trying to enforce the rules, that driver would be caught by Clause 8(3), which provides that anybody who obstructs the implementation of the regulations commits an offence. That would include the driver in those circumstances, but responsibility for ensuring that both the vehicle and the documentation are in order must lie with the employer or the operator. My amendments give the Minister a possible way out of that. She or her department may find a better way but, at the very least, I would be grateful if she could accept the principle, on the record, and say clearly that the Government’s intention is for it to be the responsibility of the operator, and that the regulations under the Bill will carry that out.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this is another interesting amendment. I have a query for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about drafting. The amendment refers to “UK registered hauliers”. What does that mean? Does it mean that the company is registered in the UK or that the operator’s licence is held here? You could have a company which is registered on the continent, or in Ireland, whose operator’s licence is actually held in the UK. There is some lack of clarity there. I do not know whether the noble Lord has thought of it.
My worry about the amendment is: if the operator is not going to pay, who is? The noble Lord also made a very important point about competition in the road haulage industry being acute. He is absolutely right: it has been so for a long time. The reason for that is that the cost of operation in road haulage is well understood. Modern vehicles are extremely efficient; you can get maintenance contracts which take out all the risks. You know the costs of the fuel—it is very high, because it is heavily taxed—the costs of the driver, and the cost of other taxes and any necessary permits. If there is a cost to the permits, the market will take account of that. Although the noble Lord is right that it is a horribly competitive market, the prices will actually just rise very slightly to take account of the cost of permits. I do not think that the noble Lord’s concerns about absorbing the costs hold good.
I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance on Amendments 10 and 11. It seems that, in road haulage legislation, the driver is responsible for everything but has little actual power to do anything about it. I hope my noble friend can give some reassurance on that.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I support the amendments and will build on the points made. Amendment 11 is particularly important. The generality of placing responsibility on the driver is becoming increasingly out of date with the complexities of the real, modern world. In other transport environments, it is recognised that the wider responsibility lies with the operator, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances on that.
Amendment 10 is also sensible and goes in the right general direction. We are moving into a wholly digital age—even I have an iPhone.
Amendment 9 deals with a very serious issue. The industry will feel aggrieved if there are additional charges. It would argue, accurately, that it is an enormously efficient industry, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, and we respect that. The industry works to very small margins and it is therefore inevitable that these charges will be passed on to customers. I hope that there will be full consultation before any charges are considered and that everything is done to make them as low as possible. I think the Minister has already said this, but it cannot be repeated often enough. In the previous group there was some talk about considerations of other factors such as what other people were charging, and so on. I hope that those will not be the considerations; the simple consideration should be that the Government pay all the capital and the set-up costs, and everything else is driven down to a low level.
I hope that the intention of this amendment, to outline and emphasise just how important this is to the industry, is accepted by the Government and that the Minister will be able to repeat herself by saying reassuring words.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I will first address enforcement and Amendments 10 and 11. The sections on enforcement use the model of enforcement powers that are already in place in the context of operator licensing, Community licences and permits. Under current arrangements, the Community licence is the paper document that hauliers are required to carry in the vehicle and show to inspectors on request, so a switch to paper copy permits, should they be needed, will not fundamentally change this process.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right to highlight the benefits of digital documents. We want to see the haulage sector moving in this direction and are working towards that, but unfortunately we are not there yet. The Bill already provides the flexibility to move to that digital system in the future. Clause 1 provides that the permit,
“may be in any form the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
That would enable the Secretary of State to specify the form of permits as digital once we have all the processes in place for that and once the industry is ready for it. Some of our existing permit agreements with other countries require a paper permit to be carried, and indeed all our existing permit schemes are currently paper-based, so it would be slightly counterproductive to insist on a digital permit at this stage. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working towards that and that the current drafting allows us to move to that as and when we are ready to do so.
On the noble Lord’s amendment to Clause 8, the offence in Clause 8(2) relates to the conduct of a driver when a requirement is made of him or her by an examiner. Clause 6(2)(a) requires a driver to produce any permit carried on the vehicle to an examiner, and failing to do so without reasonable excuse would be an offence under Clause 8(2). That offence is relevant where a driver is frustrating enforcement activity, and mirrors similar offences for failing to produce documents carried on the vehicle, such as drivers’ hours records under Section 99 of the Transport Act 1968.
I absolutely understand the noble Lord’s point that if a driver has been sent on a journey by an operator without the necessary permit, the driver should not be punished for that. I agree, and to avoid this we included the wording,
“that is carried on the vehicle”,
in Clause 6(2)(a). Therefore, the driver will be prosecuted for failing to show a permit only if there is one on the vehicle which has been provided by the operator. If that is the case, that would be an offence under Clause 8(1), and that offence applies to the operator, so the driver would not be prosecuted for failing to produce a permit if they had never had such a permit in the first place. I hope this clarifies the scope of these offences to the extent that the noble Lord feels able not to press those amendments.
On the cost element of this group, the amendment proposes that fees should not be charged for five years. I have already outlined, and am happy to do so again, that our aim is to set fees, should they be needed, on a cost recovery basis and to minimise those costs to hauliers using any permit scheme. If we were to exempt hauliers from any permit fees for five years, these costs would have to be borne by another party. That would either be the taxpayer or it would need to be done via the cost of the operator licence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, which would mean that all freight operators would pay for it. The latter would be more in accord with the principles in Managing Public Money which we are trying to stick to.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right to predict that I will use the argument that the costs of issuing Community licences are covered by operator licensing fees, which also operate on cost recovery. The issuing of Community licences is a small part of the costs of the operator licensing regime, and these fees are kept under review. If we no longer have to issue the Community licences and this reduces the cost to be covered by the fees, of course we will consider that when the fees are reviewed.
However, overall we think it is fairer that those who benefit from a service cover its running costs, rather than have all hauliers or all taxpayers paying for a benefit that only a small number get. Earlier, I confirmed that the fees will cover only the day-to-day running costs, with the Government covering the set-up costs of the scheme, which is being funded as part of our grant from the Treasury. Again, I am happy to confirm that we will do all we can to keep those fees low.
I hope that this discussion and the fact that the fees, should they be needed, will cover only the running costs will reassure the noble Lord that the fees charged to hauliers will be proportionate and stop an additional burden being imposed on the taxpayer. I can also reassure noble Lords that, should the government amendments be accepted, these fees, should they ever be needed, will be subject to three further measures: a statutory consultation with the industry; an affirmative procedure to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations; and a report following their introduction to examine the impact on the haulage industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has again suggested that we might benefit from further discussion on this. However, as with Amendment 1, I feel that I have been clear about the Government’s position on the Bill and the Government have nowhere further to go. Therefore, if the noble Lord wants to push the matter further, he will have to test the opinion of the House today. However, I hope that with these reassurances and the government amendments that we will come to later, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am slightly disappointed by what the noble Baroness has said, and I also need to take heed of what she said on the previous group of amendments. Talking about the money, as I understand it, after the initial set-up costs, which will be borne by the taxpayer, it is still the intention to put a charge on hauliers for a service that will replace the Community licensing system, which is not currently charged for but is covered by the costs of the domestic operators’ licences.
I fully accept that from time to time these arrangements have to be reviewed, but with this amendment I am saying that at a time when hauliers are faced with substantial changes and increased competition from people who are still in the European Community licencing system, this will be seen as a charge on their costs. It is correct to say that we need to protect taxpayers’ money, but we also need to protect the industry, which eventually contributes to taxpayers’ money. Therefore, I am not sure that I am satisfied with the noble Baroness’s answer on that.
In relation to the other two issues, I take the point about digital provision and the fact that we are not there yet; nevertheless, it is right that the Minister has put on the record that a digital presentation of the documentation would be accepted. However, I am not entirely clear that she has gone far enough in relation to the driver’s responsibility, because Clause 8(2) implies a rather wider range of circumstances than simply refusing to provide documentation which is on board. When it comes to the regulations, the Minister will need to look at that a bit more tightly if we are not to transfer the responsibility of meeting the documentary requirements and other provisions, which lies with the operator, to the individual driver. She probably accepts that in principle but I am not sure that the Bill says that at the moment, and I hope that the regulations will do so. The reassurance that she has given us that the regulations will come through the affirmative procedure is helpful.
Returning to the issue of money, I do not think that what the Minister has said will reassure the industry significantly. However, she has allowed herself some elbow room on this. In view of the degree to which she has tried to give reassurance in respect of previous amendments and this group of amendments, I will not press this amendment tonight, although she challenges me to do so. The Government need to address this matter and to come back to us in a way that reassures the industry. It may be that, even at Third Reading, she will be able to say something more in that direction. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sugg
“Report on effects of EU-related provisions
(1) After any year throughout which relevant restrictions apply, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report assessing the effects of the restrictions on the haulage industry in the United Kingdom during that year.(2) Relevant restrictions apply when, in relation to at least one country which is a member State of the European Union, regulations under both section 1 and section 2(1)(a) apply (so that permits are required and only a certain number are available).(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a year means any continuous period of twelve months (not including any period which already has to be reported on).”
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, in Committee, a number of noble Lords brought forward amendments to require the Government to analyse and report on the impacts on the efficiency of the UK haulage industry of any permit scheme that might be introduced, and to report on the Government’s intentions, expectations and achievements with regard to future arrangements with the EU. While we have been clear that we are seeking continued liberalised access to the EU, I recognise the concern about any impact of a limited scheme on the haulage industry. I gave an undertaking to the Committee that we would publish details of any permit scheme as soon as they were available. I also undertook to consider how best to review the impacts of any permit scheme, should one be required.
The new clause proposed by the Government requires the Secretary of State to lay an annual report assessing the effects of any restrictions on the haulage industry. We already issue permits to UK hauliers to travel to some non-EU countries where we have agreements that require permits. This amendment would be triggered only where the UK has struck an agreement with at least one country that is a member of the EU that requires a permit scheme, and where there is a limit on the number of permits available for hauliers travelling to EU member states.
The amendment also sets out the length of the reporting interval. If an assessment of the effect of a permit scheme is to be of value to Parliament and to the industry, sufficient time must pass to enable the effect to be assessed and evidence to be gathered to inform that assessment. Setting the timing of the obligation to report for the first time as one year on from any regulations coming into force will ensure that the actual effect of the regulations is properly assessed. The Government believe that the amendment they have laid imposes a proportionate obligation to assess and report, while addressing the concerns that were raised in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I welcome this amendment, as far as it goes. Again, we debated this in Committee. The noble Baroness has tabled the amendment after Clause 8 and explained very clearly its purpose. However, when I read it, I said to myself, “What are ‘relevant restrictions’?” It is not included in the definitions and, although she has explained it, in the cool light of day when the Bill becomes an Act, I would read it and say, “Whatever is that?” Could she look again at that and either clarify it or come back with a definition at some stage?
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 12, I will speak also to Amendments 13 and 14 in my name. In the real world, you have to realise when you are not going to get any further. The noble Baroness has, in effect, accepted the thrust of our concern that there should be proper reporting. I think our amendments are much better but I know that she will not agree with me, and so I will settle for what I have got.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions to this group and pleased that they welcome the broad aim of the amendment. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I hope that I have spelled out clearly exactly what the restrictions will be—and we will continue to do so. Again, that is something that we will consult the industry on and details can be included in regulations.
Lord Whitty
“(v) the renting out of trailers.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the situation for the trailer market. It is clear that the provisions in the back half of the Bill, which deals with trailers, are important and welcome. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, at one point I had to be quite familiar with all this, but, thankfully in some ways, I have lost touch with parts of the industry in the interim. Nevertheless, it has been represented to me that the trailer market and the use of trailers is actually quite a complex subject—although a more pejorative word is sometimes used. For example, trailers are shared, hired out, or picked up by a driver for one operator and delivered to another, used for part of the journey and then used by another operator. What I am querying in the text is that the reference to the operator or keeper does not seem to include the part of the trailer market that is effectively hiring out. They are either hiring out for money or hiring out in kind by swapping one trailer for another or for a whole range of different services for trailers. It is a complicated area but it is important that those who hire out vehicles have the same obligations on registration, safety and the offences created by the Bill as do operators who always use their own trailers or operate on simpler, less complicated arrangements.
This is a significant part of the market without which the whole system would not operate, or at least it would be hugely more costly and inconvenient to operate without it. Therefore, those who hire out trailers, on whatever terms, are an important part of the efficiency of the sector. But they, likewise, have responsibilities. The Bill should reflect that they have the same responsibilities for registration and related matters as other operators within the sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raises an important issue which did not have much discussion in Committee. It is a complex issue partly because it is possible to stick a registration plate on a trailer but not really know which trailer it is for. It appears to be the same trailer, but it could be a different one, depending on what is pulling it. We need a system to specify who is responsible and who is operating in a rental market for trailers. We should remember that rental trailers range from trailers used to cart excess household rubbish to the tip through to camping trailers for holidays and up to large commercial trailers. It is a big market. We must also take account of the important issue that, at the commercial level of the industry, drivers swap trailers regularly. In order to be fair to the drivers, there needs to be a simple way for them to check that the trailer is properly registered and safe. That is a key issue that we did not address at all in Committee.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I take it that the intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is to deal with the commercial HGV trailer market. He said that the issue is complex, and it is certainly that. There is a wide variety of renting, leasing and finance arrangements and they will all have different registration arrangements, so he is right that it is complex. However, it is no more complex than the situation for tractor units or rigid vehicles, which also have complex leasing and rental arrangements. Equally, the situation is no more complicated for a trailer than it is for a goods vehicle. I therefore cannot see why we need to have special consideration in this legislation in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, suggested that operators would not know which trailer is which. However, we already have the ministry plate which is attached to the trailer along with the goods vehicle test disc. Moreover, there is a chassis number on the trailer and the manufacturer’s plate.
Baroness Randerson
For clarity, I was referring to the casual observer rather than the industry insider, or indeed the police or any law enforcement agency that sought to check.
Earl Attlee
Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, there will also be a conventional number plate on the trailer. Once it is registered under this legislation, it will have a number plate in the same way as a rigid vehicle.
The noble Baroness touched on smaller trailers for private use. My comments are particularly aimed at the commercial sector.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly draw attention to the important issue of rented trailers. I will explain how the introduction of a registration scheme could affect rental companies and operators, and I take the opportunity to underline that this is an issue we continue to consider and have engaged with stakeholders on previously. Furthermore, I can confirm that nothing in the regulations will prevent hauliers continuing to rent trailers either domestically or internationally. From our ongoing engagement with industry, we recognise that trailer rental is an important issue for many hauliers. Trailer rental provides hauliers with the valuable flexibility they need at short notice to deal with unforeseen spikes in demand or to cover the maintenance of their fleet. Such flexibility is therefore vital to the industry to continue to operate efficiently and I welcome the opportunity to speak further on the matter.
Trailer registration will be slightly different from that of motor vehicle registration as there will be no requirement for units used solely domestically to be registered, whereas for a motor vehicle this is not the case. We continue to seek to engage broadly around how this will be managed with the rental industry, the haulage companies and those who rent the vehicles.
As with motor vehicle rental the “keeper” of a registered trailer will remain the rental company; this keepership does not transfer for the period for which a trailer is rented out. Accordingly, the keeper of a trailer will be responsible for the registration of that trailer. Rental companies will have certain obligations as keepers, such as ensuring that the trailer’s details in the register are correct, but these will be within their control and proportionate. Where a user intends to use a trailer for an international journey, either to or through a country that has ratified the 1968 convention, they are responsible for ensuring that the trailer is appropriately registered. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we need to make sure that the system is simple for people to use to ensure this. Rental trailer users will have additional obligations, such as ensuring that they are displaying the registration plate, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Attlee. We believe that that is fair and proportionate, given that commercial operators will already be familiar with the registration scheme.
With no current domestic requirement for registration, clearly rental companies themselves should not be held liable for an operator’s independent use of an unregistered trailer abroad when the use of that same trailer on a road in the UK would be completely lawful. We will work with representatives of the rental industry to ensure that they understand the changes made under this Bill and in the subsequent regulations, and the necessary preparations that they must make to continue to rent trailers to be used internationally. This is necessary to ensure that rental companies remain able to service the needs of haulage companies operating both domestically and internationally.
The principle of the responsibility of the user to ensure that the trailer they are using for international journeys is registered will also apply in the case of trailer units being borrowed or informally shared between operators. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, correctly highlighted this as being regular practice in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has further proposed amendments to the fees and offences clauses in Part 2 of the Bill. I can confirm that the Bill in its current form contains the necessary powers to accommodate the renting of trailers and their usage in relation to the provisions of the Bill.
We will seek to consult further on trailer rental, which will help to inform our guidance as we make the regulations. We recognise that requiring the registration only of trailers being used internationally may create some practical complexity for rental companies and their customers, so we will work closely with the industry to try to minimise this. The proposals for the scheme have already been discussed with the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association and we will continue to engage with it on the matter in the coming months. That will be an important stage in ensuring that the sector understands the proposals made and may ensure that it adequately prepares for the regime ahead of its implementation.
I hope I have explained the Government’s intentions clearly. I absolutely agree that we need to clarify this further in the regulations; we intend to do so in detail in consultation with the industry. As I said, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this matter further but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, feels able not to press his amendment.
Lord Whitty
I thank the Minister for her response. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that this matter is no different from hiring tractors or any other form of vehicle, but this part of the Bill deals with trailers. At a casual read, it did not appear to cover the hiring, letting or contracting out of trailers. The Minister assures me that it does; I assume her lawyers know what they are talking about. She also assured us that this would be covered explicitly in the consultation. I am therefore prepared to accept that it will be covered, that there is no loophole and that this is not an area that the very commendable tightening up of trailer registration would miss. Not covering this would lead to anomalies. It is slightly odd that “keeper” or “user” includes hirers; nevertheless, if it does, I accept that, as long as it is clarified to the industry and those who enforce the regulations that we have yet to see and that the Minister rightly says will be widely consulted on. Subject to that, I thank the Minister and I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“(2A) The Secretary of State must collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the United Kingdom, and the Secretary of State must include the findings in a report.(2B) Such a report must include a recommendation regarding the necessity or not for the compulsory registration of trailers weighing more than 750kg kept or used on roads, regardless of whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom, in a register to be kept by the Secretary of State.(2C) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 17 in my name.
The National Trailer and Towing Association has long campaigned for the periodic inspection and testing of light trailers. One of the main barriers to that is the lack of a trailer registration scheme that covers category O1 and O2 trailers. Noble Lords are aware of the tragic case of Donna and Scott Hussey’s very young son, Freddie, who was killed in 2014 when he was hit by a two-tonne trailer that had come loose from a Land Rover. The family and their MP, Karin Smyth, have been campaigning ever since for better trailer safety to try to prevent further serious injury and deaths. What is needed—and what Amendments 16 and 17 provide for—is the creation of clear evidence based around weights and categories of trailers in relation to their safety and the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK.
The Government need to take action on this, rather than making vague promises to consider this in the future. There is a strong argument for looking specifically at the safety of trailers in the O2 category, weighing between 750 kilograms and 3.5 tonnes. With a genuine data collection exercise and assessment of evidence, the Government would be in a position to make an informed and responsible decision, befitting Her Majesty’s Government, on whether trailers in that category should be registered and subject to stringent safety testing. The data presented in the Minister’s letter mostly conflates that of trailers below 3.5 tonnes and large—category O3 or O4—trailers above that weight. This is misleading because the data referring to these large trailers is irrelevant to the central issue. We are not questioning the safety of large trailers of this nature because, as has been highlighted, they are already subject to robust safety procedures and checks and subsequently have high pass rates. Those figures, and comparisons with non-GB countries, relate only to large tested vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, not the lower categories of trailer with which we are at present most concerned.
Crucially, any analysis of the Department for Transport data on the safety of trailers below 3.5 tonnes shows some major gaps in reported data. This makes it impossible to describe the best attempt of Ministers to argue on the Government’s behalf that we have a representative assessment of how safe or unsafe domestic users of trailers are on our roads.
The statistics presented in the letter on incidents involving light trailers do not represent all such incidents, but only those reported and recorded by police. Road traffic incidents reported to the police include only those involving a personal injury and that occur on public roads. The DfT therefore clearly states in its annual report on road casualties:
“These figures … do not represent the full range of all accidents or casualties”,
in Great Britain, and goes on to include details of other sources of statistics with vastly higher recorded accidents and road traffic injuries.
We would also like to draw a distinction between the current method of capturing data on trailer safety after an injury has occurred in an incident, and the DfT’s failure to lead any kind of initiative to collect data on the roadworthiness of smaller trailers using stop-and-search-type testing to prevent such accidents occurring in the first place. This has been highlighted by Avon and Somerset Police as an urgent priority. It argues that its own evidence of checks shows the unsafe condition of the majority of domestic trailers, which, despite being overwhelming, is still ignored.
The evidence presented by the National Trailer and Towing Association and others shows the shocking safety standards of many untested trailers under 3.5 tonnes. According to it, a large proportion of such trailers would fail any roadworthiness test. When the Secretary of State undertakes a data-collection exercise and collates comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the United Kingdom, it is vital that this includes data gathered specifically on the safety of trailers in the O2 category.
The logic of the concept that trailers should be registered and tested seems at first sight overwhelming: 750 kilograms of trailer traveling at 70 mph out of control can do as much damage as a small car travelling at 70 mph. Clearly, the solution is that they should be registered and inspected. The Minister will tell us that this is unnecessarily bureaucratic, too complex and disproportionate. Indeed, that was exactly the position that I took in 1960, when I was told that I had to have an MOT test for my car, which, being seven years older than me, seemed to have shown through time that it would manage. We are a long way on from then, and we now accept the MOT test as part of our lives. In fact, MOT testing is one area where our requirements are significantly ahead of the EU’s. We are going to tighten the MOT test at, I think, the end of this month, which will have a significant impact on many car owners. We are willing to be quite brave in imposing this testing regime on vehicles, particularly private motor vehicles, and to some extent we have been rewarded in recent years through a reduction in the number of tragedies.
This is about people dying, and it is about Freddie. But, as I said, the Minister will argue that it is disproportionate. That is why our two amendments are so stunningly reasonable. I will go through them briefly. Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to do three things: to collate data, to then take a view of registration and say when they should be presented in a report. The key words are in proposed new subsection (2B): “or not”. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to collate data and make a decision based on them whether to register trailers. Amendment 17 is similar. It would require the report to decide whether it is necessary “or not”—this is at the discretion of the Secretary of State—to introduce a mandatory safety standards testing scheme. The last part of the amendment would enable and empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce such a scheme.
While we believe that registration and examination will be a key improvement in safety and would have saved this little boy’s life and those of other people who die in events relating to trailers, we accept the charge of proportionality. Somebody must take an analytical approach to it and make a judgment on whether this would be grossly disproportionate to the benefits gained. That is why both amendments would allow the Secretary of State to make decisions based on evidence. We are insisting not on registration or a testing scheme in the amendments, but that the Secretary of State goes through an orderly, analytical process and comes to a decision. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I spoke at length in Committee on this matter. I do not intend to do so today. This is a very good compromise arrangement. The Government would ultimately take the decision. We would simply establish a framework on which basis a Government can take the decision. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, safety has to be taken extremely seriously in this context. Along with the Minister and, I suspect, most of the people here, I rather wish that there had been no need for this legislation, but since we have it we might as well use it in this situation to draw attention to, and give the Government the opportunity to draw some conclusions on, the issue of safety.
The National Caravan Council believes that the number of accidents connected to caravans and similar trailers are mainly not due to the design or condition of the caravan or trailer itself. Most are caused by bad driving, bad loading or bad hitching of the trailer. Therefore, there is a huge need for public education on this. I very much hope that the Government will use the opportunity of providing the report suggested in the amendment by looking at the need for widespread public education on this.
I do not know whether any noble Lords have witnessed an accident of this nature. I did, driving behind a caravan on a motorway. A small wobble rapidly becomes magnified until it becomes a huge sweep of the caravan. Eventually, it cuts back on itself. That motorway was closed for six hours and very serious injuries were sustained. It was a frightening experience which brought home to me how important it is that driving with a trailer is done moderately. In that case—there may have been other factors—it was clear to me that the driver with the caravan was going much too fast, hence the need for public education.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have realised to my horror that I have not repeated the declaration of interest that I made at the earlier proceedings: I own or operate two very large trailers, one of which weighs 27,000 kilograms and the other 17,000 kilograms empty.
I am very concerned about light trailer safety, about which I spoke at greater length in Committee. I had discussions on the matter with my noble friend the Minister in private and was able to go a lot further than I went in public in frightening her a bit—I hope. It is a remaining weakness in our road safety regime and the condition of our vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, alluded to. It is not necessary to have a universal light trailer registration scheme to achieve testing of trailers, but the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke about theft of trailers. She is absolutely on the money: this is a big problem. I suspect that it would be alleviated by general registration of trailers, because, to sell a stolen trailer, one needs an identity. Due to changes made to the write-off provisions for cars, for instance, it is much more difficult to acquire an identity of a written-off vehicle—for reasons with which I shall not bore the House. There may therefore be an argument for registering small trailers for reasons of deterring theft, but it would not be necessary if one wanted a testing regime.
I mentioned that I have had a private discussion with my noble friend the Minister. I have also secured a meeting, planned for 2 May, with my honourable friend the Minister for Transport, Jesse Norman. Other noble Lords are welcome to join me for this meeting: I think a meeting with the Minister, with the benefit of having the officials in front of us, where we can put these points and look at this in detail, has much to commend it in the short term. I think we would have a greater chance of convincing the Minister that we need to make some changes by that procedure than by agreeing an amendment to the Bill now that we know perfectly well will be overturned in the House of Commons. That will still not get us the objective we desire, whereas I suggest that at a meeting with the Minister, with officials, we will be able to drill down and ask rather more searching questions. I can be rather more frightening to the Minister on the issue in private than I can be in public.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but I was really rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, say that he was in favour of registering trailers against the risk of theft. I rather got the impression that he was not concerned about safety: after all, cars have MOT tests largely to ensure that they operate safely. Given the examples that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness have given of things that have gone wrong with trailers, with some pretty disastrous results, it seems to me there is a very strong argument for having registration to cover safety as well. Whether that covers the same things as the MOT, we can debate, but it seems important. Not all trailers weigh 27 tonnes—I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on being able to pull 27 tonnes with something that goes down the road legally—but I think there is a very strong argument from a road safety point of view for having a registration scheme.
Earl Attlee
I think it was really good that we had the benefit of a pep talk from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is on the Woolsack as we speak, because I can correct the noble Lord on a material point: my point was that it is not essential to have a registration scheme if you want to have a testing scheme, even for light freight. Even now we have a testing scheme for HGV trailers but we do not have a registration scheme. It does not mean that I do not think it is important; it is just that it is not necessary to have a registration scheme.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I too was not going to intervene in this debate but one additional point occurs to me that the noble Baroness might like to take note of. To make the point I have to declare an interest: I am chair of the Road Safety Foundation and of an organisation called EASST, which deals with projects on road safety—roads and vehicles—in eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Asia. My point is that Britain has often led the way in road safety. Statistics are difficult to come by, but anecdotally the number of problems with trailers in developing countries with inadequate road systems in central Asia and even in eastern Europe is quite substantial.
We have heard of horrific cases here from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, but there are equally horrific anecdotal cases from other countries. Given the respect in which Britain’s road safety expertise is held around the world, a report of the kind that my noble friend’s amendment calls for could well influence global road safety and therefore be a contribution from the DfT to the new global Britain, and could be presented that way to otherwise reluctant colleagues in the House of Commons who might not accept simply another report. It is important that we maintain that lead on road safety and this is one area which, to my knowledge, has not been systematically addressed in the international road safety community.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, safety is of course very important and warrants due care and consideration whenever we are legislating. Under the proposals in the Bill, around 80,000 commercial trailers, and a negligible number of non-commercial trailers, would fall within the mandatory scope of the scheme. It would not affect the 1.7 million trailer users who solely use their trailer domestically. We believe that this approach balances the need to offer clarity to UK operators and enable them to continue to operate internationally, without placing undue costs and administrative requirements on businesses and non-commercial users.
It may be helpful to explain the existing regimes in place to ensure high standards of safety and roadworthiness of trailers. This includes an annual testing regime for larger trailers and an approvals regime for new trailers. The current annual testing regime applies to almost all trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes, with very limited exceptions. Certain other categories are also included, such as those weighing over 1,020 kilograms with powered braking systems. This regime covered the testing of almost a quarter of a million trailers in 2016-17. The pass rate at first test last year was 88%. The separate approvals regime is very similar to that which is in place for motor vehicles and covers new trailers ahead of their entry into service. This means that almost all new trailers are approved either by model or on an individual basis ahead of taking to the roads.
The amendment seeks the collating of a report on the number and nature of accidents involving trailers. I confirm to noble Lords that this data is already recorded in the annual Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain report published by the department every September, which I am happy to share with noble Lords; there is also a copy in the Library. It contains extensive details of all vehicles and persons involved in accidents reported to the police that occurred on a public highway, involving at least one motor vehicle and where at least one person was injured. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out the limitation that those are the only figures included. The report recorded statistics for more than 136,000 accidents resulting in injuries and has informed the department’s ongoing work on road safety, for which my honourable friend Jesse Norman is the Minister responsible. The number of recorded accidents involving a trailer in 2016 was 4,352, which accounted for 3.2% of the total number of accidents in 2016. The total number of accidents involving trailers has decreased by 21% in the last 10 years—a significant improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, spoke of the tragic death of Freddie Hussey. I pay tribute to the campaign of his family and his local MP. Following this incident, the department and its agencies have undertaken significant work as part of our continuing commitment to improve towing safety standards. Highways England has launched the national towing working group, which brings together a range of stakeholders. The DVSA published further guidance regarding safe towing practices.
Noble Lords will appreciate that towing, by the fact of involving two vehicles, is more complex than driving a motor vehicle alone. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, highlighted some of the issues that can be faced. It requires not only the safety of the vehicles involved but knowledge of and education on driving and towing safely. Alongside effective enforcement of existing provisions, the department believes that education is integral to continuing to reduce the number of accidents related to towing.
My honourable friend the Roads Minister has been particularly engaged on the issue of trailer safety and has met Karin Smyth, the local MP for the Hussey family. He will be attending the trailer safety summit later this month alongside a range of industry stakeholders to take stock of the progress that has been made and decide what more can be done. I absolutely echo the sentiment of noble Lords that each death that occurs on the roads is a tragedy and we must do all we can do avoid them, but I hope noble Lords will agree that these figures and the work I have spoken of underline the fact that the trailers on our roads exhibit good standards of safety and our current approach is seeing steady improvements.
We remain of the view that it is not appropriate to include these amendments in the Bill, but the debate they have raised has been valuable. We will continue to review safety regimes on an ongoing basis, but I appreciate the wish of noble Lords for the department to look further at this issue of trailer safety, and I have discussed this in detail with my honourable friend the Roads Minister. We have asked officials to review what further steps could be taken on trailer safety and the reporting measures that are in place.
Although we remain of the view that trailer registration and indeed a trailer safety check are not integral to improving these standards, it is of course appropriate that we continually look for opportunities to consider data collection, review our conclusions on registration and testing, and raise standards of safety on the roads. As such, I am pleased to be able to commit the department to producing a dedicated report on trailer safety. This report will ensure that our existing reporting on trailers accurately covers the complexity involved in accidents involving towing where issues may arise from a vehicle, trailer or indeed the capability of the driver of the towing vehicle. After looking at the reported road casualties document, I agree that we could and should look at the way that we report trailer safety. It can definitely be improved. The report will also consider the role that registration and testing may play in continuing to improve trailer safety standards. We will certainly discuss this with the Caravan Council and other industry representatives.
As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, following our previous session I have arranged for him to meet the Roads Minister to further discuss trailer safety. On behalf of my honourable friend the Minister, I would like to extend this invitation to all noble Lords with an interest in the subject. The contents of this report I have committed to can be discussed there in more detail. I hope noble Lords are reassured by the statistics I have outlined and by the approach that the department is taking more generally. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for suggesting a report in his amendment and I am pleased to be able to agree to such a report.
As I have throughout debate on the Bill, I have attempted to take on board the views of all noble Lords. I fully agree that the department should consider this issue further but, with my commitment to such a report, I do not think it is necessary to seek to include the amendment in the Bill by dividing the House. With the agreement to a report and the offer of a meeting with my honourable friend the Roads Minister to discuss the contents of such a report, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response and her department for the steps already made, but she used the argument which is always used in these circumstances: “Not in this Bill”. The problem is that the Bill is here and this is an opportunity. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, this is a hole in our legislation, and it is a hole that we believe should be filled.
It is a matter of life or death. I have been involved in the life-or-death industry for many years. In that, you have to worry about not simply the safety; you have to be reasonable and proportionate. That is why these two amendments are framed in this way. They would require the collection of data; the Minister has said that that is going ahead anyway. They would then require the Secretary of State to analyse that data and to make some decisions. Finally, they would enable the Secretary of State to introduce appropriate schemes. It seems that, from what has been said, most of what is in these amendments is acceptable to the Government anyway. The key additional part is the requirement for decision-making and the enabling of that decision-making to result in an appropriate scheme, if that is what the analysis reveals. Accordingly, I am not willing to withdraw this amendment and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“(2A) The report referred to in section 12(2A) must include a recommendation regarding the necessity or not for a periodic mandatory safety standards testing scheme for all trailers weighing more than 750kg.(2B) Subject to subsection (2A), regulations may make provision for a periodic mandatory safety standards testing scheme which must apply to all trailers weighing more than 750kg kept or used on roads, whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom, with inspections of such trailers to be undertaken on an annual basis.”
Baroness Sugg
“Consultation
(1) Before making regulations under Part 1 or Part 2, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.(2) The requirement to consult under subsection (1) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.”
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, at Second Reading and in Committee we discussed our intention to consult industry on possible permit arrangements and the trailer registration scheme. Ministers and officials in my department have been engaged with industry throughout the development of the Bill and have held workshops with hauliers and relevant trade associations. We also intend to hold a public consultation on the details of these schemes that will inform the regulations made under this Bill.
Given the importance we place on understanding the impact of regulations on hauliers and trailer users, I now propose to include a requirement to consult in the Bill. The amendment provides that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he thinks fit. This wording and this obligation are consistent with other road traffic legislation, such as the Road Traffic Act 1988. I hope that noble Lords will support the inclusion of this clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendment. The Minister has made a significant gesture. In my amendment, Amendment 27, which relates to Clause 21, I have specified a number of organisations because I see no harm in having certain key organisations named in the Bill. To choose one organisation at random from the list, the Freight Transport Association has existed since the 19th century. It would do no harm to specify it in the Bill. The amendment allows the Secretary of State complete discretion to add other organisations as he sees fit.
My earlier amendment did not include the trade unions. Having tabled the amendment, I looked at it the next day and thought, “Oh, there’s no reference to the trade unions”. At a meeting this morning, it was pointed out to me that, although my list is perfectly admirable as far as it goes, it does not refer to the National Farmers’ Union or the Farmers Union of Wales, whereas trailers are an important part of farm working. Therefore, it is important that we look very widely at the list of organisations. I gather that the Government have not yet consulted the trade unions—that is what the Minister said in Committee. I believe that she has not yet had the opportunity to meet the National Caravan Council. Given that this Bill is a coat-hanger, it is important that there is very wide government consultation because so many aspects of the Bill are going to be crucial to the haulage industry.
Whatever arrangement with the EU we come to in the end, it is important that all aspects of the haulage industry and of industries that are affected by haulage are consulted on the implications of the Bill. That is particularly the case because the Government now say that the Bill will come into play not just if there is no agreement with the EU but that aspects of the Bill will come into play whatever happens. I urge the Minister to consider the widest possible consultation in future on the Bill.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her amendment. We feel that the inclusion of a list of consultees in this clause would not give the Secretary of State sufficient flexibility to decide who needs to be consulted. I take the noble Baroness’s point that we can always add to the list, but as soon as we add organisations to it we are statutorily obliged to consult them. For example, if a highly technical amendment needed to be made or if a change were to be made to permits regulations, we would be obliged to consult trailer stakeholders. As I mentioned earlier, there are good precedents for the wording of the government amendment.
We are consulting widely on the regulations, beyond those organisations included in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, and I can reassure noble Lords that we will consult all the groups listed in her amendment. We are planning to consult on the regulations before the Bill receives Royal Assent, as we intend to bring forward regulations shortly after the passing of the Bill to give as much time as possible for hauliers to make any necessary preparations for leaving the EU.
On the noble Baroness’s point about the National Caravan Council, I have sadly not had the opportunity to meet it yet, but just this afternoon my honourable friend Jesse Norman, the Roads Minister, is meeting it to follow up on a number of meetings with officials.
On trade unions, the department regularly speaks to the unions, specifically Unite and the United Road Transport Union, on freight issues. We absolutely will involve them in the consultation on new regulations. Noble Lords referred to their helpful contributions on the criteria side of things, which we will also be looking at.
We have had workshops covering permits and trailer registrations and shared the policy scoping documents with stakeholders and, as I said, we intend to consult publicly in the next few months. That will now be a statutory requirement, should this amendment be accepted. We will continue to consult with all these organisations. We are very aware of how these regulations can affect industry, whether it be the haulage industry or the caravan industry, and indeed leisure users. I hope that reassurance allows the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I am pleased with the broad support that the government amendment has received, and I beg to move.
Baroness Sugg
“( ) A statutory instrument containing (with or without other provision)—(a) the first regulations under section 1,(b) the first regulations under section 2,(c) the first regulations under section 12, or(d) the first regulations under section 17,may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, again in response to points raised in Committee, I acknowledged that Parliament indeed needs sufficient time to properly scrutinise legislation and I committed to give further consideration to how best to give that scrutiny.
Amendments 21 and 26 in my name provide for the first regulations made under Clauses 1, 2, 12 or 17 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government agree that it is appropriate for the regulations to be subject to further scrutiny when laid when they set up substantive new provisions. The new provision acknowledges the fact that the Bill does not—and indeed cannot—provide Parliament with details on what the regulations might contain as a result of our exit from the EU, as we have not yet reached agreement on our future partnership with the EU.
By applying the affirmative procedure in the first instance, we can ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the overall approach regarding the powers used under Clauses 1 and 2, which will set out the way in which the permit system and the allocation will work; under Clause 12, which will set out the approach to trailer registration; and under Clause 17 on offences. If and when amendments are made to the regulations, the framework will already be in place and, as such, further changes are likely to be technical in nature. The Government take the view that the negative procedure will provide an appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for such amendments to the original regulations. We expect that the first regulations that are issued will be the ones that provide an overarching framework and will be used for the provision of permits under any future schemes. I beg to move.
Amendment 22 (to Amendment 21)
Baroness Randerson
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, my amendments would simply ensure that the affirmative procedure is used throughout, and not just in the first instance. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on the issue of making this an affirmative procedure in the first instance, but I remind noble Lords that the DPRRC recommended the sifting procedure. It also expressed extreme concern about the vagueness of the Bill, to put it in simple terms. There is a strong case for ensuring that the affirmative procedure is used more widely than just in the first instance. This relates particularly to where offences are being created. There is an issue of public confidence that Parliament has had the opportunity to consider what is being done as a result of the Bill.
Amendment 28 once again reintroduces the concept of a sunset clause, which would cause Sections 1 and 3 of the Bill to expire after three years. The Secretary of State could extend that by affirmative resolution—this was recommended by the DPRRC. I believe that I have allowed a very generous time for the sunset clause. Our argument is that the Government should use the Bill—or at least Sections 1 and 3—to do what it was drafted for and what it was proposed that it should do, which is to be a backstop in relation to a failure to agree with the EU and reach some kind of settlement that is mutually acceptable on all sides. We very much hope that a failure to agree will not happen. We all hope that there will be a positive and strong agreement with the EU in the end. But, in the event of failure, the Government have this Bill, and it should be used for the purposes that it was apparently drafted for. I believe that it remains too wide and therefore that there is a good argument for a sunset clause and for ensuring that any offences created should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in Committee, I argued that we are too keen on debating affirmative orders; I am not convinced it is necessary. With the negative procedure, if we have adverse briefing from industry and lobby groups, we can flag a negative order up for debate and debate it just as thoroughly as an affirmative order. I welcome the government amendment to provide for the affirmative procedure for the first such order as a sensible compromise. There is a danger with going for the affirmative procedure for subsequent orders. Suppose a small problem with secondary legislation is detected but you need an affirmative order to correct it. Officials’ advice will be that it is not worth going for an affirmative order just to correct this small problem, whereas if we were using the negative procedure, it could be corrected and there would be no controversy with outside bodies. I suggest, therefore, that we are cautious about the use of affirmative orders.
As for the noble Baroness’s sunset clause, noble Lords will recall that I have been very active on Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, where we have a sunset problem because the Government chose not to commence a piece of legislation, so I have sympathy for sunset clauses. I think there is a slight defect in the noble Baroness’s amendment and in Committee I suggested considering my alternative amendment. The defect is that the Secretary of State can go for an affirmative order to extend the period but that just extends it once for 15 years, whereas my amendment would have given only a small extension each time. I will share my amendment with the noble Baroness.
I am also in discussion with the Cabinet Office and had a meeting with Cabinet Office officials, attended by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, to explore this very issue, because I am at one with the noble Baroness that we should not have legislation hanging around that has not been commenced. Perhaps the noble Baroness will agree with the Minister on the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving from what was an entirely untenable position in the original Bill. I wish she had moved further—I find many of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, sensible—but I cannot at this stage see a position that moves further but not all the way, for want of a better way of putting it. Therefore, I reluctantly accept the Government’s compromise.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and, as it is the last group today, I am grateful for contributions throughout the passage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has moved an amendment to provide a sunset clause for some aspects of permanent schemes introduced under the legislation, and the DPRRC report also recommended the insertion of sunset provisions. I agree that the Bill should not provide powers that may never be used, but use of the regulation-making powers set out in the Bill does not depend on the outcome of our negotiations with the EU, as we have discussed. The powers will be used in any event for applications outside the EU context—for applications pursuant to our bilateral agreements with non-EU countries, for example—so a sunset provision would constrain our ability to manage permit applications for those bilateral agreements.
I agree with the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that unnecessary and unused legislation does not languish on the statute book but, as I said, that would not be the case. The effect of the amendment, even with the Secretary of State’s ability to extend it, would be to commit both government and Parliament to an unnecessary procedure. We would always need to extend the clause, as we would be using the regulations. For that reason, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
I tabled the government amendment to apply the affirmative procedure to the first regulations made and those first regulations only. I have taken account of the views of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee—I am grateful for their work in scrutinising the Bill—and the concerns raised in Committee and agree that there should be further scrutiny of regulations in this case as they are likely to have an impact on the haulage sector. We believe that it is appropriate for the first regulations only; the same scrutiny is not required for subsequent regulations. The noble Baroness mentioned offences in particular. Again, we are following precedent by moving offences to affirmative first. In recent regulations, such as those under the Childcare Act, those offences are only affirmative first, and that is what we followed.
We want to ensure that scrutiny of the regulations in this area is proportionate, and we spent some time in Grand Committee debating the merits of the affirmative and negative procedures. We are using powers that will replicate many aspects of existing schemes such as those under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act, and those regulations are subject to the negative procedure but, given that these regulations will introduce an entirely new scheme, it is absolutely appropriate that they are affirmative in the first instance.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the government amendments allow proper and proportionate scrutiny, and I commend them.
Baroness Randerson
I am grateful to the Minister for the progress we have made. Taken altogether, this will make a clear difference to certain parts of the Bill and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sugg
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Tuesday 24th April 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 80KB) - (13 Apr 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed during its passage. Following our debates and the report of the DPRRC, I am pleased that we have been able to introduce government amendments to improve parliamentary scrutiny, consulting and reporting. We will consider further in the other place the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on trailer safety. The Government agree that trailer safety is an important issue, and as I have set out, my department will produce a report on it. I should like to thank the Bill team, which worked for many months on the detail of this legislation and will continue to do so as it progresses through the other place and regulations are drafted. This Bill will enable the Government to make important and responsible contingency plans for the haulage industry following our exit from the European Union. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly comment on the Bill. This is the third transport Bill that the Minister and I have worked on together. They have been conducted very efficiently by virtue of the efforts of the Minister and the Bill team. Virtually all issues have been settled by debate and consensus. I also thank my Bill team, which is half of one person, Katherine Johnson, especially for the brilliance of the amendment she crafted, which was supported in this House because of the care of the wording. I am sorry that we have that amendment between us, but I am very pleased with the way things have gone. I wish us both luck with the next transport Bill, which we are about to start.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will not detain the House with a great long speech, but I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I thank the Minister for her courtesy and the care with which she has dealt with the Bill.
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments and constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]
Monday 14th May 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 80KB) - (13 Apr 2018)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The United Kingdom’s road haulage sector plays a major role in keeping our economy on the move. Each year, UK-registered heavy goods vehicles carry around £30 billion in goods between the UK and the EU, and around 300,000 people are directly employed within the industry. I saw a snapshot of the UK logistics sector’s importance this morning when I visited and opened the new United Parcel Service sorting and delivery centre at the DP World London Gateway logistics site. It is a strong and positive new investment in the sector that is helping British businesses to become more efficient and is, crucially, a vote of confidence in our future as a trading nation. The Bill is important because it is about our future as a trading nation.
The Bill provides a framework that should reassure hauliers that the final Brexit deal agreed with the European Union will be able to be implemented smoothly and will support the continued movement of goods by truck between the UK and Europe. We are committed to maintaining the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. It is in everyone’s interest that there should be a mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU that secures our objective of frictionless trade and is in the interest of both parties.
The Government are moving ahead with the negotiations with the EU, and I expect us to move towards a proper agreement later this year—I am very confident about that. However, it would be irresponsible of this Government not to plan for all eventualities. I stress again that it is in everyone’s interest to secure liberalised access, which is by far the most probable result of the negotiations, but this Bill is prudent planning for the future. It forms part of the Government’s broader EU exit legislation programme and, as set out in the other place, the haulage permits aspect of the Bill provides a framework for the UK to manage permits in all eventualities, including if they are needed as part of our agreement with the EU.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State might be putting a gloss on what is potentially a catastrophic situation. I give him the opportunity, from the Dispatch Box, to give a categorical guarantee that, after exit day, the licences of 318,000 HGV drivers will still be valid to deliver goods across the European Union. Is that right?
Chris Grayling
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman final details of the negotiations at this stage, but let me tell him some straightforward facts: 80% of the trucks that come through the channel ports and the channel tunnel are carrying EU exports to the United Kingdom, so it is pretty evident that it is in everyone’s interest that we reach a sensible agreement for the future. This Bill ensures that we have the legal mechanisms in place to deliver the registration framework that is needed for all eventualities, which is prudent and sensible.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a straightforward question, and I say to him straightforwardly that 80% of those trucks are EU hauliers bringing goods to the UK. I struggle to imagine other EU countries not wanting that to continue.
Mr Leslie
I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but this is quite important. He acknowledges that I asked a straight question about the guarantee. Is it not the case that, even in that worst-case situation, some sort of bilateral agreement with other EU countries would be required and there is no guarantee that such an agreement will come forward? Is that not the truth?
Chris Grayling
I cannot guarantee that EU countries and their businesses will want to continue selling goods to UK consumers, but my best guess is that French farmers will still want to sell their produce through our supermarkets and that German car makers will still want to sell their cars in our car showrooms. No, I cannot guarantee that it will rain or be sunny tomorrow, nor can I guarantee that EU countries will want to continue selling their products to us, but do you know what, I think they probably will.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a timely and good Bill to deal with all eventualities, and on so politely answering idiotic interventions that are trying to create fear where there is no need for it because, of course, goods will move smoothly with or without a deal.
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend is right. The fact that this morning, just to the east of London, I visited a £120 million investment in the future of the United Kingdom as a trading nation by a major United States-based company says that I am not alone in believing that trade will continue and flourish in the future, because it will.
There are two parts to the Bill, the first of which is all about the permits. It enables us to introduce a scheme that simply allows trucks to cross borders in a variety of scenarios—this is, basically, like a truck having its own international driving licence. In many circumstances, through a variety of international agreements, that is a necessity in order to carry goods from one nation to another. We are simply making sure that we put in place the legal framework for the Government to establish a system for issuing permits if, after we have concluded the negotiations, it proves necessary to do so. We have designed the legislation to be flexible in response to different circumstances. We do not want to place any undue regulatory or financial requirements on the industry.
Permits are a feature of almost all international road freight agreements outside free-trade areas. The UK already has several permit-based agreements with non-EU countries, including Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia and Ukraine. The UK also has liberal, non-permit agreements with Albania and Turkey. The Bill will also cover non-EU agreements relating to permits, which means that there will be one simple, straightforward administration system that is designed to be as easy as possible for haulage firms to use.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, welcome the Bill. The Government are right to make it clear that in the event of no deal we will still have made preparations. The Bill makes a distinction between international permits with other EU countries, and permits and agreements with the Irish Republic. Why is such a distinction made?
Chris Grayling
We worked on this carefully. The important thing to say is that this is not in any way related to broader discussions about border matters. We are aware that some hauliers travel from Belfast to Dublin to Holyhead to deliver their goods within the UK—we are talking about a UK business delivering its produce within the UK—so this provision is simply designed to ensure that that will not be impeded in any way by the regulatory system. I will say a bit more about that later in my remarks, but we want to ensure that nothing can undermine the integrity of the UK and people who travel from point A to point B within it. That is very important to me.
The final details of the scheme will, of course, depend on the agreements that we reach, and the Bill allows for that. It creates flexibility and allows us to make regulations on the allocation of permits to best meet the needs of the economy. Guidance on the allocation process will be issued to hauliers.
This aspect of the Bill also allows the Government to charge fees in relation to applications for permits and the grant of permits. I stress that our aim is purely to set those fees on a cost-recovery basis so that we minimise the impact on hauliers; this is not designed to be a revenue-raising mechanism. The system is simply designed to cover its own costs, and the amounts involved will be relatively small for anyone seeking a permit. The fees will recover only the day-to-day cost of administering the scheme. The set-up costs of the scheme are being funded as part of a £75.8 million grant from the Treasury to the Department for Transport as part of our preparations for all the different Brexit scenarios.
The Bill provides for the first set of regulations made under clauses 1 and 2 to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the House will be able to scrutinise the new permitting system fully and properly. The first regulations will set out the overarching framework that will be used for the provision of permits under any future agreements. As I have outlined, we are confident that we can maintain our existing liberalised access with the EU, but the Bill will help to cater for any possible future permit arrangement with the EU.
On timing, we plan to have the system for a permit scheme ready by the end of the year. It is important that we make sure that we are prepared for all eventualities. Any applications for permits after the relevant regulations are in force will be dealt with under this system. The first regulations made under clauses 1 and 2 will cover the permits required under existing international agreements, including provisions relating to Armenia and Ukraine. If we then agree a permit-based arrangement with the EU, we will make further changes to the regulations to cover the agreement reached. In the unlikely scenario that we end up with a restricted number of permits to the EU as part of a future relationship, we have committed to providing a report to Parliament. That report must assess the effects of such restrictions on the UK haulage industry during that year. That assessment is, of course, vital, but I reiterate that this is about a flow that is more inward than outward, both in goods terms and in haulage terms, so I remain confident that we will reach a sensible agreement for the future. The permit scheme is necessary to make sure that trucks have their equivalent of the international driving licence to cross borders. I will not allow us to get into a position in which the industry does not have the administrative basis to take its business forward in all eventualities.
Before I move on to part 2 of the Bill, let me touch briefly on the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which the UK signed 50 years ago and which the Government have recently ratified. The convention will come into force here before 29 March 2019. It was introduced by the United Nations to enable international road travel and to increase safety by establishing common rules for roads around the world. It builds on the earlier 1949 Geneva convention on road traffic and, indeed, the 1926 Paris convention, which was the first in this policy area and which the UK has already ratified. Why does it matter? Because we need to make sure not only that trucks can come across borders, but that we are able to line up with the rules in other countries, such as Germany, on trailer registration.
The second part of the Bill gives the Government powers to establish a trailer registration scheme to meet the standards in the 1968 Vienna convention. Many EU countries have similar schemes. It will mean that UK operators will be able to register trailers before entering countries that require trailer registration for travel on their roads. By trailers, I mean not the trailer on the back of a car that carries a tent, but full HGV trailers that cross borders to carry goods from point A to point B. The Bill will allow us to set the scope of such a scheme’s coverage.
The detail will be set out in regulations, but our intention is to require only users travelling abroad to register their trailers. It is not UK-only, but purely about those travelling internationally. Only commercial trailers weighing more than 750 kg and all trailers weighing more than 3.5 tonnes will need to be registered. As was clearly set out in the other House, the duty to register will apply almost exclusively to international hauliers. Virtually all private-use trailers, such as caravans and horse trailers, will not fall within the scope of mandatory registration, because it is rare that trailers of that kind weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
We will consult on the scope of the trailer registration scheme over the next few months, and we will try to make sure that we are in good shape later this year to put in place the right scheme, depending on the nature of our agreements and what is required to ensure the smooth flow of trade across borders. We plan to recover the costs of running the scheme by charging fees, which we expect to be lower than those currently set out for the registration of motor vehicles. It is of course important that the new arrangements are complied with; if they are not, we will apply existing penalties to those who transgress.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Many hauliers hire trailers for specific uses. If trailers are used predominantly in the UK, they obviously will not be registered. What sort of timescale does the Secretary of State think would be reasonable for registering a trailer before it embarks on an international journey?
Chris Grayling
In all this, we will want the process to be as rapid as possible. There will inevitably be a surge at the start when hauliers look to register trailers that will be used internationally, but my hope is that once that initial surge is over, it will be possible to carry out the registration very quickly when there is a change of circumstance. We do not expect to have a system that is so expensive that it deters somebody who wants to register a trailer in case it is used internationally. We want to ensure that there is only a small cost to businesses. Many people will want to register their trailers in case what my right hon. Friend highlights happens.
We listened carefully to the debate in the other place and we are working on a report on trailer safety, which is a policy area in which proper analysis will be beneficial and will help safety on our roads. Off the back of the report, we will be able to offer a clear and comprehensive analysis of the complex issue of trailer safety and towing-related accidents. That was a constructive element that came out of the debate in the other place, and we will certainly engage with it.
On the question of the island of Ireland, the Bill covers the whole United Kingdom, other than two provisions that amend legislation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively. Road haulage policy and trailer registration are devolved in Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland and Wales. We have been working with all the devolved Administrations as the Bill has developed. With regard to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Bill supports the commitments made in the December 2017 joint report to avoid a hard land border. This is an enabling Bill, and the Government will preserve the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom.
The Government are committed to ensuring that trade and everyday movements over the land border continue as they do now. The Bill does not create a permit regime in relation to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, nor does it create a hard border between them. It means that trailers travelling only between the UK and Ireland will not need to be registered. It also avoids the situation that I described earlier in which someone who chooses to go via Dublin to come over to the UK finds themselves needing a permit even if they are moving purely within the United Kingdom. I can confirm that the Bill will not impact on border arrangements and that there will not be, as a result, any new transport-related checks at our borders.
Sammy Wilson
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether there will have to be a separate agreement between the UK Government and the Irish Government covering people who are taking lorries across the border, whether through Ireland to the rest of GB, or simply carrying loads from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic?
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot speak for the Irish Government. We are putting in place a mechanism that ensures that there is no issue on our part. The Irish Government, like any other Government, are of course perfectly able to put barriers in the way of trade, but we will not do that. We will not create a regime that affects those travelling into the Republic of Ireland or those travelling through the Republic of Ireland into the United Kingdom. I cannot give guarantees on behalf of the Republic of Ireland, but I cannot for a moment believe that people there will want to put in place administrative systems that we do not put in place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I understand that the Secretary of State cannot speak for the Irish Government, but can he tell us what discussions he has had with the Irish Government about this, and therefore give us an indication of what the position might be?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Irish Government are part of the European Union negotiations. We continue to discuss this and other transport issues as part of those negotiations, and I am entirely confident that we will reach a sensible place at their conclusion.
Let me sum up. As I have outlined, we are committed to ensuring that the road haulage industry can continue to prosper as we leave the European Union. As part of our programme of EU exit legislation, this Bill prepares us for a range of scenarios. It will ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations and will be ready when we leave the EU.
The Government have been supported by the industry in bringing forward these sensible measures, and we have talked extensively with it over the past few months. I believe that this represents prudent planning for different eventualities. I personally want to lead a Department that is prepared for all those eventualities and that can deal with whatever circumstance lies ahead, notwithstanding my view that we will reach a sensible partnership agreement for the future this autumn that will enable us to remain good friends and neighbours of the European Union, and that will allow the trade between us to carry on flowing as it does today. I commend the Bill to the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Bill presents a long overdue opportunity to consider the importance of the transport and logistics industries to the United Kingdom and the commercial road haulage sector in particular. The industry employs more than 2.5 million people and is the fifth biggest sector of the economy contributing £124 billion.
One of the privileges of my job is to meet people from across the transport, freight and logistics sectors. In the course of those discussions around transitional and post-Brexit arrangements, I hear an increasing frustration and anger at the cavalier “it will be all right on the night” approach from this Government, and rightly so, because there is no evidence that economic self-interest will prevail.
As we debate the prospect of a permit system for the haulage industry in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it should be recalled that the UK has 600,000 goods vehicle driving licence holders. There are nearly half a million commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes registered in the UK, which are responsible for moving 98% of goods. This is a serious and vital industry and we meddle with it at our peril.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the haulage industry is important to the United Kingdom, especially to Northern Ireland where almost all of our food and goods travel by road? Does he not accept that the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, if there is a deal, we are prepared for it, and if there is no deal, we are also prepared for it, and that that should reassure the haulage industry?
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I just do not share his sense of confidence that the provisions of the Bill are anything like adequate in the event of a no deal. These measures will not respond to the needs of the country should that contingency arise.
The Bill must be regarded as the first piece of legislation that provides for a no-deal Brexit. It sets out new powers for the Government to allocate permits to hauliers if required by future agreement or lack thereof, so that UK lorries can continue to operate to and within the European Union. A newspaper headline this weekend—in The Sunday Times, no less—was correct to say that
“this government is failing business at every turn”.
Today’s debate is a further foretaste of the damage that this Government’s prevaricating is doing to the British economy.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State—in all his finger-crossing hopes for something to crop up before Brexit day—did not actually update the House on the progress that he might be making towards a comprehensive land transport agreement, which is what the Freight Transport Association is asking for. The Secretary of State did not confirm whether he is personally in discussions with the Irish Government, other Governments or the European Commission. Is it not lamentable that he could not even give this vital industry some level of update on the progress of negotiations towards those agreements?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. It is indeed lamentable that there has been a complete absence of those discussions. It is a question of hit and hope, finger in the air and everything will be alright on the night. This is not the right way to go about it. The Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box and said that he does not speak for the other 27 Governments. I sometimes wonder whether he speaks for the one of which he is a member. A damaged and disrupted logistics sector will result in a damaged and disrupted British economy.
John Redwood
Will the hon. Gentleman just tell the House what additional contingencies he would make if he were the Secretary of State?
Andy McDonald
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, that is exactly what I am going to outline during the course of my speech.
I hope that this Bill represents the dawn of the realisation of the catastrophe that would flow from a chaotic Brexit. A few months ago the “beast from the east” left supermarket shelves across the country empty, while logistics problems forced fast food chain KFC to close hundreds of outlets because of supply shortages. These examples provide the merest glimpse of what shocks to the supply and distribution chain will look like for British consumers and businesses if the free flow of trade is not maintained following our departure from the European Union.
The Bill has serious implications for the UK’s music industry, particularly the concert haulage industry, which supports the music industry in the UK and the EU. Concert haulage operators require a community licence for road transport to the EU, which will be lost after Brexit. The Road Haulage Association says that a permit system will not work for concert hauliers, and estimates that the UK will run out of permits in 2.5 days. I have to ask: when will the Government listen to business and accept that there has to be a continuation of the current trading and transport environment, if a massive disruption of the flow of goods and produce is to be avoided?
As an island nation, ports are and will remain vital to our trading relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, so it is quite extraordinary that no Minister from the Department for Exiting the European Union has visited Britain’s most important gateway to Europe—the port of Dover. Half of the UK’s international road haulage traffic comes through Dover alone. I ask the Minister, is transport really a top priority in the Government’s Brexit negotiations?
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Forgive me; I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but I think that I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), visited Dover last week. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a straightforward Member of this House and would not want to mislead the House, so he will probably want to correct what he said. I say this to be helpful.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am just delighted that the hon. Lady got there eventually.
Road haulage is essential to the complex and sensitive just-in-time supply chains that underpin the UK and EU economies. Roll-on roll-off ferries face the most serious impact from a no-deal Brexit. A staggering 10,000 trucks pass through Dover each day. Almost none of these currently requires a customs clearance process. The port estimates that a two-minute delay per vehicle will generate a permanent 20-mile-long traffic jam.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Given the current snail’s pace in the negotiations, with the Cabinet split in two to look for solutions rather than no solutions, should there not have been some contingency in this Bill for customs checks, which are looking increasingly likely due to the Government’s handling of Brexit?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One does wonder why no such contingency has been put in the Bill, and we will have to address that in Committee.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders tells me that, on average, 1,100 trucks from the EU deliver components worth £35 million to UK car and engine plants every single day. The UK automotive industry relies on just six major ports for the export of 95% of completed vehicles. The SMMT says that some manufacturers face costs of up to £1 million an hour if production is stopped due to component supply issues. A 15-minute delay to parts delivered just in time can cost manufacturers £850,000 per year. Is it not blindingly obvious that the current trajectory of this Government, with Brextremists at their core, means that we are heading for economic and trading chaos?
Chris Grayling
May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? If business shares the pessimism that he is laying before the House, can he explain the string of positive announcements of investment in the United Kingdom that we have seen in the past few months by Vauxhall, Toyota and others? If things are so bleak, why are they choosing to make substantial investments in their future in the United Kingdom?
Andy McDonald
If the Secretary of State had looked at the papers over the weekend, he would have seen exactly why. A lot of people are making their plans to get out of the UK if necessary. That is exactly what has happened. He is playing with fire on this, and he really should wake up and smell the coffee.
The Government have done little to help the road haulage industry. They have made a complete and utter dog’s breakfast of contingency planning for the M20 motorway. A lorry park off the motorway has been desperately needed to help alleviate problems during Operation Stack, and it is all the more needed ahead of Brexit next March. Yet the Department for Transport failed properly to undertake the critically important environmental risk assessment before the planning process for the £250 million project and had to scrap it last September. This incompetence will have disastrous consequences. If this Government cannot successfully plan how to build a lorry park in Kent, how do they expect anyone to believe that they are capable of introducing an alternative haulage permit scheme?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman says, rather surprisingly, that this Government have done nothing for the road haulage industry. Is he not aware that the HGV levy brought in to level the playing field between foreign and UK hauliers brought in £96 million in the first two years after it was introduced in 2014, and that the previous coalition Government increased the speed limit on single-carriageway roads from 40 mph to 50 mph, which made a great contribution to improving logistical efficiency?
Andy McDonald
If the right hon. Gentleman had had the pleasure of listening to the Road Haulage Association last week, and the FTA as well, he would probably agree with me that they are not exactly overjoyed by the prospect of the uncertainty that is facing them. A lot of these companies are small companies working on very small margins. He raised the issue of costs that are now going to be put on to those companies. He should be worrying about how that is going to impact on them.
Andy McDonald
No. I am not trying to be rude, but I need to make progress. I have taken a lot of interventions.
The ongoing supply of labour is a huge concern for the road haulage industry. The average age of an HGV driver is now 55 and only 2% of the workforce is under 25. The industry is enormously reliant on the 60,000 non-UK EU nationals and any restriction on the supply of skilled workers will undoubtedly have a negative impact.
Ministers urgently need to reassure the road haulage industry that Brexit will not result in more delays at borders as well as that it will not have to bear additional red tape and costs. The Government need urgently to provide clarity about customs, borders and future regulations, about which there are real and deep concerns. Ministers continually argue that economic self-interest will mean that things naturally gravitate towards protecting British business. That is a naive and irresponsible view that is already damaging UK industry.
I pay tribute to the noble Lords, whose work has improved the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the Lords described the Bill as
“wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”,
said that the Committee was
“in the dark because the devil will be in the regulatory detail”,
and urged the Government to provide
“illustrative examples…of at least some of the regulations to be made under the main delegated powers in the Bill”.
As the future relationship is a matter for the Brexit negotiations, this is an enabling Bill that contains little detail and grants the Secretary of State significant powers. The fact that so few details are on the face of the Bill also speaks to the lack of strategy and progress in the Government’s approach to exiting the European Union. The Secretary of State should of course have the powers needed to mitigate the damage to the UK haulage sector caused by a failure to retain current arrangements, but those powers should not be excessive. For example, an argument has been made in favour of a sunset clause so that the powers do not remain on the statute book ad infinitum.
Following pressure in the other place, concessions were made. I am glad that clauses 1, 2, 12 and 17 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, taking account of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the effect that regulations made under certain clauses should be subject to a vote of both Houses. I am pleased that the Government tabled an amendment introducing a new reporting requirement, requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament annually that assesses the effect on the UK haulage industry of any restrictions that apply to a permit scheme agreed with one or more EU member states. The impact of a future permit scheme has the potential to be far reaching with many unintended consequences, so it is right that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament.
In the light of the Government’s abysmal failure on road safety, which has seen the number of specialised road traffic police plummet while the number killed and seriously injured on our roads rises year on year, I urge the Secretary of State not to attempt to remove Labour’s amendment on trailer safety. The amendment is eminently reasonable, and requires the Government to assess evidence on the incidence of trailer-related road accidents and, only if the evidence justifies action, for a new MOT-style mandatory safety standards testing scheme to be created.
I note that when it was introduced in the other place the Bill would have allowed for permits to be allocated on a first come, first served basis or through a lottery, creating a situation where companies would be left queuing overnight or waiting with their fingers crossed that their company’s name would be pulled out of a hat. I am glad that, after criticism from the noble Lord Tunnicliffe, this was changed.
In Committee, Labour will continue to identify any further unintended consequences of the Bill, and will look to strengthen the accountability to Parliament and restrict the powers granted to the Secretary of State where necessary. Labour believes that getting the right deal for transport and its networks must be the highest priority for the Brexit negotiations. Nothing less than the future of the country is at stake. Only Labour’s clear policy of a customs union with the EU can ensure that trade can flow and grow. The Government should put country before party and provide the same.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I am slightly astonished at some of the points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made on behalf of the Opposition. I know him well—we often travel down on the train from the north-east together—but he has spent most of the past quarter of an hour attacking the Government for implementing the decision made by 65.5% of the voters in Middlesbrough, and by over 60% of people in Cleveland as a whole, to leave the European Union.
Andy McDonald
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the voters did not vote to be worse off?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the other trap that many Labour colleagues fall into, which is arguing that the people were too stupid to understand what they were voting for. They knew precisely what they were voting for. They knew it would be tough, but they put the interests of the country before short-term economic advantage. I believe that the Government are negotiating to get the best deal for Britain and one that will be to the long-term benefit of our country.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at hearing the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) say that any attempt to restrict the supply of workers coming in from the EU would be resisted? Labour Members’ support for a customs union and their not wanting any restriction on the freedom of movement of workers shows that they are in denial about leaving the European Union.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend has correctly identified that Labour Members are all over the place on this subject. There was no shortage of “Project Fear” in debates during the referendum campaign—people knew they were voting for something that would be very tough for this country—but, by and large, they voted because they understood the facts. I turn again to the point that Labour colleagues often make, which is that people did not know what they were voting for. Yes, they did: they were intelligent enough to understand the arguments, and to say otherwise is to insult the many people in Yorkshire and the north-east who voted to leave the European Union.
John Redwood
Did my right hon. Friend also notice that Labour Members’ case seems to be that the EU is so nasty and unpleasant that it would deliberately wreck its own exports to us to make a point, yet they want to be more closely aligned with people and an organisation that would do that? I just do not understand what they are talking about.
Mr Goodwill
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not in the interests of the German motor industry, the French agriculture industry or industry right across Europe to cut off its nose to spite its face. If that were the case, I am sure that German motor manufacturers would be beating a track to Chancellor Merkel’s door to make that very point.
I have not seen one recently, but I remember following lorries down the road and reading a sticker saying, “If you’ve got it, it’s been on a truck”. Although progress has been made in switching freight to rail or short sea shipping, the last leg of any journey invariably involves a truck. We heard from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough about Dover. It had 2.6 million truck journeys last year, with 1.6 million trucks going on Le Shuttle, which is 11,500 per day. Dover represents 17% of all UK trade coming in, worth £122 billion last year.
It is not just on this side of the channel that people are making such a case; Calais chiefs have also stressed the necessity of a frictionless border. Jean-Marc Puissesseau, president and general manager of Port Boulogne Calais, has said that the port boarded 2 million lorries last year. Without an agreed system in place, we could face 30-mile queues on both sides of the channel—every day, not just when the French seamen go on strike. During such a strike, some UK motor manufacturers, and indeed BMW in Bavaria, were three days away from stopping production. As we have heard, Honda relies on 350 trucks a day on a one-hour just-in-time delivery schedule. It is in no one’s interest not to get a deal.
Sammy Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman is making his point very sharply and well. Does he accept that even the permanent secretary of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made it quite clear that the picture painted by the Opposition spokesman is very far from the truth? We can have a frictionless border at Dover, and not need have a lorry park on the M20 or the checks he described.
Mr Goodwill
I will come to that point as I expand my comments.
Turning to trucks and the importance of the road haulage industry, it is currently in vogue to demonise diesels, and Volkswagen must take some of the blame for that. However, if one looks at the trucks operating under the Euro 5 and Euro 6 regulations, one sees that heavy vehicles pretty much perform as expected. The reason for that is quite simple: although the analytical equipment that exposed Volkswagen was not previously small enough to go in a car boot, it has for a long time been small enough to go on the back of a truck, so trucks actually comply very well with the regulations. Indeed, industries have always stepped up to the mark when a higher level of regulation has been proposed, and there is no reason whatever why the regulations will be slackened once the UK leaves the European Union.
As one of the few Members, I suspect, who holds what used to be called a class 1 heavy goods vehicle licence, I spent many hours driving HGVs—transporting potatoes to make oven chips or, as part of the family business, transporting sulphuric acid. I have also driven 44-tonners in France, Belgium, Germany and Holland, so I know a bit about their haulage system—indeed, I wish we had motorway service stations as good as theirs. We rely on our haulage companies, our 320,000 drivers and our logistical organisations to literally keep the wheels of business turning, and they are equally important in cross-border trade.
The Bill could be described in part as a just-in-case Bill—a safety net in case the Brexit negotiations fall off the trapeze—although the permits will also be useful in how they apply to non-EU states. It is unlikely that we will not get a deal, because I think we all understand that it is in everyone’s interest to get a good deal in place for the other side of Brexit.
International trade relies on the capability of vehicles, as well as the goods they carry, to cross international borders. To ensure that vehicles minimise empty running, logistical operations need to be flexible. That is why we have cabotage rules in place, so that non-EU trucks can carry out work here before returning, hopefully loaded with exports, to their home country. When there are short-term capacity problems, the rules can be lifted temporarily, as was the case when a shortage of car transporters coincided with the new registration plate.
The single market for transport services is one baby that we must not throw out with the Brexit bathwater. Yes, we are leaving the single market, but we must keep the flexibilities, liberalisation and competitive elements that benefit trade and jobs. We have always promoted this mechanism, often in the teeth of opposition from member states such as France that see competition from eastern European hauliers as “social dumping” rather than as a competitive element that raises everyone’s game.
In the absence of an agreement, the Bill is our fall-back plan B. In a post-Brexit scenario, one expects the standards that our haulage industry has to comply with not to change radically. Vehicle safety and emissions standards will not be eroded when the UK leaves the EU. Innovations such as autonomous automatic braking, selective catalytic reduction and particulate traps apply to vehicles manufactured and used in Europe. I expect that the Euro 6 standards will be identical to the new UK 1 standards, as I guess they will be called, after Brexit. Similarly, it is in no one’s interest to start a race to the bottom on drivers’ hours.
So much for the vehicles. What about the goods they carry? Whether we have a customs partnership, a so-called max fac or some other custom-built customs solution, the system must operate electronically and without friction, and it must not delay vehicles passing through Dover, Holyhead or Newry, or indeed—this is probably our biggest challenge—goods passing from Spain to our loyal friends in Gibraltar.
I do not share the pessimism of some people who have been known as remoaners—incidentally, I was one of those who voted remain. As Shipping Minister, I visited Southampton and Felixstowe and saw the thousands of containers coming in from all over the world and moving seamlessly through the port. The last thing anyone wants to do is to start opening those containers. The same applies to our biggest port by value—surprisingly, not many people know that that is Heathrow, with the holds of long-haul flights laden with goods inbound and outbound to places all over the globe.
Perhaps the most impressive operation I have seen as part of the Industry and Parliament Trust involved Manchester Airports Group and UPS. The hub at East Midlands airport deals with thousands of parcels every night. Customs duty is collected by the shipper, who navigates a complex administrative system, without the parcel—whether from Beijing, Detroit or Tokyo—stopping for a moment, either on its journey to a UK destination or on its way to trans-shipment on a departing flight. Using the widely recognised “known shipper” arrangement enables truly global trade to function between dozens of jurisdictions and with myriad permutations. For example, some hydraulic components attract a different tariff depending on whether they are destined to be fitted to a tractor or an aircraft. East Midlands is impressive, but nothing compared with the operations in Cologne or Louisville, Kentucky. As I say, this system is already delivering frictionless trade every night. We do not need to reinvent the wheel—or indeed the hub.
I hope such arrangements can be put in place before the end of the transition period. I agree with James Hookham of the Freight Transport Association that the timetable is tight. Until this issue is resolved, however, it will not be possible to initiate free trade, or a freer trade arrangement, with our new global trading partners, so time is of the essence.
Turning to trailers, I note that the UK has now ratified the Vienna convention, which will come into force in March 2019. There have been problems with UK trailers and semi-trailers pulled by non-UK motive units on the continent. The proposals to register trailers will address that. I am pleased that that will not apply to the whole fleet—I must declare an interest in this respect—but only to existing trailers used internationally, and to new trailers as they are registered. I also note the need to facilitate trailer rental, and I am pleased by the reassurance I received from the Secretary of State earlier. We already have a registration system with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, as trailers must pass an annual MOT test, so the Department for Transport will be well aware of the scale of the operation needed.
Belgium—I think uniquely—has a separate registration number for trailers, so the number on the front of a combination will not match the one on the back. Most countries, like us, however, have a plate in the cab that is fixed to whichever trailer is being pulled. The current plating certificate—affixed to the chassis bar of a trailer in most cases—is often hard to find and usually hard to read as well. Has the Minister considered whether the plate fitted to the trailer could have a number or barcode, as is used on shipping containers, that could be read by an automatic number plate recognition-type machine to further facilitate the free flow of vehicles between jurisdictions? I understand that the plate must be fixed to the vehicle, but is there a view on the best position for remote sensing?
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill, but I hope that progress in negotiations will render it superfluous. When we take out insurance, that does not mean that we expect our house to burn down. I think the Government are being prudent. Incidentally, I think the Bill also sends a clear message to EU negotiators that we will not accept a bad deal at all costs and that contingencies are being put in place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who must be one of the very few of us in this place to have a class 1 licence.
I think I will continue the theme of Opposition Members expressing their genuine concerns about what is happening and about how we go forward, while Conservative Members just continue to tell us, “Everything will be all right on the night. Why should we worry? Just believe us. It will all be okay.” The Government’s confidence is indicated by the fact that a Parliamentary Private Secretary has been going round the Government Benches giving out a crib sheet and lobbying for support. I think that tells us how confident the Government really feel.
I understand the need for the Bill, which is a back-up in case there is no deal. For that reason, I certainly would not vote against it, but I hope that the UK Government are doing their best to ensure that part 1 is not required and that the existing streamlined operations we enjoy under the Community licence scheme remain in place. However, we have to look at the current reality. We have a Brexit Cabinet that cannot agree a customs arrangement. The Tories are determined to pull out of the customs union and the single market. They are absolutely all over the place, and the clock is ticking away, so the prospect of a seamless transition becomes more and more unlikely.
In many ways, the Bill is symptomatic of the Government and their approach to Brexit. It is mainly superficial. There is a statement of intent, but we do not know the detail behind the Bill. We do not know what the permit system will look like or how it will operate. We do not know what fees will be applied. We do not even know whether limits will be applied to the number of permits. Like the Brexit process in general, the Bill is just the equivalent of talk but no action.
There is a further irony. The Bill is another example of primary legislation formulated in the other place. When it suits the UK Government they tell us that the House of Lords is only a revising chamber and that it should not get in the way of the business of the Government, yet if it is willing to do the Government’s bidding, we are supposed to laud its expertise. However, when it applies its expertise and says there is a need for a customs union, a vote to stay in the single market and a meaningful parliamentary vote in this place, somehow we have to ignore that expertise and wisdom. That shows the hypocrisy of Government Members when it comes to the House of Lords.
Another aspect of the Bill is that it is a part of the no deal preparations. The Brexiteer argument is that preparing for no deal will show the EU we are ready to walk away, thus strengthening our negotiating position. However, I am pretty sure that the Bill is not going to have Michel Barnier quaking in his boots. This is the first Bill going through Parliament in preparation for no deal. I suggest there is a long way to go to strengthen the Government’s hand. We are only a couple of months away from summer recess and a whole load of other legislation will be required for the Government to be in a competent place in terms of no deal arrangements. There is no way that the Government are strengthening their hand. If anybody thinks that we are in a stronger negotiating position, they are kidding themselves.
The Government have not even published their transport priorities in a single policy or place, so we do not really know their overall hoped for direction of travel. We know in theory that they want frictionless trade. They want extensive free trade agreements without any meaningful show of what that means in reality and how it would be implemented—that is a key issue.
On haulage, we know that the supposed preference is for things to remain much as they are under the Community licence arrangements, but where are we on those negotiations? If agreement is reached for arrangements to continue as is, or if a reciprocal licence arrangement is agreed, that means few extra checks will be required. There is still, however, the fundamental issue of the customs and border arrangements, which is far more relevant to hauliers and businesses reliant on the import and export of fresh goods.
What will be the timescale for a new IT system? Has any work actually started on it? How much of the £75.8 million allocation for transport Brexit preparation has been spent so far and what has it been spent on? What is the planned programme of work for the fund for the rest of the financial year? Is the renting of Manston airfield as an emergency lorry park part of the Brexit preparations and expenditure? As the shadow Minister said, they cannot even get their plans for a car park correctly in place. That is £13 million down the drain.
Chris Grayling
It may be helpful to the House if I say that the preparations for any disruption, not necessarily Brexit-related, of the Channel ports are well under way. Work on the M20 will begin in a matter of weeks, either late this month or early next month, to ensure that we have greater capability than we did in 2015 to store more lorries. We are not relying on Manston airport. It remains available to us in the short term, but it is not included in our long-term plans.
Alan Brown
The Transport Secretary says that the work is going to start shortly. Can he give me a timescale for the completion of the lorry park?
Chris Grayling
I will go into detail another time, but we are putting in place plans that will enable us to store at least as many lorries as we did at the worst of the situation in 2015 without creating a situation where the motorway cannot flow in both directions. Those plans are well advanced and we will have them in place before next March.
Alan Brown
I remain to be convinced. That seems to be another example of, “Believe me, it will be okay. We’re dealing with it, just trust me.”
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I just wonder if perhaps this is the hidden agenda behind the Foreign Secretary’s proposed bridge, because that would create 20 miles of road between Britain and France. Perhaps the lorries could be stacked along that as well.
Alan Brown
It would certainly provide additional space. I wonder how long the bridge would take to complete, right enough. It is something else I would not trust this Government to implement.
On the Government’s overall preparations, the reality is, as James Hookham, the deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association stated:
“There is a lack of any progress in agreeing new systems for avoiding customs checks.”
He also explained that there is much detail to be agreed in two and a half years, a tiny period in business terms. His comments assume a transition period up to December 2020. If there is no deal, however, the transition period falls and that takes a year and a half out of that timetable. Time really is ticking on and we do not get a sense of urgency from the Government.
Our reliance on road haulage is confirmed by the fact that in 2016 3.7 million tonnes of goods were exported from the UK and 4 million tonnes were imported. For Brexiteers—we have heard the arguments already in interventions—this apparently shows how much the EU relies on the UK for its exports and so it will do everything it can to make sure its exports get here. What it actually shows, however, is how much UK businesses rely on EU imports to put food on the shelves and for it to be a reasonable price. The UK is far more reliant on EU imports. In terms of export value, it is 27 countries versus only the UK.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point. I suspect that when we talk about the import of food into this country, the Government will be reliant on the American market. If they do that, they will be held to ransom. That is what I suspect they are up to.
Alan Brown
That is a valid point. There have been mixed messages from the UK Government. The Trade Secretary says he will get a free trade deal with the United States. The Environment Secretary says we will get a deal but he assures us that there will be no chlorinated chicken or hormone beef. If we trade under World Trade Organisation rules, we cannot impose those welfare standards.
Sammy Wilson
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to find a negative in every argument. He talks about the importance of food imports for the United Kingdom. Does he accept that those food imports come from farmers in Spain, Ireland, France and Italy? Does he think that they want transport to be disrupted to the point where their goods sit and rot in lorries? Is that not an incentive for their Governments to do the kind of deal that the Secretary of State is talking about?
Alan Brown
First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying I can find a negative in any argument? I can assure him that I have a wife who agrees wholeheartedly with that sentiment. He makes my point for me. There will be a whole raft of countries coming together, so the potential hit on them is much less than the potential hit on the UK. It is easier for them to play hardball. Government Members say that they will not play hardball, but why would they not? The UK is trying to play hardball with the EU, so it is quite clear that the EU is going to have to play hardball back.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My point would be that the hon. Gentleman finds the cloud in every single lining. Perhaps his wife would also agree with that. He talks about food policy and agriculture. When will the Scottish National party release its agricultural policy? The rest of the UK has been waiting for months for the Command Paper. When will the SNP finally come up with policies and make a constructive contribution to the debate, rather than haplessly hitting at the Government?
Alan Brown
For a start, the UK Government have delayed the agriculture Bill. The SNP wants control of immigration to support the farming industry. There are big concerns about agriculture, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. There are concerns about the power grab and the attempt to override devolved policy matters. We heard at the weekend about the much promised review into common agricultural policy funding. The UK Government kept money that was due to Scottish farmers. They held on to it and we heard at the weekend that the review has been delayed again. I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman on agricultural policy.
For the benefit of the House, I will try to return to the Bill. Part 1 covers the haulage permit system, as stated earlier. This is just an enabling Bill, so the real proof of the pudding will come from a combination of Government negotiations and the secondary legislation that is required as part of the Bill. At the moment, we really do not know what we are getting from the Bill.
The Government have stated that they intend to consult on fees later this year when the negotiations are much clearer, but that does not give me much confidence either. The reality is that we should be there or thereabouts with the negotiations already if we are going to get systems in place and advise hauliers and the Freight Transport Association what the future looks like for them, and what they need to do to comply. Clause 2 also introduces further uncertainty by referring to possible random selection or selection on a first come, first served basis, if permits are limited. If that is the outcome, it will cause further uncertainty for businesses.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituency is home to W.H. Malcolm Ltd, one of Scotland’s largest hauliers. When I met its staff, they said that the industry has gone through a tough time for a variety of reasons over the last few years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s gung-ho, “It’ll be all right on the night” approach gives little comfort to hauliers such as W.H. Malcolm and to exporters across the UK?
Alan Brown
I completely agree. I am sure that the haulage company that my hon. Friend referred to—it is clearly a massive haulage company—will have concerns about how the licence will come about, how vacancies will be filled in future and, as we heard earlier, the rising age profile of drivers. Something else that the UK Government have refused to do is help to pay for drivers to be trained so that they can get into the industry. Individuals cannot afford the £3,000 that it costs to train for an HGV licence.
Just to surprise the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), on a slightly positive note, I welcome the fact that clause 9 comes from the Government accepting a Lords amendment about future reporting on the impact on the UK haulage industry of the restrictions that apply to a permit scheme. What I find curious about that is that when I try to get amendments through in Committee that require the Government to report on future implementation, they always vote them down, so I hope that this will be a precedent for other future legislation. I welcome these provisions on future reporting.
Clause 12 covers Northern Ireland. Despite assurances from the Minister in the Lords that this legislation will not result in a hard border in Ireland—we have heard that from the Secretary of State—we need to know how the powers will be enforced and how it will not lead to a hardening of the border. I notice that the Secretary of State could not state clearly how the Irish Government see this operating. The Bill also specifically requires the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which, as I am sure he is aware, has not been operating for 16 months, so will the Minister or the Secretary of State explain how consent will be sought in the absence of a devolved Government?
Overall, the Government may continue to assert that there will be no hard border, but they need to answer difficult questions about the broader picture regarding not only the Bill, but the customs arrangements and how they will do checks with this mythical “no infrastructure.” The Secretary of State talks time and again about how there are no checks on the US-Canada border, but I remind him that there are. Lorries have to stop there, so that model cannot be followed or else it will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland.
Part 2 of the Bill covers trailer registration as a consequence of ratifying the 1968 Vienna convention. Again, this is a series of enabling clauses with the detail to follow, so we do not know how this will be implemented or what the costs will be. The UK Government have stated again that private-use trailers such as caravans and horse trailers will not fall within the scope, yet those exclusions have not been put in the Bill, so how can we guarantee that that is the case? The Secretary of State might be aware that the National Caravan Council has raised concerns about the lack of clarity on exemptions for non-commercial trailers. It currently operates its own voluntary registration scheme, which is cost-effective and very successful, so any new scheme should not duplicate what it is doing. If needs be, a new scheme should build on what it is doing. We have also heard that this is only a registration scheme, yet clause 14(4) suggests that the regulations may make
“provision for a periodic mandatory safety standards testing scheme”.
What are the Government’s intentions regarding road safety measures for trailers? Is there a planned timescale for implementing them?
In conclusion—everybody will be pleased to know that I have come to the conclusion—we do not know if part 1 of the Bill is required, and if it is, we do not know what the secondary legislation will look like. We do not know what the fees will be. We do not know what the application process will be. We do not know whether there will be limits on the number of permits available. We do not know what additional checks will be required and how the situation will be managed regarding the Irish border. To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, it seems to me that there are still a lot of known unknowns as regards the Bill. I also suspect that there are further unknown unknowns to follow. Having said that, the Government must be delighted with the progress they have made on taking back control, so I absolutely welcome the Bill.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The central role of good Government is to anticipate, prepare and act. In practice, of course, Governments spend a good deal of time responding to things to which they are obliged to react. Nevertheless, it is important that, as Ministers anticipate, they prepare legislation accordingly, and that is really what we are talking about today.
As I read the Bill, I could not help thinking that it is yet another piece of legislation that had its genesis during my time at the Department for Transport. We spend a great deal of time debating Bills that I had a hand in. When I was a Minister, I suppose that excessive humility meant that I did not fully accept the plaudits from the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, but now I realise just how inventive I was in the Department. It was that combination of perspicacity and imagination that led to so much legislation, including this Bill.
As has been said, the essence of the Bill is to create a framework. The first of the Bill’s two parts deals with establishing a permit system that will allow the continued movement of goods across Europe by hauliers, and the second deals with trailer registration. I do not want to go exhaustively into that—it was described very well by the Secretary of State, and others have made reference to it—but some points of amplification are worth making. I emphasise again the significance of haulage and why the measures that we are debating really matter. Both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State drew attention to the scale of the industry. It is worth something like £13.1 billion to the economy and directly employs almost 200,000 people but, of course, there are many more jobs in the logistics industry, as we like to describe it in the modern idiom. Around 2.35 million people have occupations that relate to the transit—the movement —of goods.
Through haulage, for the vast majority of goods are transported by truck, the things that we want and the things that we need—they are not necessarily the same, by the way—are brought to us, and the things that we make and sell are taken from us to other places. It is critical that the process is as seamless as possible. I note that there was mention of fresh produce. When we move things around, it is important that we do so quickly, and no more so than in the case of fresh produce. The just-in-time culture that we have created means that the lead times involved in acquiring, transporting and retailing goods are very short indeed, and were they to suffer as a result of any change, it would mean not only a considerable disruption to what we have come to expect, but significant additional costs to the haulage industry, which works on very narrow margins—typically something like 1% to 3%. I have spoken to the RHA about that, both since and while I was a Minister, and it is conscious of the need to maintain that free flow of goods not only for its own sake, but for the sake of all those it serves through the industry including, ultimately, consumers—those who buy and use the goods, and whose lives are made better by their acquisition.
It is therefore important, as the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have both emphasised, that we make the process as seamless as possible. The optimum outcome, of course, is that it be as much like it is now as possible. As the Secretary of State said, that is what he anticipates will be the product of the negotiations in which we are engaged, and his argument is compelling, because it is in our mutual interest that that is the case. It is absolutely in the mutual interest of countries across Europe that they are able to sell and buy goods as they need them.
Andy McDonald
Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that while a principle of solidarity exists in an EU comprising 28 countries, once we are a third country, that principle of solidarity will obtain across 27 countries and their duty will be to each other, not the UK?
Mr Hayes
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I suspect that the commercial interests of those countries and the pressure that commercial interests put on them will, in the end, be irresistible. For example, as was argued a few moments ago, farmers, growers and food manufacturers across Europe—whether in northern Europe or, as we heard, in Spain and Italy in the south—will want their goods brought here, much as they are now. I think the pressure to do a deal in our mutual interest will in the end rule the day.
Now, I do not know that, and the Secretary of State asked, very honestly, “How could I predict that?”—he would not want to, and he did not—but I think a deal in our mutual interest is the likely outcome. He called it his best guess; I would go further and call it my considered estimation.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The right hon. Gentleman touches on a fundamental point. Does he not agree that, if we do not get this right, it will affect costs and quality, certainly for transporters and producers?
Mr Hayes
That is why it is vital that the negotiations go well and why it is important to put in place this framework legislation. It is right that the Government prepare for all eventualities. In opposition, I spent half my time saying the Government were being too precise, too dogmatic, too determined to specify, and the other half saying they were being too open-minded and too flexible. The trouble with all Oppositions is that they meander between those two positions: on the one hand, they want the Government to be specific; on the other hand, they want the Government to be flexible. I slightly sense that that dilemma prevails in respect of the existing Opposition. This is a framework Bill—there is no need to apologise for that. The detail will come forward when we know the shape of the negotiations and how much of the Bill will be necessary. That is a straightforward and honourable position for any Government who want to anticipate, prepare and act.
The shadow Secretary of State made an additional important point about haulage that I also want to amplify. On skills and employment, he is entirely right that, irrespective of our relationship with the EU, there is a pressing need to recruit more people into the industry. As he was speaking, I was looking at notes on this very subject. He will know that the strategic transport apprenticeship taskforce, which has been looking at just these matters, published a report last year, off the back of its earlier consideration, and although there have been improvements across each sector of transport—road, rail, and so on, including haulage—there is still more to do, particularly to recruit people from under-represented groups in the sector.
When I was a Minister, work was being done, which I know is continuing under my successors, to encourage more people into the industry by, if you like, recasting or rebranding it—something I discussed with the RHA many times. That is vital not only on the purely numeric grounds the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but because we want people to have worthwhile careers in logistics. It is an important sector, and there are many good jobs to be had and many important skills to learn and use, so there is an efficacy in this as well as a necessity. To that end, I hope the work will continue through the apprenticeship taskforce. I gather from its report that there are 15,000 apprentices in road freight this year. I hope that that number will continue to grow. I established an education advisory group in the Department to advise on how we could cast out more widely in attracting people into the industry, and it seems to me that that work should also continue—but far be it from me to bind the hands of my successors.
Andy McDonald
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that this is not only about attracting people into the industry but about retaining them? The figures show that many young people coming into the industry do not hang around but go on to pastures new, and that requires urgent and focused attention.
Mr Hayes
It does require focused attention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is about retention as well as recruitment. We must recruit from different sources, which might mean people coming back into the industry, and address the rate of attrition. We must draw on people from other sources—a good example is the armed services, where people, having learned to drive, could re-enter the private sector—and we must attract more people from minority communities, which are very sparsely represented in haulage and road freight, and more women drivers. To do that, however, we have to change some of the working conditions. That is critical to both recruitment and retention.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you did not mind my digressing a little from the specifics of the Bill in order to amplify an important point that I know is keenly felt by shadow Ministers and Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I just want to raise two points. First, might one way of attracting more young people into the business be for the Government to provide a financial incentive to companies, tied into some contract of employment, to enable us to keep people in the business? Secondly, business is changing and many married people do not want to be away for long periods, so might it be worth trying to engage with single people, and those with more free time and who do not have the same obligations at home? Those are probably two things we need to look at.
Mr Hayes
As the hon. Gentleman will remember, in an earlier phase of my celebrated ministerial career, when I was apprenticeships Minister—I expected at least a titter when I said that, but clearly people take it very seriously, which I am actually rather relieved about—we looked particularly at smaller businesses and their commitment to training and introduced a grant scheme for small businesses that took on apprentices. I think there is a case for looking at that again, particularly in sectors with the most pressing demand—and haulage might be one of them—but I will say no more than that, because I do not want to commit my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to anything they do not want me to commit them to; I simply endorse his thoughts.
The Bill does two things: it provides powers that will support Britain’s hauliers to continue operating internationally after the UK leaves the EU; and it gives the Government the necessary framework to introduce new administrative systems if needed after exit. It provides the kind of flexibility I have described and, as has been said, under provisions in part 2, puts in place a trailer registration system in line with the Vienna convention, which, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, came to pass in 1968. It is a UN treaty designed to facilitate international road traffic and increase road safety by establishing uniform traffic rules, and has been signed and ratified by 75 countries. The Bill will allow us to apply it more comprehensively.
I do not want to delay the House any further, because I know that others want to speak—
Mr Hayes
No. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I really feel that it is only fair to others to give them the opportunity to emulate my style and content.
Cardinal Newman—who, in my experience, is given insufficient attention during debates on road haulage—[Laughter]—said:
“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt”.
Of course there will be difficulties in the process during the period following our departure from the European Union. It will be a cathartic process, and all kinds of challenges will have to be met. However, that does not of itself make an argument for not taking the right action now; it does not of itself add up to the profound doubts that some seem to have. I have confidence in the capacity, skills and determination of those in the industry, working with the Government, to continue to deliver what they currently do so well.
Let me end by mentioning an important haulier in my constituency with whom I discussed these matters this morning. That gentleman, Mr Robin Hancox, runs a business called FreshLinc. His fleet of vehicles brings fresh produce—food and flowers—from the continent to this country. He is determined that his business will continue to work post Brexit. He recognises that that will present some new challenges, but he is confident that the Government are doing the right thing in taking the necessary action to make the process as seamless as possible. I am confident too, which is why I can enthusiastically say that I not only endorse the Bill, but am willing, ready and able to support it.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I will try my best to emulate some of what he tried to say.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the merits of trailer registration and to highlight the rationale and importance of clause 13(3), (4) and (5) and clause 14 (3) and (4), as amended in the House of Lords, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his earlier comments. The subsections require the Secretary of State to collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK, and to include those findings in a report. I welcome that, because the Department for Transport’s current reporting methods do not give us a true picture of the risks posed by light trailers in this country.
The subsections also give the Secretary of State the power to introduce compulsory trailer registration and mandatory testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kg. I accept that as a long overdue step towards improving trailer safety—although it is a compromise—but my work on the issue over the past three years has drawn me to the overwhelming conclusion there ought to be a compulsory register of all trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, and that they should be subject to regular testing. I shall say more about that later.
My interest in trailer safety began soon after I was elected to this place in 2015, when my constituents Donna and Scott Hussey came to see me about their son, Freddie, who had been tragically killed in January 2014. Three-year-old Freddie and his mum were walking along the pavement when a two-tonne trailer came loose from a Land Rover, sped straight towards Freddie, and killed him. The trailer’s tow hitch had not been secure, as the position of its handbrake had prevented it from being locked down.
If the trailer had been subject to mandatory roadworthiness checks, the problem with the hitch might have been fixed and the tragedy might never have happened. Currently, trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, known as categories 01 and 02 or “light” trailers, are not required to have any such roadworthiness test, although trailers and their vehicles must be roadworthy when used on the road under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That is a loophole: without the licensing and hence the testing, there is no enforcement system.
I do not need to tell the House that the family continue to suffer a life sentence because of the horrific events of that day. However, I have been inspired by their courage and resilience, and we have been working together on a campaign to improve trailer safety ever since.
In the last three years, I have initiated a Westminster Hall debate and had meetings with two transport Ministers: the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and the current Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). I have held two trailer safety summits, which were attended by representatives of key national organisations and Government agencies; I have spoken at the National Trailer and Towing Association’s annual conference; and I have met various experts with insights into trailer safety, including members of my local police force. The result has been the #towsafe4freddie campaign, launched by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to raise driver awareness, and an awful lot of hard work by the National Towing Working Group, spearheaded by Highways England and others. The National Trailer and Towing Association has set up a free trailer safety-checking initiative, and Avon and Somerset police have begun trailer awareness training for officers to enable them to spot unsafe trailers on the road.
That work commands cross-party interest and support. I am grateful to the Ministers for their attention to the issues, and for meeting the Hussey family: that meant a great deal to them. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and his team for attending my trailer summit in Bedminster last month, and for his willingness to engage with the experts. Despite that good work, however, we continue to underestimate hugely the safety risk posed by unchecked light trailers on our roads—which brings me to the Bill, and its importance.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with the establishment of a trailer registration scheme that would allow UK trailer users to meet the registration standards outlined in the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. Registration is critical to trailer safety, because it constitutes an essential requirement for regular safety checks, and prevents unsafe trailers from being sold and resold. However, non-commercial, leisure-use trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes do not fall within the scope of the Bill, because they are not included in the convention. I believe that that is a missed opportunity.
In Committee in the House of Lords, Lord Bassam tabled a probing amendment that called for the registration scheme to apply to all trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes.
He referred to the Government’s impact assessment, which stated that the Bill represented
“an opportunity to improve safety through better regulation",
and asked why the Government would not take advantage of it to widen the scope of the scheme. That raised an important point. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s digital service is now in place to facilitate the registering of trailers. It presents a good opportunity for the registration of all trailers, not only those weighing more than 3.5 tonnes. The Government fear that expanding the scheme would create an unnecessary administrative burden, but that needs to be balanced against the dangers posed by these vehicles. I remind the House that Freddie Hussey—aged just three—was crushed by a two-tonne trailer, heavier than the average car.
The issue of “proportionality” arose several times in the House of Lords, which is why, should the report referred to in the Bill conclude that trailers ought to be registered and subject to mandatory safety checks, the rule would apply only to trailers weighing more than 750 kg. That is a compromise. It is still very much my view—based on evidence that I have seen—that faulty trailers weighing less than 750kg represent a huge safety risk, which is why I believe that all trailers should be registered and checked.
I was delighted that the Lords supported the amendment that compels the Secretary of State to collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK, and to include those findings in a report, but the key word is “comprehensive”. It would not be good enough for the Government to commit themselves to a report, but to give us what already exists. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification of how the Government will define “comprehensive” and how his Department will go about collecting the data. I am certainly not alone in believing that data on the safety of light trailers is currently lacking. During the Lords debate, Baroness Sugg, speaking for the Government, admitted that, having looked at the Department for Transport’s road accidents report, she agreed that the Government could and should consider the way in which they report trailer safety, and that it could “definitely be improved”. I welcome that assertion.
In the report, the Department highlights the huge gaps in the data that they currently collate for road accidents generally. They include only accidents that are reported to the police, that involve a personal injury, and that occur on public roads. The true number is of course much higher. The report states:
“These figures…do not represent the full range of all accidents or casualties”
in Great Britain, and goes on to describe the large proportion of non-fatal casualties not known to the police.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is talking eloquently about safety in relation to trailers and vehicles. We must have a high level of safety, so does she agree that those with licences from other countries, such as eastern Europe, should have the same high driving standards as our drivers in this country? Some, although not all, of the events the hon. Lady has been talking about involve drivers from other parts of Europe who do not have the driving skills that they should have.
Karin Smyth
I agree that we want all drivers to be of the highest standards. I cannot comment on the number of accidents caused by trailers that involve drivers not of that high standard, but in the work I have done over the last three years I have been shocked to discover how many trailers, in agriculture and across the piece, on our roads do not meet the requirements we would ordinarily expect, and I hope this Bill helps to improve that situation.
The current method of reporting a road accident means that there is no real way of knowing whether, and how, a trailer contributed to an accident. The details of incidents involving trailers are largely dependent upon the subjective viewpoint of the police officer on the scene, which the Department’s own report admits poses difficulties. The STATS19 form filled in by the officer is complex and gives 78 contributing factors for them to choose from. We currently have several police forces testing new reporting systems because of the huge inaccuracies and the inadequacy of this method.
In contrast to the statistics on trailer-related incidents presented by the Department for Transport, a growing body of evidence from industry organisations and case studies indicate the true scale of the problem. In July 2017, the National Trailer and Towing Association introduced the free safety checks initiative, the first of its kind in the UK, in which light trailers are offered a free inspection at members’ premises. Since rolling this out it has found an astonishing 93% failure rate. I hope the work being done will help highlight to Members that they can encourage people in their constituencies to take advantage of these free safety checks and promote their use. Avon and Somerset police have also been carrying out checks and they broadly substantiate these findings; the failure rate is very high.
These initiatives further highlight that what is needed are checks on these vehicles in order to prevent accidents, and not purely the collection of data on vehicles once they have been involved in an accident. With an estimated 2 million light trailers on the road, a large proportion of which are many years old, it is not unreasonable to assume that a significant amount would fail a roadworthiness test. All cars, which in many cases are lighter than trailers, are subjected to rigorous MOT testing each year, so by what logic can the Government argue that trailer safety checks are not integral to improving safety standards?
It is my sincere hope that the Government will accept the measures discussed as an opportunity to move this issue on and demonstrate their commitment to preventing further tragedies such as Freddie’s from happening in the future. We can only do that if we have clearer data on light trailer safety so that the Secretary of State can make an informed decision on whether we ought to have mandatory registration and checks.
In summary, I am grateful for the comments and the work of the Secretary of State and the Minister on this issue and for clauses 13(3), (4) and (5) and 14(3) and (4), but how will the Government define what is “comprehensive”? Also, will the Department initiate new ways of collating data on light trailers beyond the STATS19 form? How does it plan to gather such data? Finally, how does the Minister plan for the data to be gathered to meet the timeframe set out in the Bill—one year from the day the relevant section comes into force?
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth).
This is a very welcome Bill and demonstrates that the Government are making prudent preparations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and many other speakers this afternoon have rightly pointed out the importance of the UK’s road haulage sector and the contribution it makes to the country’s economy. It is, by any standards, an important British industry: it employs about 300,000 people, and in 2015 some 76% of all goods moved in this country were moved by road. It is therefore entirely understandable that the road freight industry is keen to see an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union on the future of road haulage.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that road haulage is one of his Department’s top two priorities. He also rightly pointed out in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) that about 80% of the lorries operating between the UK and the continent are owned by EU-based businesses. It is therefore clear that achieving an agreement is, or at least should be, a matter of similar priority to the European Union as it is to us. Indeed, I am heartened by the fact that the EU’s negotiating guidelines, adopted on 23 March, set out the aim of continued transport connectivity between the UK and the European Union. I am pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend this afternoon that the negotiations are going well, and I have no doubt that it will be to the mutual benefit of the United Kingdom and the European Union, and their respective transport industries, to achieve an agreement that provides for frictionless road transport after Brexit.
However, that being said, the Government are entirely right to prepare contingency measures for the event of there being no deal, and that course of action has attracted the approval of the road haulage industry itself. As part of the process of preparation, Parliament recently ratified the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. The UK was already a signatory to the 1949 Geneva convention; however, five EU member states, including Germany, are party to the Vienna convention but not to the Geneva convention. Ratifying the 1968 convention, therefore, will, in the Government’s words,
“address the lack of a mutual legal basis for road traffic”
with those countries. In other words, it will provide for some degree of continued traffic with the EU in the event of there being no deal. As the Government have also observed, ratifying the Vienna convention will enable the United Kingdom to help shape the evolution and future direction of the convention, which is particularly important in respect of automated vehicle technology.
The Road Haulage Association has indicated that ideally it would wish the UK and the EU to use the current Community licence system and all EU rules for road haulage once Brexit has taken place. That may be the most desirable outcome, depending of course on whether the issue of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice can be resolved. The Department for Transport is no doubt considering a number of other proposals that would result in a similar degree of flexibility without ECJ jurisdiction.
One of the proposals suggested by the RHA is that the United Kingdom and the European Union should set up a new authorising system for international road haulage. That may also be a desirable outcome, but in addition there is always the possibility of the UK and individual EU member states setting up a new permit-based system for international road haulage—in other words, a system of bilateral permits.
The Bill of necessity employs a broad brush: it has to take into account all possible contingencies from the negotiations, from complete agreement to no deal. It is therefore necessarily widely framed, and is no worse for that. Part 1 enables the Secretary of State to put in place arrangements to enable a road haulage permit scheme, should it be required. Clause 1 provides for regulations to oblige road hauliers to carry a permit where international agreement requires it. The expression “relevant international agreement” is defined in the clause as an agreement
“to which the United Kingdom is a party and…which relates to the transport of goods by road to, in or through the country”.
However, in the case of Ireland, an international agreement is expressed as one to which the UK is a party and
“which relates to the transport of goods by road to, in or through Ireland”
and
“which the Secretary of State has certified as an agreement to which the Government of Ireland has consented”.
That is for a very good reason. There has been a long history of co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland with regard to transport on the island of Ireland, and I suggest that continued bilateral arrangements are most desirable. In fact, they are equally important for the Irish Republic. The A55 north Wales expressway passes through my constituency, and hundreds of Irish lorries pass along it every day. It is important that the Republic of Ireland’s free access to the roads of the United Kingdom should be maintained. I would be pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister what discussions have taken place with the Government of the Republic and whether he anticipates agreement on new bilateral arrangements after Brexit.
Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to issue permits to applicants and provides for regulations that would detail how hauliers should apply for permits and the basis on which the Secretary of State would decide whether to grant a permit. I understand that those regulations will be the subject of a consultation by the Department, which is sensible and welcome. The clause also provides for criteria to be used in allocating permits, should they be required as part of an agreement with the EU. Subsection (l)(c) indicates that regulations may make provision
“as to how the Secretary of State is to decide whether to grant an application for a permit, including provision specifying criteria or other methods of selection (which may include first come, first served or an element of random selection).”
Concern was expressed in the other place as to the somewhat haphazard nature of the selection provided for in the clause, and the reasonable point was made that it would be difficult for any haulier to make serious business plans on such a basis. Will the Minister give a further indication as to how such a method of selection would operate? No doubt it will be set out in the regulations in due course, but it would be good to know the Government’s current thinking.
Part 2 of the Bill provides for a system of trailer registration. That has been included in the Bill to enable the Government to comply with their obligations under the Vienna convention, which has now been ratified. The Minister, Baroness Sugg, indicated in the other place that it was the Government’s intention to require only operators that take trailers abroad to register their trailers. It would be good if the Minister could reiterate that commitment and further confirm that the scheme would apply only to commercial trailers over 750 kg and all trailers over 3.5 tonnes. It would also be good if he could confirm that the scheme will not apply domestically.
There remains a lot to be fleshed out, but it is understandable that the Bill should be couched in broad terms at the moment. The House will look forward to further details in due course, but this is a sensible, prudent Bill aimed at facilitating whatever agreement may be arrived at with the European Union while at the same time safeguarding the British position against there being no deal. I am therefore pleased to support it.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have really enjoyed this debate, and I hope that the Minister takes seriously all the points that have been raised in good faith. I am also particularly pleased to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth)—thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker—as I wish to support the points she made on towing equipment and trailers. Last week I visited the Rotherham branch of Towing Centres UK, which fits towing equipment to vehicles. As skilled professionals, the centre’s staff were keen to tell me about the serious gaps in the current legislation regarding safe towing—gaps that the Minister has the opportunity to address today.
The Rotherham Towing Centre is the second facility in the UK to be accredited by Horizon Global, one of the world’s largest suppliers of towing equipment. Customers using such an accredited centre can be sure that a tow bar fitted to their vehicle is safe and secure. The consequences of tow bar failure can be catastrophic, and many of us will be aware of horrific incidents of unsafe towing that have resulted in serious injury or death, yet there is no legal requirement for tow bars to be fitted by a professional. There is nothing to prevent an unsafe, badly fitted tow bar from being used. Even at the vehicle’s next MOT test, a newly fitted tow bar will not be tested. Added to that danger, trailers between 750 kg and 3.5 tonnes are subjected to no routine safety checks whatever. Vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are required to have a yearly inspection, so it would seem ridiculous to most people that this does not apply to all trailers. A 3 tonne trailer that becomes detached could easily destroy a building. The dangers to other motorists, and pedestrians, are obvious.
The National Trailer and Towing Association has been so disturbed by those dangers that its members have been offering free visual checks for trailers and then recommending what action needs to be taken to make them safe. Since the scheme began, 91% of the trailers seen have failed the test. The Rotherham Towing Centre gave me an example of a catering trailer that its new owner had brought in last week. It had been bought on eBay and, as it was being towed home on the motorway, a wheel came off. During its subsequent inspection at the centre, staff condemned the brakes, the tyres, the hitch and the lights. The centre owner, Irene, said that the only thing that worked was the deep fat fryer.
The amendments moved in the other place by Lord Bassam would go some way towards addressing the glaring safety omissions, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging that in his speech. The amendments do not call for the compulsory registration of trailers or for safety checks, but they would require the Government to collate information on trailer-related accidents and to consider what further regulation is appropriate. As that does not currently happen, we have no idea of the scale of the problem. I am sure we would all agree that evidence-based legislation is always the best approach, and the Bill could ensure that that evidence is robust. Personally, I would push the Minister to go further and to go straight to registration for all trailers.
Finally, I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, who has campaigned extensively on this issue and worked closely with the family of three-year-old Freddie Hussey. I would also like to offer my deep sympathy to Freddie’s family. As my hon. Friend said, Freddie was tragically killed when a trailer became detached from a vehicle. The trailer was later found to be unsafe as the tow hitch was not working correctly. Terrible incidents such as that can be avoided, and I urge the Minister to act to close the loopholes in the existing legislation without delay.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I might not be able to emulate the knowledge and experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), the eloquence, erudition and elegance of delivery of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), or the positivity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), but I will equally seek to avoid the pessimism of the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I will seek to address the positives of this important piece of legislation, which is, as Members have said, a sensible preparation for different Brexit eventualities and for the delivery of a smooth Brexit for the people and businesses of this country.
The Secretary of State has been absolutely clear that he expects the UK to secure a good deal, and I share his positivity on that. He is right, however, to bring forward a precautionary contingency Bill. It is the action of a responsible Government to prepare for every eventuality. Indeed, it is also the action of a responsible Secretary of State, and I pay tribute to him for that. Of course, I hope that many of the Bill’s powers prove unnecessary, but it is right that we have them, and the regulation-making powers will allow the Secretary of State to create the regulatory architecture to cater for various scenarios.
My right hon. Friend and others have been clear about the importance of the haulage sector both to our economy and to each of us in our day-to-day lives. Lorries may not always be popular, but they are hugely important in making this country function. For the sake of brevity, I will not recount the statistics referred to by many Members, but they set out just how important the sector is to our economy. Not only is contingency planning important and responsible, but the economic imperative for each of us in our daily lives and for our economy is clear. The UK played a key role, starting in 1988 and continuing through the 1990s, in driving forward the liberalisation of haulage in Europe, and it is right that we are now acting to ensure that that continues. Baroness Sugg set out clearly in the other place our country’s reliance on the industry, particularly for foodstuffs.
At present, hauliers can move freely within the EU with the Community licence, and a standard international operator’s licence is also required for that. Alongside that system runs the European Conference of Ministers of Transport multilateral quota permit scheme. While not without its uses—it is extremely useful—the ECMT quota is small by comparison with the volumes of journeys and hauliers operating within Europe. The Road Haulage Association has expressed reservations about it being too restrictive. While useful, it is unlikely to address the long-term needs of the industry and the country. On our exit from the EU, the Community licence scheme will no longer be available, hence why this Bill is necessary and important. It must not only cover non-EU agreements and any permit-based deal but provide for other eventualities.
Mr John Hayes
The RHA has been quoted at length and repeatedly during this debate, but it has also said that it wholeheartedly supports the Government introducing contingency measures. While it wants seamless transport of the kind that we have all spoken of, the RHA recognises my hon. Friend’s point about the Government’s wisdom in bringing forward these measures.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is correct. The RHA has adopted a constructive, engaged and positive approach, as he will know from his dealings with it when he was a successful Transport Minister. The Bill will also provide the Secretary of State with new powers to allocate permits and to charge fees, and with enforcement powers for different offences.
The trailer registration scheme is an obligation that derives from the UK’s ratification—albeit slightly belated—of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which we had signed but never ratified and which built on the 1909, 1926 and 1949 conventions. The ratification of the convention now is part of our responsible preparation for all eventualities. I suspect the main reason why it was so important to do it now is found in paragraph 3 of article 3, which states:
“Subject to the exceptions provided for in Annex 1 to this Convention, Contracting Parties shall be bound to admit to their territories in international traffic motor vehicles and trailers which fulfil the conditions laid down in Chapter III”.
That will help to provide for the continued free flow of cars and commercial vehicles so that traffic can continue as before, allowing the UK to issue international driving permits.
In order that we can comply with the convention and secure the benefits of it, it is important that the registration of trailers is brought forward. The Department has been clear that it proposes mandatory registration for commercial trailers over 750 kg and all trailers over 3.5 tonnes used for international purposes, but not for domestic use. Such a reasonable and measured approach will ensure that caravans, horseboxes and so on are not necessarily caught by the scheme. However, I note that that is not specifically detailed on the face of the Bill, although the Minister in the other place made the point clear. The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for such a scheme to be brought in.
On the subject safety, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has done so much in this place with her “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign, following the tragic death of Freddie Hussey. She has been passionate and determined in her pursuit of that cause, as I know some of their lordships were. I hope that the Minister, in his usual thoughtful and sensitive way, will pay due heed to what their lordships and the hon. Lady have said and will address her comments in measured, sensible tones.
I welcome this sensible piece of contingency planning by the Secretary of State—I pay tribute to him for his foresight—and the enabling framework that it provides. I suspect that there may be little actual change and that the powers may prove largely unnecessary following the negotiation of a successful deal, but it is right that we plan for all eventualities and ensure continued liberalised traffic and haulage for the future. That sensible approach reflects not only pragmatism but the Government’s clear and focused determination to secure a good deal for Britain, which is in sad contrast to the chaos and contradiction that characterise the Opposition’s policy as we deliver our exit from the EU. I again commend the Secretary of State for his foresight and sagacity, and I am pleased to support the Bill.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) on his positive speech. I hope that mine will be equally as positive, because almost every time anything about Brexit or leaving the EU is mentioned in this House the naysayers and those who wish to overturn the referendum result will find any excuse to look for faults in what is being presented.
I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing forward this legislation, because it will provide a contingency if there is no deal. Despite what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said about this legislation hardly having Mr Barnier quaking in his boots, an important message is sent out every time that the Government—whether in this Bill or in conversations, interviews or statements—indicate to those negotiating our exit from the EU that we have the option of walking away if they are not prepared to play ball. Regardless of how small this particular warning may be, it is nevertheless part of a picture that we need to present.
Having said that, I share Ministers’ optimism and the optimism of many other Members who have already spoken. There is every reason why the current arrangements —the Community licence and the standard international operator’s licence—should be made available as a result of the Brexit negotiations. As we have already seen, road transport is vital not just for this country, but for every country with which we trade in the EU.
Alan Brown
The Democratic Unionist party obviously has first-hand experience of how good the UK Government are at negotiating. Given the concessions the right hon. Gentleman’s party extracted from the Government, the whole EU saw how the DUP had the Tories dancing on the head of a pin. Does he really trust that lot to negotiate a good deal from the EU?
Sammy Wilson
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. When the Government stuck their heels in with the EU in December 2017, the agreement was changed and the protocols were not insisted on in March 2018. The Prime Minister stuck her heels in when the Irish Government said June was a deadline. The UK Government made it clear that it might not be done by June, and we have now moved to October 2018. When the Government make it clear that they intend to be in the driving seat on these negotiations, I have every confidence that we can get a good outcome for the United Kingdom.
Of course, there is every reason for us to be confident. Road transport is important to every European nation that trades with us, and it is particularly important to Northern Ireland—over 90% of our trade is via road transport. Road transport is not only important to us. If we look at who actually transports the goods we export to other parts of the EU, we see that 85% of the goods that go from the UK to other EU countries are carried in vehicles owned by EU-based companies. That being the case, there is every incentive for nations with lorries, lorry drivers and transport companies to come to an arrangement with our Government to ensure that free movement can happen. Equally, many of those goods are perishable, and it is therefore important that there is as little disruption to road transport as possible, hence why I believe it will be possible to get the kind of deal the Government seek. Nevertheless, it is important that we have this fall-back position.
The second issue is Northern Ireland. Although I heard the Minister’s explanation, I am still not clear on why we need a separate provision in the Bill for agreements on transporting goods to, and on lorries driving through, the Irish Republic and why the international agreements referred to in clause 1 are not sufficient to cover the Irish Republic. I do not share the optimism of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) that the Irish Government are willing, because of our long-standing arrangements on transport issues, to ensure that a bilateral arrangement can be put in place.
The Irish Government have almost cut off their nose to spite their face on the issue of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. They know their own head of Revenue Commissioners has made it clear that there are technological solutions that could ensure there is no hard border so that trade flows easily across the border. The previous Administration in Ireland even started down the route of considering the kind of technology that could be used but, since coming in, the current Irish Government have cut off all the negotiations on those solutions. Only this weekend, they insisted that they will have no cameras, drones or any kind of technology that could make the border a soft border when we leave.
Mr David Jones
Can the right hon. Gentleman say, from his experience of the island of Ireland, whether the Irish Government fully understand the importance to the Irish economy of maintaining free access to the United Kingdom for trade not only with this country but beyond?
Sammy Wilson
It seems that the current Irish Government do not understand. Six times more of their trade is with Great Britain than with Northern Ireland, and more of their trade is with Great Britain than with the whole of the rest of the EU, yet they seem to be willing to pursue a solution that will mean a border and barriers between the Irish Republic and its main market in order to have an open border with Northern Ireland. When it is suggested to the Irish Government that they can have both an open border with Northern Ireland and access to the GB market, they simply put their hands over their ears and say, “We don’t want to hear. Nah, nah, nah, nah.”
I am not as convinced as the right hon. Member for Clwyd West that it will be easy to get a transport arrangement with the Government of the Irish Republic, and I would appreciate further explanation from the Minister as to why the international arrangements covering other EU countries cannot simply apply to the Irish Republic. If lorries from Northern Ireland go through the Irish Republic, they are going through another country, so why would the international arrangements and agreements not apply? Why do we need a specific bilateral arrangement with the Irish Government who, unfortunately, at present seem to be in a temper tantrum and are not willing to listen to too much logic, even if not doing so damages their own economy?
Alan Brown
While the right hon. Gentleman is castigating the Irish Government—he says they have said there will be no cameras and no technology—will he explain what technology he proposes? The UK Government have said that there will be no infrastructure and no cameras, or anything like that, at the border, so what is this magic technology that will rely on no infrastructure whatsoever?
Sammy Wilson
When people talk about infrastructure, they think of red and white posts on the roads across the border. The one thing we know—I do not want to digress too much—is that during the troubles 50,000 troops could not seal the Irish border. If we think we will seal the Irish border to trade with a couple of barber’s poles across a road, we are barking up the wrong tree. That shows a total misunderstanding.
The infrastructure that would be involved is used elsewhere and has been proven, whether it is GPS, telephones, early notification or electronic notification that trade is moving. There are a whole range of things that do not require a physical presence on the border, and that technology could also be used at Dover to avoid the kinds of problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). It is not just a solution for the island of Ireland but a solution between the United Kingdom and the EU when we leave.
Karin Smyth
I fail to understand why there is no co-operation, when 5.2 million tonnes of trade is going north-south and 3.4 million tonnes of trade is going south-north—I think that is the right way round. The movement of freight across the island of Ireland is clearly critical to both economies. It might help the right hon. Gentleman if we had the results of the mapping exercise mentioned in paragraph 47 of the joint report on phase 1 of the negotiations. There are 140 areas of agreement across the border, but the Government are refusing to let us see the results of that mapping exercise so that we can really understand the true impact across the whole island.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady also has to understand that, although there may be 5.2 million tonnes of trade across the Northern Ireland-Irish Republic border, there is six times more trade between the Irish Republic and Great Britain. Yet that does not seem to exercise the minds of those in the Government of the Irish Republic even a little bit, and none of us can understand that. The big prize lies in finding a solution that allows that east-west trade, as well as that north-south trade without any impediments. I believe we have the technology and ability to do that, but the political willingness is not there.
I want to welcome a second thing in relation to Northern Ireland. In the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government have, in clause 12, taken it upon themselves to amend the legislation; many of these issues are devolved to the Assembly, which is not functioning at present. I suspect it will not function for many a long month or perhaps a year, because of the way in which Sinn Féin has now used its veto to prevent the Assembly being reformed. The Minister mentioned that a legislative consent motion would be sought. In the absence of an LCM, I take it that these powers will simply be taken by the Government.
Many Members have made this next point already, but it is worth noting. In the absence of knowing exactly where negotiations are going, and given the nature of some of the information that is required, I would not expect the detail of the scheme to be set out in the Bill. However, it is important that, at the earliest possible stage, people in the haulage industry know how many licences are going to be available, how they can apply for them, how they are going to be allocated and what is going to be paid for them. If some detail can be spelt out, even though it may not be in the Bill, that would give some certainty to the haulage firms that operate in my constituency.
I shall now turn to the part of the Bill that refers to trailers. We have heard some passionate speeches on that subject—from two Members in particular. As a result of personal tragedies in their constituency, they are concerned about the registration of trailers. The Bill is fairly ambiguous on this matter, simply talking about the registration of trailers, full stop, and not dealing with weight restriction, size or anything else. Despite personal tragedies that people may have faced, legislation must always be proportionate. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the ordinary guy who has a trailer that he uses to take stuff to the dump or uses to collect a few bits and pieces will not be required to go through the process of having the trailer registered and inspected on a yearly basis, with all the cost involved, especially as many of these trailers are used on only an occasional basis. Trailers over 3.5 tonnes, which are used commercially, are probably used more regularly and there is a case for having registration there, but I do not believe that there is a proportionate case for registration for ordinary domestic trailers, which would be affected if we extended this across all trailers.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Government are sending out a signal that, if Barnier and co. decide to dig in their heels, we are prepared to go our own way and that we have made preparations for it. At the same time, we believe that there is a strong case for continuing the current system of Community licensing so that firms that operate a vital part of our economy can continue to provide the service that they do now.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a delight to follow the optimistic and upbeat speech from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I welcome this Bill as a modest, appropriate and measured move by the Government to make provision in case there is not a comprehensive free trade deal with the European Union. I am surprised that the Opposition have not actually stated their case. They sound as though they are just not in favour of the Bill at all but, judging by the absence of Opposition Members, I presume they are not going to vote against it. However, I cannot believe that the Bill is not something we would all welcome. A failure to plan is a plan to fail, so why would we not want this Bill?
The UK is an outward-looking, global trading nation, and I believe this will only be more the case after we leave the EU. As many Members have said, trade with the European Union is important—crucially, it is important to both sides. It goes without saying that it is in the EU’s best interests to maintain the current liberalised trade by road between the UK and the rest of the EU, and it is also in our interests to maintain that situation. We have heard all the statistics about the huge trade deficit with the EU—£72 billion in 2017—and how much that trade means in respect of the movement of goods across the UK. This shows just how crucial smooth access to the UK market for EU countries is. Many businesses across the continent sell their goods into the UK and, more often than not, they transport those goods here by road. We have all rehearsed the statistics as to why we need this modest measure to deliver that access and they are well in our brains now.
As the Prime Minister said,
“No deal is better than a bad deal”.
We cannot allow our UK hauliers to be left high and dry if we are offered a bad deal—if the EU does not come to a common-sense agreement, although we all believe it will do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he is confident about that, and I share his confidence. The UK must make provision to allow for the outcome and this Bill does just that—it is a sensible piece of legislation.
This issue, like many others the House deals with, has significance in my constituency. Our proximity to London means that several haulage companies are based there, operating across the UK and into EU countries. In essence, the Bill is one that we hope we will never have need to call on. It is our backstop—our insurance position —and it therefore should have a fair wind and sail through its Second Reading tonight. I cannot understand the negativity we have heard from Opposition Members, who somehow interpret the Bill as being a massive piece of legislation that gives huge powers to the Secretary of State. I see it as exactly the opposite: something that is tidied away in case we should ever need it, although I share the Secretary of State’s confidence that we will not need this Bill.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak for long on this important Bill. As Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, this is an essential piece of legislation that allows for a smooth and orderly transition out of the EU and gives the Government a degree of wiggle room to take account of how the negotiations pan out. The Bill will certainly have my support.
I wish to talk, in short order, about the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic—that is a sentence I never thought I would hear myself say. The ratification that has taken place, after a prolonged period of consideration of some 50 years, has implications that I wish to raise, because they affect the car industry in my constituency. As hon. Members will know, the convention required that a driver was always in control of their vehicle. The provision was amended in 2016 to allow the vehicle to have a degree of autonomy, provided that there was a driver in place to take over in the event of emergency conditions.
My constituency is home to Ford’s UK headquarters, where some of the most ingenious and innovative design for the next generation of autonomous vehicles is taking place. The problem with the Vienna convention, even as amended, is that it might prevent the development of level 4 autonomy. Such autonomy would, in effect, allow a whole trip to be automated—indeed, it allows for the removal of the steering wheel. In January, General Motors produced its first such model, the Cruise AV fourth generation, which literally has no steering wheel. That means, of course, that a driver cannot intervene, even if emergency conditions are met.
I am concerned that our ratification of the convention will mean that are we are not able to deliver the next generation of automated vehicles in the UK. I am sure that the Department for Transport and the Minister have at their disposal an excellent legal team who will be able to find a way through the issues, but I seek reassurance that the UK will be in a position to continue the excellent work that we have been doing to make us one of the foremost countries in the world for the development of driverless cars.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
As a recently elected member of the Transport Committee, and given the significant number of haulage and distribution companies in my constituency, it is an absolute pleasure to speak in the debate.
The liberalisation of commercial haulage has delivered huge consumer benefits in the choice of goods available at affordable prices throughout the UK. Even the smallest corner shops now commonly stock goods that only a generation ago would have seemed impossibly exotic. Trade is a two-way street, and it is the modern haulage industry that has made possible the geographically deep penetration of overseas markets. I note that, according to the Department for Transport, UK road haulage directly contributes more than £13 billion in gross value added and plays a major role in the transport of some £35 billion of goods that are traded between the UK and the European Union. It is therefore only right that as part of our international road haulage policy, we take the need to support the sector seriously.
There is, of course, still some uncertainty about the final Brexit deal. While the negotiations are under way, we must continue to move things forward. I regret to say this, but that uncertainty is compounded by the unfortunate regression in some quarters to the tried and failed politics of “Project Fear”. I have been extremely optimistic about the opportunities that can come from Brexit, and it is important that the Government come forward with actions to mitigate the lingering uncertainty. I am pleased that they are making positive provisions, where they can, for maximum continuity and the utmost clarity, including through this Bill. I welcome that positive action, because optimism, continuity and clarity are the most powerful antidotes to uncertainty, and they will mitigate any possible doubts in the industry about future investment decisions in the UK.
The Government are absolutely right to bring forward comprehensive measures that will reassure the haulage industry with clarity and continuity, and thereby enable it to plan for the future without knowing the final outcome of our negotiated exit from the EU. Nowhere is a smooth and orderly transition for the haulage and trailer industries more important than in Stoke-on-Trent. As a city, we are at the very heart of England and the natural centre for the logistics industry. Indeed, the city is a long-standing confluence of inland freight routes by water, rail and road.
Most famously, the ceramics industry is centred in the Potteries, and the experienced hauliers of Stoke-on-Trent are very good at ensuring that we avoid breakages. The haulage and logistics industry in the city is expanding, providing employment, including apprenticeships, to my constituents. I am delighted to say that S J Bargh, the haulage firm behind the highest-scoring apprentice ever at the Scania training school, has an expanding presence in my constituency, and I hope to visit the firm in the coming weeks. There are distribution centres for Screwfix, Sainsbury’s, Pets at Home and others in my constituency. Last week, I was pleased to visit the Portmeirion distribution facility, where some of the most advanced technology is used for the distribution of its fragile wares.
On the trailer side, the manufacturer Don-Bur is based in my constituency. I was pleased to visit the company over the Easter recess. It makes every conceivable trailer, from the box van and the curtain-side to the wedge double deck, and even the aerodynamic teardrop shape, for which it is famous. Don-Bur is at the cutting edge of innovation, making trailers more aerodynamic, fuel efficient and environmental. It is fair to say that it makes precisely the types and sizes of commercial trailer that are intended to be covered under the Bill’s registration provisions.
It is important that we ensure that UK operators that use those trailers and other trailer brands can comply with the registration standards outlined in the 1968 Vienna convention when they drive on the continent. How does the Department plan to communicate the effect of the Bill, and those aspects that are yet to be consulted on, to trailer manufacturers and to commercial and non-commercial users? I note that the overview to the Bill issued by the DFT mentions the intention that trailer registration with the DVLA will be done “through a digital service”. Is it the Minister’s intention that communication with those who fall under the scope of the Bill will be achieved through purely digital means, or will there be some activity in the trade press, and the leisure press, too? As I stressed earlier, we need maximum clarity for those affected, so it is extremely important that the rumours and fears promoted by some are put to one side.
The Bill is an important addition to the Government’s measures to ensure that we have a smooth and orderly Brexit. It provides for both continuity and flexibility in the face of temporary uncertainty. We need to communicate that message effectively among those whom the Bill will cover. It is important to my constituents, and to hauliers and consumers everywhere, that we make these provisions and that we get them right.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I shall give a Kent perspective on the Bill. Kent is well known as England’s gateway to Europe. On a busy day, around 10,000 lorries pass through the port at Dover and an extra 6,000 lorries pass through the channel tunnel at Folkestone. That is perhaps 16,000 lorries a day passing to and fro through Kent, so people in Kent feel strongly about making sure that we have the right processes at our borders come Brexit day.
I well remember my first summer as a Member of Parliament, in 2015, because that was the summer of Stack, when for 32 days the M20 was largely closed and 5,000 lorries were parked up on the motorway. While those lorries were parked on the motorway, the roads around the area were also at a standstill because so much traffic was diverted through the neighbouring roads. That caused chaos and misery throughout my constituency and in many other parts of Kent, where journeys that would usually take five or 10 minutes were taking hours. Children struggled to get to school to take exams, hospital operations were delayed and patients missed their appointments, people could not get to work, and businesses struggled to do their business, gain income and pay their staff. I heard of one constituent, a 10-year-old girl, who fell off a climbing frame and had to wait for an ambulance, injured, for an hour and a half.
After that summer, my neighbouring Kent MPs and I did all that we could to make sure that that would never happen to Kent again—that we would never again see such misery and, in fact, such an economic cost, because that enormous hit to business was estimated to have cost the Kent economy £250 million. As we never wanted to see it happen again, we campaigned for a lorry park. We appreciate that money was put aside for one, but the project has got into some trouble, meaning it has been delayed. I have spoken to the Minister about the matter, and we very much appreciate the efforts to make sure that, should there be any trouble at the border, there will be alternatives to the closure of the M20. It is important to Kent that we keep the traffic flowing.
In that spirit, I support the Bill, because although we hope not to have to use it, it is about making sure that there will not be trouble at our borders come Brexit day. It is a precaution to ensure that trade will continue to flow and that lorries will be able to travel back and forth as they need to, not only to avoid disruption for my constituents in Kent, but to supply the goods that people need in the EU and that we need here. As others have said, although lorries might at times be unpopular—they are certainly unpopular in my patch for often parking up in lay-bys and country lanes—we know very well that the vast majority of our goods, be they food, drink, clothes or building materials, are transported by lorries. We need a flow of lorries between us and the European Union. We know perfectly well that getting this to work is in the interests of the EU as well as in our own. While we hope that we will not need the Bill, it is right that we have it as a precaution to make sure that we do not have the problems that we saw back in 2015 with Operation Stack.
I welcome the Bill and I welcome the Government’s efforts to ensure that we do not have to use Operation Stack again. Opposition Members called that matter into question this evening but, in fact, an enormous amount of work is going on in my constituency to resurface the M20. It is causing some upset, because of the diversions during the night. Lorries are driving through villages such as Bearsted, where they should not be going, and keeping people awake, but at least the work is being done. We know that the hard shoulder will shortly be strengthened so that it can be used in the event that lorries need to park up. I sincerely hope that these Operation Stack measures will not be needed, that the permit scheme will not be needed, and that we will have frictionless trade and free flowing traffic across our borders. None the less, I welcome the fact that the Government are rightly taking the precaution of putting in place these measures just in case they are needed.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will not detain the House for long this evening. I welcome the precautionary measures and the purpose behind this Bill. The logistics, storage and distribution industry is a very important component part of the East Anglian economy, with the container business going through Felixstowe and agricultural foodstuffs going through smaller ports such as Lowestoft in my constituency.
I just wish to home in for a few minutes on a particular business in my constituency. Transam Trucking is very much a specialist in storage and distribution, with an important focus on Europe. It was formed in 1976 and is, in effect, a company of roadies. It provides specialist haulage services to the music industry and it takes bands and acts on tours all around Britain and Europe, particularly during the summer months. It has built up a significant business over its 40 years. Its client list is pretty impressive. It includes: Roger Waters, Bryan Adams, Iron Maiden, Guns N’Roses, Judas Priest, the Rolling Stones, Ozzy Osborne, Ringo Starr, Gary Barlow, Katy Perry, Billy Joel, and, bringing us up to date, Taylor Swift.
The company has built up this particularly strong business. What concerns it is a particular directive that came out from the EU in January from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, setting out the requirements for its business post Brexit. It is particularly concerned about the requirement for road transport operators to hold a certificate of professional competence, which must be issued by an EU state. The current certificate, which may be issued by Britain, will no longer continue. Likewise, driver attestation must be provided by the remaining EU states. Furthermore, after 29 March, a driving licence issued by the UK will no longer be valid. There is also a requirement that it must have an established base on the continent. We have also heard the issues related to Community licences, and the questions over whether they will still be valid.
Clearly, there is uncertainty hanging over the industry. It is important to bear in mind that this company is now beginning to take bookings for next year—post March 2019—and a number of clients are questioning whether it will be able to continue to provide the services that it has provided for the past 40 years. In particular, I am told that the Germans are casting very envious eyes on what is a great British industry. Can the Minister clarify whether the concerns of businesses such as Transam Trucking have been taken into account in this Bill? If not, can he provide other assurances to ensure that those concerns are allayed?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had an essential debate this evening on a Bill that we really should not have any necessity to debate. Although the title of the Bill sounds somewhat niche, the Government’s complete failure to secure trading arrangements with the EU means that the haulage industry could come to a complete standstill without this Bill. For that reason, we will not stand in the way of its progress to Committee this evening.
The haulage industry contributes £13.1 billion to gross value added, with 3.7 million tonnes exported and 4 million tonnes imported each year. It employs 319,000 HGV drivers. Although it is 45,000 drivers short, and the settled status is also creating uncertainty for EU nationals, Parliament must, without doubt, understand the importance of this sector to both the economy and jobs, especially with all the other uncertainties in the industry over Brexit, such as driver hours, custom borders and many of the issues that we have heard about this evening.
Negotiations should have established that the UK would be part of the Community licence scheme, along with all other EU countries, European economic area countries and others. This would enable the continuation of the free flow of goods to service our economy, and that is Labour’s position. However, even that most basic provision has caused much division on the Government Benches.
Today, the Government have tried to brush over this Bill as a “just in case” measure. The reality is that a no deal scenario, or even a “frictionless as possible” deal, and all things in between, highlight what a complete and utter nightmare our borders will prove to be without Community licensing or a customs union.
Currently the UK has permit-based agreements with Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, the Russian Federation, Tunisia and Ukraine and liberal agreements with Serbia, Albania and Turkey. They are typically managed through the DVLA, which in itself is already overstretched. Similar reciprocal arrangements exist, but now everything is up in the air. Therefore, for a lorry to drive on the continent to a destination, or to drive through another country to reach its destination, or within cabotage rules, the haulier will need documentation to prove that they have permission to be there.
We are debating this legislation when we still have no clarity over what the European negotiators will determine is required in these matters, so it is only a “virtual” Bill on something that the Government have no clue about what will be required. As the Secretary of State said, the Government are still, at this 11th hour, consulting on the content. We may pass legislation here, but without knowing for certain that the EU will accept the UK regime, this Bill could be redundant anyway. It is as if we are passing legislation to guide a negotiation process, such is the weakness of the Government with their chaotic Brexit.
Those of us on the Labour Benches are clear: be part of the Community licensing regime, and remove these completely unnecessary trade barriers and uncertainties. This legislation will give the Government powers to create a permit scheme for UK hauliers to be recognised across the EU. It will establish a trailer registration scheme in line with the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which this Parliament ratified on 28 March 2018, so UK trailers are registered for use on EU roads.
If hauliers are looking for clarity over how these new arrangements will operate and how much it will cost them, I have to tell them that they will have to wait until secondary legislation is laid, except, of course, for the £75.8 million from the Government—or should I say the taxpayer—in set-up costs. That is another Brexit expense. Therefore, this is simply an empty Bill, built on a possible negotiated position, with no clarity over how the scheme will operate, or how much it will cost the operator for needing to go to the EU to save our economy—an emperor’s new clothes Bill.
For those Brexiteers who now feel that they can say, “Well, at least this means that our borders will be secure”, I am afraid to say that this Bill does not automatically stop international road haulage either. But they are right to suspect the worst-case scenario: vehicles stacking up without the right documentation. Research already suggests that two additional minutes spent on checks will result in 10 miles of lorries stacking up. Get this legislation wrong and we will have gridlock at our borders.
I have asked the Minister whether licences could be electronic documents. “No”, was the reply. Can Members believe that we are talking about a new system only issuing paper documents? Even in 2018, drivers will be expected to carry paper documents as they cross borders that could be subject to checks. If a permit is not present, fines could be issued. We therefore need an inspectorate. Where will this be based? How will it operate? I am afraid that that is not clarified in the Bill either. We have to wait for the regulations, but that will be all too late to create any certainty for the industry, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has highlighted with regard to the music industry.
Commercial traders over 750 kg and non-commercial traders over 3.5 tonnes will need to be registered with the DVLA and will be required to carry paper, not electronic documents. We are told that most caravans and horse trailers will be exempt, unless owners opt for the voluntary register, which we have not heard about in today’s debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a powerful case as to why we also need comprehensive safety measures for light trailers. The tragic loss of little Freddie Hussey showed why this Bill must be amended in Committee to bring about greater public safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) further highlighted the impact that tow bar safety would have, not least as 91% of trailers have failed basic safety tests. We need another inspectorate of certificates and trailers in order to ensure compliance as well as administration in the issuing of registration certificates. This means more unknown costs to the industry. Failure to comply could lead to imprisonment and/or a fine.
The noble Lord Tunnicliffe of Bracknell rightly won a vote in the House of Lords on improving safety standards and recording accidents. In Committee we must look at measures such as improvements to exhaust emissions, trailer safety and tyre safety in order to keep the public and drivers safe. He also sought clarity that there would be no restrictions on the number of permits issued—this is so vital for trade to flow—and said that we should not create even more obstacles.
I must seek clarity over the Irish border question with regards to haulage licensing. We are being led to believe that there will be no new restrictions that would limit cross-border road haulage on the island of Ireland. This means that EU to UK haulage and UK to EU haulage will flow without checks. However, when probed on this the Minister said that there could be differentiation across the Irish sea. This is completely unacceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland, and is the central point of the whole customs union argument.
As we understand it, road haulage—for example, originating from Germany—will travel into the Republic of Ireland as it does now, and will be able to continue its journey into Northern Ireland without checks, without borders and with “no new restrictions”. However, it will need a permit if it crosses to England, Wales or Scotland. In effect, are the Government saying with this Bill that they are going to create borders across the Irish sea and therefore cross other red lines? Clarity is needed and has not been provided by the Secretary of State. These important issues need to be resolved, particularly across the whole island of Ireland. This is too important for the Minister just to skim over in his reply, so I trust that he will spell out in detail exactly how these borders will work. Finally on Northern Ireland, the Bill requires a legislative consent motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but we all know that the Assembly is currently not sitting. I would be pleased if the Minister told us how he plans to handle that situation.
The true cost and chaos of Brexit can be judged by this Bill. We will hold the Government to account throughout its passage, while advising that we should remain within current arrangements. There is no reason for the UK to leave the Community licensing scheme, but this is a matter for negotiation—something so simple to establish, but which appears to be too controversial for the Conservative party to unify on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a great pleasure to close the Second Reading debate on this Bill. We have had an extremely engaging and positive debate in many ways. Cardinal Newman has been invoked, very surprisingly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). There has been catharsis. We have had a Scottish National party Member praising the Lords—Allelujah!—and quoting Donald Rumsfeld, which is always an interesting combination.
I have been surprised not to see, during the entire course of the debate, a single Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber. I was surprised because, as I had understood it, they felt very passionately about the issue of Brexit, and of course this is the first Brexit implementation Bill. At the very least I would have expected speeches and interventions, but in fact not one Liberal Democrat Member has bothered to show their face in the Chamber.
As today’s debate has made clear, the Bill is needed to support the continued movement of goods between the UK and Europe. The Secretary of State outlined well in his opening speech that we are committed to maintaining the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. A mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU that secures our objective of frictionless trade is in the interest of both parties. When 85% of trade is carried across the UK border by EU hauliers, we can be certain that EU countries—Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland and the like—have a tremendous interest in the maintenance of frictionless trade. It has also been noted that international conventions support it and the EU’s own negotiating objectives demand it.
Today’s debate has focused on the two parts of the Bill. The first part deals with haulage permits and provides a framework for the UK to manage them, including if they are needed as part of our agreement with the EU. We will also be using the powers in part 1 to bring our existing international agreements into a comprehensive legal framework—a point that the Opposition somehow ignored or missed.
On trailers, the debate focused on the scope of the trailer registration scheme that will be established in regulations under the Bill. The Government need to establish a trailer registration scheme in order to support the UK’s ratification of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. It will ensure that trailer users can register trailers to meet the standards in the convention. We intend to require the registration of commercial trailers over 750 kg and non-commercial trailers over 3.5 tonnes that travel to or through countries that have ratified the convention—it is important to say that. I can give the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) asked for earlier.
Many other countries have similar schemes, and both of those schemes will utilise the expertise of our agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—to deliver the systems needed. We plan to have the systems up and running by the end of the year, and see no reason why that should not be the case. It is true that we will be charging fees, but they will be on a cost-recovery basis to minimise the impact on hauliers. We are well aware of the tight margins in the industry, and we will do all we can to reduce the cost of any scheme. The fees will only recover the day-to-day running costs of administering the systems and will not be intended to generate revenue. The Government will cover the set-up costs of the systems as part of a £75.8 million funding grant from the Treasury to the Department for Transport. I am delighted that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) recognises the distinction between “Government money”, which does not exist, and taxpayers’ money, which is of course the only money that the Government can draw on.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the Minister reassure the Central Registration and Identification Scheme, otherwise known as CRiS—a key local employer in Chippenham—that the Bill will not alter the voluntary registration of UK caravans?
Jesse Norman
I recognise the quality of that scheme, and I have spoken personally to the National Caravan Council to discuss it. My hon. Friend will be aware that the vast majority of caravans will not be within the scope of the new scheme as we are currently defining it. Indeed, the DVLA scheme will not concern security, which is the principal purpose of the CRiS regime. We have no intention to replace CRiS, so I do not see that it needs to have any concerns or fears on that account.
I can confirm that the Bill will not have an impact on border arrangements and that there will be no new transport-related checks at our borders. That is perfectly plain. Separately, my Department is working closely with the Department for Exiting the European Union and with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as part of the cross-Government borders working group to manage any impacts there may be on borders after we leave the EU.
Stakeholders have welcomed the Bill and recognised the need for it. As has been noted, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association have given it their support. The Road Haulage Association has said that it “wholeheartedly supports” it and that it is “the right thing” for the Government to be preparing measures for all scenarios. The Freight Transport Association has welcomed the Government’s objective in ensuring that no limits are set on the number of goods vehicles going between the EU and the UK. The Bill provides a framework that should reassure hauliers that the final Brexit deal agreed with the European Union will be smoothly implemented.
With that in mind, let me move swiftly on to some of the many excellent points raised during the debate. As ever, the informed questions, challenges and arguments that we heard are welcome in helping us to strengthen the Bill, and I greatly appreciate the broad support shown for the ambition and energy behind it.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) asked whether the Bill would deter investment. I simply draw his attention to the fact that, as the Secretary of State said, Vauxhall, Toyota and UPS have recently made investments in the haulage and car industries, while Apple, Facebook and many other international businesses continue to invest in this country. He mentioned concerns, also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), about the impact on the music industry. We will look specifically at that issue in more detail, and I am sure I can provide some reassurance on that front. I have mentioned the support that we have already received from the RHA and FTA.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) for sharing his expertise and for the wisdom he brought to his speech. He made a good point about the importance of the Bill in providing protection against over-zealous enforcement—a point that others did not pick up on—and the extent to which it therefore gives reassurance to people who may already be vulnerable. He asked whether plates could be fitted that could be read by ANPR. That will be part of our wider considerations. We will also consult on the display of plates in order to address the other matter that he raised. That will require tweaking or elaboration within new IT systems, but that is well within the scope and capability of the DVSA and the DVLA.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings made a worryingly restrained speech in which he chastised himself for his excessive humility in recognising his own perspicacity and imagination. I am delighted that he was able to correct that on the record in the House, and I thank him for his unwonted brevity in doing so. He made an important point about the recruitment and retention of new drivers and apprentices within the industry. I am sure that he shares my view that the Road to Logistics initiative offered by the RHA potentially offers an important and interesting route forward for the Government in future.
The most important speech of the evening, if I may say so, was made by the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). I absolutely salute her work on trailer safety. She has built a reputation across the House for the careful, intelligent and dedicated way in which she has pursued the issue. It was an honour for me to be able to visit her constituency and spend time at the trailer safety summit that she recently organised, and also, of course, to meet Donna and Scott Hussey, the parents of Freddie Hussey, to talk about the experience they have had and measures that we can take to address the issue. We have agreed to report on it within a year of the regulations coming into effect.
As the hon. Lady will know, we have also agreed to consider a recommendation on whether to extend registration. I think it is fair to say that, as she pointed out, the Government currently have quite extensive data through agencies. It is not necessarily, in some cases, the right data to solve the issues that she described, but it is good data. It is also fair to note that, as other colleagues have mentioned, some trailers are used very infrequently, and that extending the scope of the scheme to mandatory registration would potentially include well over 1 million more trailers. We have therefore so far taken the view that given the administrative burdens and other issues that would be involved, a proportionate approach needs to be taken. However, I do not in any sense rule out the proposal that she makes. It is important for us to proceed slowly and carefully and to understand the issues in more detail as we do so.
Karin Smyth
I thank the Minister for his comments. I know that he knows that I will pursue the trailer safety regime with great vigour. I hope that many hon. Members will support me in that work in the coming months and years.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that reassurance, but I do not think it was required by anyone in the House who has seen her at work.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an important speech in support of the Bill. He asked why we think the agreement will be doable. The answer is simple: because the interests of both parties are well aligned. I cannot comment on the views that will be held in the Irish Republic. This Bill addresses UK hauliers. I can say, however, that the Bill will not result in any impediment to trade between the two sides. We see no reason for concern on that front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) mentioned the 1968 Vienna convention. We are now a signatory to that. However, like many other contracting parties, we do not take the view that the testing and use of autonomous vehicles is in conflict with either the ’68 convention or the ’49 convention. Nevertheless, it is an important question and I thank him for raising it.
We have heard contributions relating to Operation Stack, on which we will be publishing a response shortly.
Alan Brown
Going back to the Northern Ireland border issue, surely it is incumbent on the UK Government to seek the views of the Irish Government to see how this is going to work instead of continually saying, “We can’t speak for the Irish Government—we don’t know what they’re thinking.” It is incumbent on them to find that out.
Jesse Norman
My officials are of course in regular contact with officials in Ireland and discuss these issues at length, so it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is no interaction between the two parties.
Let me conclude by mentioning the comments of the shadow Ministers. I have to say that the Labour position is very strange. Their strategy seems to be to cloud the issue and scare people as much as possible, and then criticise the Government in calling for clarity. They complain that everything is up in the air but then criticise a Bill whose specific purpose is to act as a sensible, belt-and-braces, common-sense backstop.
We do not think that this Bill is anything other than a thoroughly sensible move. It will ensure that the road haulage industry can continue to prosper as we leave the European Union. As part of our EU legislation programme, the Bill prepares us for a range of scenarios. It will ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations and be ready for what happens when we leave the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 June.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State;
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 22nd May 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2018 - (22 May 2018)
The Chair
Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish; it is very hot. Will everyone ensure that their electronic devices are turned off or at least switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room. We will consider first the programme motion on the amendment paper and then a motion to enable reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the limited time available, I hope that we can deal with those matters without too much debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 22 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 June;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 22; the Schedule; Clauses 23 to 26; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 5 June.—(Jesse Norman.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jesse Norman.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. The selection list for today’s sitting is also available in the room. Unusually, I have selected for debate some starred amendments in the name of Rachael Maskell. As those are proposed amendments to new clause 1, which was tabled only on Thursday, there was not time to table them before today’s sitting with the usual amount of notice. It is not normally my practice to select starred amendments, but the circumstances in this case have led me to do so. It is for the convenience of the Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Davies. Could the Minister comment on why this measure is going through at such a pace? That has led to a lot of compromises, with the Opposition Front Benchers having to table at very late notice, and this is such an important issue. Why is the measure being presented so fast before the Committee?
The Chair
That is a legitimate question, but I think that it will come up in the course of debate, and it is for the Minister, not for me as Chair, to respond. Because the measure has come up quickly, I have allowed amendments to go forward without notice, but the point has been made and I am sure that it will be addressed in the course of debate. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.
Clause 1
International road transport permits
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the nature of the regulations proposed to be made under this section and an assessment of the impact of those regulations on the road haulage industry.
(3B) The Secretary of State shall make no regulation under this section during a period of no less than six months from the date of his laying before Parliament the report required in subsection (3A).’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report outlining the nature of the proposed regulations and assess its impact on the road haulage industry, at least six months before the regulations are made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3— Report on negotiations for a relevant international agreement—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress made on any negotiations to secure a relevant international agreement.
(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and within the period of each six months thereafter.
(3) In this section “relevant international agreement” has the same meaning as in section 1(4).’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to outline the progress made in the negotiations to secure a relevant international agreement.
Alan Brown
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will not be too long; I just want to make some brief comments. Amendment 12 and new clause 3 both call for the Government to submit reports. When the Bill was going through the House of Lords, the Government did, surprisingly, agree to report on accidents, and I thought that as the Government had now shown a willingness to do reporting, I would try their patience and see whether we could put additional reporting requirements into the Bill.
Overall, this is enabling legislation, which will allow the Government to bring forward regulations—secondary legislation—so we still do not know what the end outcome will be with regard to the Bill and subsequent regulations. On Second Reading, I concluded that the Government were saying, “We don’t know whether part 1 of the Bill will be required. We don’t know, if it is required, what the secondary legislation will look like. We don’t know what the fees will be. We don’t know what the application process will be and whether there will be limits on the permits available.”
Amendment 12 is therefore designed to firm up on that. We want the Government, as they develop the regulations, to submit a report outlining what the impact of the regulations will be, how they will apply to the haulage industry and what they mean for it. That is very important. The haulage industry as a whole is looking for continuity of the arrangements that are in place now—the community licence system—but if for some reason the Government cannot get a suitable agreement with their European counterparts, that might lead to a number of bilateral arrangements; it might lead to a whole scenario of additional requirements for permits. That could have an impact in terms of cost and time. We want to know what it means for the haulage industry, so we want the Government to set out clearly, once they know what the regulations look like, what the impact will be on the haulage industry. I think that is a fair ask of the Minister.
I am sure that the Government will not entertain new clause 3 because it asks for updates on the international negotiation process. We know that the Government like to play their cards close to their chest. We keep hearing how no one enters negotiations saying clearly what they want, and that they should play it close to their chest and keep negotiating effectively in a closed room. But that is not good enough. We want transparency. I think it is fair to ask the Government to come back and report on how the negotiations are progressing and what that means.
The other day, the Secretary of State for Transport commented that trade unions never state what their asks are before entering into negotiations, but I would argue differently: trade unions often do set out exactly what they are looking for. There is nothing wrong in stating what is being sought in negotiations and then advising and updating Parliament on how the negotiations are going, so I am interested in what the Minister has to say about the additional reporting requirements.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Labour Members believe that the Bill is important legislation, because it signifies many important aspects of the final agreement that is reached with the EU and the wider international community. Without it, and should negotiations result in no deal being struck, haulage movements and therefore our economy would seriously be damaged. Haulage is a servant of our economy, and getting this right is vital for its future. That is why we support the Bill and want to participate in the debate to improve it, should it ever be required. In fact, we argue that on some aspects of the Bill, regulations should be laid before the House come what may, as the Bill makes provision for improving and monitoring trailer safety. I thank the Minister for his part in this and, not least, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South.
I first turn my attention to new clause 3, which is immensely sensible in so far as it is right to highlight the intrinsic link between the Bill and the continuing international trade negotiations with both the EU and the wider international community. Smooth passage over our borders is essential for the haulage industry’s survival, and more so for the business that haulage serves.
Labour Members believe that we should remain in the community licence scheme. The scheme currently enables goods to move frictionlessly over national borders with the EU, and I would find it incredibly helpful if the Minister could state whether it is his ambition to remain within it. I appreciate that that is subject to a negotiation process but, as the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, has said, an indication of intention would not only help us to progress through the Committee sitting today, but inform those to whom the Bill would apply.
Understanding the intent of, and the progress being made in, this area of the deal could also assist in the planning of regulations associated with the Bill, which will need to be laid before the House before the UK leaves the EU, in the light of the timescales before us. Clearly there needs to be transparency, which is something the new clause brings about. We need to understand what happens after a community licence arrangement, or its equivalent, depending on where negotiations end up.
The Bill is a framework Bill and is subject to further regulations, and we appreciate that there could well be reciprocal arrangements, for instance with the EU as a partner on the continent. That, too, could assist, or have consequences for, the UK’s import and export markets.
The second part of the new clause focuses on the time by which reports must be laid in association with the Bill. Time is not on our side, and in the light of the fact that regulations need to be drafted after the Bill has completed its parliamentary process, it is right that we seek the shortest possible timeline for the preparation of the report to be presented. That will then inform any necessary regulations.
Labour is therefore fully supportive of new clause 3, and we trust that it will help with the process of smooth transition to an agreement that will assist the haulage industry.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I rise to speak briefly in favour of the new clause.
The Government are on a high wire here. The process of negotiating ongoing community licence membership on its own would be a difficult piece of work. Similarly, designing our own system on its own would be a difficult piece of work. To do those things at the same time is exceptionally difficult, so what we are considering today is very important. We saw on Second Reading, and I expect we will see over the forthcoming days, a great deal of consensus, support and understanding about the difficulty of the task. Relatively recently, I was involved in a similar Bill Committee about nuclear safeguards; that was very much the spirit in which we had those conversations.
This is enabling legislation—my hon. Friend the Member for York Central characterised it as a framework Bill. That is right and proper given the circumstances. We know that the Government need to have that latitude, given the fluid nature of the negotiations, and whatever arrangements may need to be filled in over time. However, we, as the legislature, need to secure some support and some structure to ensure that we insulate from Executive overreach. We understand that the Government need flexibility but, over time, as things develop, and as the Government know more and conversations start to have more detail, we ought to know a little more about what the nature of the scheme is likely to be, about the regulations on permits, and about what developments occur. I do not think that that is much to ask. The irony is that I dare say the vast majority of us on the Committee do not want the legislation to pass; that is a strange situation. It is important for us to have confidence in the process, so I hope that the new clause might be accepted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted to rise to speak on the amendment and the new clause. I will start by making a few outline comments about the nature of the Bill, and then I will come to the points that have been raised, including the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham.
Let me start by explaining clause 1 in slightly more detail. The clause does not make it an automatic requirement to carry a permit. Regulations made using the clause will only require permits where our international agreements mandate it, and they will exempt specific types of journey as covered in international agreements. Regulations made under this part of the Bill will set up a framework, as has been acknowledged by Opposition Members, for a permit scheme that will then apply to any permanent agreements we reach with the EU, as well as to our existing and future agreements with non-EU countries and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport permit scheme. The effect of that is that regulations will be made under clauses 1 to 3 irrespective of what arrangements we make with the EU; the difference will be in the scope of those regulations.
We stated during proceedings on the Bill in the other place that we intend to have a permit system in place and up and running by the end of the year. That will deliver our existing permit arrangements and give businesses the certainty that we can deliver on whatever arrangements are put in place for haulage after we have left the EU. Any delay in putting that system in place will cause more uncertainty and therefore additional cost to the industry.
We will introduce regulations shortly after Royal Assent so that the system can be up and running. A requirement to lay a report and wait a further six months before laying regulations before the House would prevent us from putting in place our planned systems to support hauliers in preparing for Brexit. Hon. Members will be aware that the consultation on the Bill was launched just last week, on 16 May. That consultation is part of the UK’s preparation for its future relationship with the EU.
Our overall aim in negotiations is to maintain and develop the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. The hon. Member for York Central asked whether it was my ambition to stay in the licensing scheme, to which the response is that our ambition is to maintain and develop the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage, as we have said.
The future deal with the EU could, however, require a form of permitting system. The Bill will allow the Government to deliver an administrative system as part of the final deal. We are consulting on how permits will be allocated and what information the hauliers will be able to provide. We want to the system to be as practical and user-friendly for hauliers as possible and we will use the consultation responses to make sure that it is.
Should there be a limit on the number of permits available for haulage travel to EU member states, we want to make sure that the permit system does not adversely affect small operators, and we are confident that our proposed system will not do so. We hope that large and small operators will respond to the consultation so that we have a good understanding of the effect of the permit scheme on different sizes of business.
Alan Brown
The Minister stated that he aims to move quite quickly to introduce the regulations that form the secondary part of the Bill. Can he outline how quickly these regulations will be brought forward and how they will compare with the consultation that is ongoing at the moment? We still have the negotiations to come, so it is not clear how quickly regulations can be introduced and what they will look like, because they really will have to cover myriad options.
Jesse Norman
As I have said, the purpose of the Bill is to put in place a framework of permits, which will continue irrespective of any specific outcome with the EU. We aim to put it in place by the end of the year. We are moving with a certain amount of speed, but in no sense hastily. We have already had widespread consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. There has been quite a high degree of cross-party support, and I was pleased that the Labour Party and the SNP did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We have been happy to take late-tabled Opposition amendments to respect the desire to get everything in place.
That goes to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham: there is no sense of undue haste, but we seek to put the framework in place. That means that regulations will need to be laid later this year, following the consultation that is in progress. This is a careful process of putting in place regulations that we will be able to use for the longer term.
The consultation includes draft regulations so that respondents can see what we propose. In addition, we have provided policy scoping documents that outline how we intend to operate a permit scheme, and they are available in the House Library. Those documents and the response to the consultation will set out the details of what the regulations laid before the House will achieve, and what their impact will be. A further report on what future regulations will cover would provide no further benefit to Members.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will welcome the fact that in the other place, the Government added clause 9 to the Bill to honour an undertaking given by my noble colleague, Baroness Sugg. The clause will provide Parliament with a report for any relevant year on the impacts of a limited permit arrangement with the EU, should that be the outcome.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the spirit in which he is approaching the Bill. I am grateful for the new clauses that have been introduced—he is clearly listening. However, I find it odd that we are doing all this before the consultation is closed. If the responses to the consultation show that there is real opposition to some of the things that we are now putting in the Bill, what provisions has he made to deal with that? What opportunity do we have to get the best regulations and legislation?
Jesse Norman
This is a framework Bill, and the consultation is on detailed aspects of the regulations—in particular, the criteria for granting permits. The consultation will inform the structuring and shaping of the regulations as they are introduced. We do not anticipate that any aspect of the consultation will remove the desire, which is widely shared across the industry, for more clarity and certainty and for a unified framework, which is what the Bill is intended to generate.
The first set of regulations under part 1 of the Bill will set up a framework for a permit scheme. Parliament will be able to debate that, following the amendment we made to clause 23 in the other place. The Government recognise that we are still developing a policy, and it is only right that those regulations should be the subject of debate in both Houses.
I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. It would be neither practical nor desirable to ensure that no regulations were made until six months from the date on which such a report was laid before Parliament. I note the comment from the hon. Member for York Central that the Bill should be put on to the statute book in the shortest possible time. She is right about that; it should be done without haste, with cross-party agreement and in a measured way. Therefore, we should not be delayed by a further six months, which would be the implication of that change.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the new clause fails to recognise the very nature of negotiations? There is often a logjam, and then agreement comes about at some point. A report produced within that timescale may not be of much use to people who want to follow the commentary about what is going on.
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, this legislation is designed to survive, as it were, whatever the outcome, which may be one of many different kinds. We confidently expect a liberalised access arrangement, as he knows, but it is wise to be prepared. For that reason, this is a belt-and-braces piece of legislation, but we cannot delay it further if we want to get it on to the statute book. Both parties recognise the importance of doing so.
If we secured a liberal agreement between the UK and the EU as part of a future relationship, as we expect to do, we would not be able to put the regulations in place until we had reported on the impacts, which would be minimal in this case. We would then have to wait a further six months until we could make the regulations, subject to parliamentary timescales. As a consequence of this requirement, a huge cost would be imposed on hauliers and they would not be able to take account of a deal that gave them the required access. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun intends to impose those costs on UK hauliers, including on Scottish hauliers.
Delaying the making of the regulations would delay the implementation of the agreements, and that would have a huge detrimental impact on hauliers and on our freight trade. Any delay in implementing agreements might mean that hauliers could not access and use the correct permit for their journey, which would affect their ability to take on contracts. The Bill and subsequent powers will also cover our existing non-EU-based agreements, and the amendment would encompass those agreements. If we were to strike new agreements with non-EU countries, the amendment would require us to report on them and postpone the issuing of any of those permits for six months after the report.
I hope that explanation provides the hon. Gentleman with clarity about how we propose to ensure that the regulations made under the Bill are subject to appropriate scrutiny. We will report on the effects on the UK haulage industry of any EU-related permit scheme, should there be one, where there is a limit on the number of permits available for hauliers travelling to EU member states. In that spirit, I hope he feels that he can withdraw the amendment.
New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to report every six months, beginning three months after the Bill comes into force, on progress in negotiations to secure international agreements on the transport of goods by road to, in or through other countries. The requirement is extremely broad; it covers any relevant agreement with any other country or organisation, at any stage in the negotiations. It would catch the smallest technical amendment to an existing agreement, and it could introduce a requirement to report on negotiations when they are at a particularly delicate point and when we are unable to report the substance of our negotiating position—along the lines hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby.
The danger is that reports made under the new clause could be a mixture of the bland and the trivial. The approach of regularly setting out in public the detail of our negotiating lines, tactics and prospects of success appears to be an almost certain way to undermine our negotiation and the prospect of securing a good deal for road transport users—something that we very much believe is in prospect.
I hope that I have been clear about the Government’s objective throughout. We want and actively expect to maintain the existing liberalised access for UK hauliers. A mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU will support the objective of frictionless trade. We are confident that our future relationship with the EU on road freight, as part of a wider continuing relationship on trade, will be in both sides’ mutual interest. While we are negotiating with the EU, however, it is not helpful to provide Parliament with speculation about the prospects for success in the negotiations.
The reporting requirement is also perverse in its effects. It would cover any agreement that includes permits—that is the effect of tying the definition of “relevant international agreements” to that in clause 1(4)—but not liberal agreements that do not involve permits, such as our current agreements with Albania and Turkey. Reports under the proposed new clause would not provide Parliament with a useful overall picture of the state of the Government’s work to help the UK haulage industry operate internationally.
The Government have been clear throughout proceedings on the Bill that it is not intended in any way to pre-empt the nature of the agreement between the UK and the EU and the future relationship, and it is not a suitable vehicle for such amendments. When the Bill was in the other place, noble Lords tabled amendments that would have required the Government to report on how the permits regime would affect the efficiency of haulage and their expectations for future arrangements between the EU and the UK. In response to those amendments the Government introduced clause 9, which focuses on the scheme’s actual impact on the haulage industry. By contrast, new clause 3 would require reports on the progress of negotiations on prospective agreements.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun noted on Second Reading:
“when I try to get amendments through in Committee that require the Government to report on future implementation, they always vote them down”.—[Official Report, 14 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 70.]
I am sorry to disappoint him today, but I do not believe that his amendment will provide Parliament with useful information. For that reason, I hope he will withdraw it.
Alan Brown
I have listened to the Minster’s arguments on amendment 12, which he thinks would be burdensome. I understand some of the logic. Equally, I still think there is merit in getting the Government to report on what the regulations would look like and their impact. However, I have listened to the Minister and I am happy to withdraw the amendment, although I am still concerned about how the regulations will align with the end agreement, and how Parliament understands that. New clause 3 reflects the importance of parliamentarians and industry understanding how the negotiations are going. The Minister said that the report would pick up bland things and small technical issues, but there is nothing wrong with reporting small technical issues. That would result in a very small report that would not need too much debate or scrutiny in Parliament.
We heard the classic excuse that the negotiations might be sensitive. If they are too sensitive, that can be reported, but it would still be good for Parliament to be kept updated on the negotiations. Given that the Government are willing to incorporate clause 9—on the future impact of the regulations—it seems logical that there is merit in reporting on how negotiations are going, because that will have the biggest impact on what the permit system looks like and the outcome for the road haulage network.
Having said that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
It might be helpful if I mention at the outset that the Committee may debate the provisions of each clause during a stand part debate, even if no amendments have been tabled to that clause. As we proceed it will be helpful if Members who wish to debate any clause in any stand part debate could indicate that clearly to the Chair, either privately in advance or when we reach the relevant clause.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate being called to speak to clause 1, Mr Davies. I seek clarity on how the Minister thinks the haulage permit system will work.
Haulage is part of the EU community licensing scheme, as we have already heard. I am disappointed that the Minister’s ambition is not to remain within the scheme, because we know not only that it is incredibly successful, but that it means there is smooth, frictionless movement of goods over our borders. The EU recognition of the licences means that lorries, for example, can pass smoothly from one nation to the next. Without permits being issued, lorries will not be able to cross borders after we leave the EU.
I want to express my concerns by talking through various scenarios, and I trust the Minister will be able to answer. I want to take the example of a lorry that originates in Spain and travels to the Republic of Ireland. It would not be required to have a specific permit, as it is still within the EU. If, however, the lorry then heads north and travels to Northern Ireland, it will have passed from the EU jurisdiction to that of the UK. Here the lorry would fall under this Bill and would need to carry permit documentation to prove that it was eligible to be in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be permit checks at this border or in Northern Ireland? Would the lorry even need a separate permit to be in Northern Ireland? Given that the Government have said there will be no hard border within the island of Ireland, that suggests that no permit is required. Or is it? I am seeking clarity from the Minister.
Mr Goodwill
Is it not the case that that truck would already have to pay the HGV levy to travel on the roads of Northern Ireland? Therefore the UK authorities would already have be notified, namely through that charge of £10 a day.
Rachael Maskell
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important point that we are talking about the permit and the ability to move north and south across Ireland, which will be different if we are not within the community licensing scheme. Will the Minister clarify what the position would be if another vehicle is travelling from its origin in the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland—would permits be required for that too? If permits are needed in either of those examples, that would create a border within the island of Ireland.
Let me carry on with my first example. If the lorry from Spain were to cross from Northern Ireland into England, Scotland or Wales, or within the UK, could it do that without a permit? My reading is that it would not. Secondly, if a lorry were to begin its journey in the Republic of Ireland and take the same route north, then across the Irish sea, would it require a permit? I seek clarity on both scenarios.
Will the Minister provide further clarity? My lorry begins its journey in Spain. If it skips Northern Ireland and goes straight to the Republic of Ireland, it would not need a permit; but if it were to travel east, without going to Northern Ireland, would it need a permit, and if so, would that not create a border across the Irish sea? That might sound quite detailed, but it is fundamental to the understanding of the Bill and, for example, the number of permits to be issued, and is therefore informative to today’s discussion.
We need to understand how permits will be issued according to each jurisdiction. With something as important as this, the Minister needs to understand that the industry is already very nervous. The lack of detail on these important issues, which also of course carry a cost implication, is already forcing business decisions that are not in the best interests of the wider economy. Clarity would bring confidence. I hope that this morning the Minister will end the confusion about how these permits will work across these borders.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. She raises several issues, which I am happy to address. The first relates to the different scenarios that hauliers would be operating under and the second to the nature of documentation and, potentially, electronic documentation or its equivalent. There is some lack of clarity that it is important to dispel here—I am not sure whether it exists in the industry. Let us be clear: this is a Bill that applies to UK hauliers. A foreign haulier with a vehicle coming into the UK will be bound by other legislation linked to foreign hauliers, but they will not be affected by the Bill. The effect of that is that in the first scenario the hon. Lady describes, a UK haulier with a load that starts in Spain and goes into the Republic of Ireland and then into Northern Ireland would require a permit if there were an agreement between the two sides—Ireland and the UK. However, there is no such agreement.
The clause provides an enabling power because current and future international agreements are all different and we need flexibility to require permits only when international agreements so require. It allows for different exceptions. In the case of the island of Ireland, permits would be required for journeys only if there were an agreement between the UK and Irish Governments to have them. It has already been made clear that no permit regime or hard border on the island of Ireland will be created by this Bill. The issue will, therefore, not arise. If they are coming into the UK under a permit scheme from a foreign haulier, that will not apply in the same way.
Rachael Maskell
Is the Minister saying that hauliers in the Republic of Ireland who will then be bringing their load to England, Scotland and Wales will need to carry a permit?
Jesse Norman
If there were a permit scheme in place between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, then a permit would need to be carried. If not, then it would not. There is no such permit scheme in place.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the Minister’s response, which clearly shows that there could be a creation of borders that are built. Would he therefore explain how permits will be inspected? That seems to be fundamental for haulage flow and traffic flow.
Jesse Norman
I am not quite sure why there is a lack of clarity. Borders are not the same thing as permits. At the moment we have frictionless trade with the EU, and we have mechanisms for inspecting lorries through the DVSA which are nowhere near the border, and have no impact at all on the flow of traffic or freight across borders. There should be no reason in principle why this should be different.
Rachael Maskell
I will ask again: will the Minister say how that inspection is different? This is about having a right to move haulage across the borders, and therefore it is about understanding how that inspection will take place. It is a different form of inspection to the one referred to by the Minister.
Jesse Norman
It really is not. The hon. Lady might not be clear, so let me say this again. At the moment there will be no transport checks at borders, and we have been perfectly clear about that. This does not change that at all; on the contrary. I could not be clearer. There are going to be no transport checks at borders. Under current arrangements, the community licence is a paper document that hauliers are required to carry in their vehicles and to show to inspectors on request. If we were to move to a paper copy permits arrangement as described, nothing would fundamentally change in that process. There are benefits to digital documents, and we do not disagree with that. The Bill allows scope for a shift to digital documentation in the future. Clause 1 states that the
“permit can be in any form the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
but the system put in place is a pragmatic solution that fully follows the current lines of the community licence regime, and should raise no further questions in people’s minds.
Karin Smyth
Just to be clear in my mind about what is being said, is it that the current arrangements across the UK and Republic of Ireland remain intact under the assumption that the Republic of Ireland Government will make no changes, and that that is permissible under the agreement with the EU. That is the assumption on which the Government are resting. The issue becomes pertinent if, in the negotiations, the EU makes a different agreement with the Republic of Ireland for the transportation of goods across the island of Ireland. Is that correct?
Jesse Norman
We have no permit schemes in place because we have liberalised transport with the Republic of Ireland. If a permanent scheme were to be put in place as a result of further negotiations or discussions with the EU, we would expect it to be of a liberalised, frictionless kind. Were it not to be of a frictionless kind—and even if it were—there would then be a requirement for some form of permit in paper form carried within a truck with a load from a UK haulier doing business to and from the Republic of Ireland. This would not affect the border arrangements in any way, in the same way that the inspection of current and community documentation does not affect border arrangements at present.
Alan Brown
The Minister stated clearly that there would be no transport checks affecting how things are operating at the moment. If there are no transport checks, how will the UK Government get back control of the border in terms of people and goods, which is supposedly the whole advantage of leaving the EU?
Jesse Norman
What we have said that there will be no transport checks at borders. We do check transport. I have been out on patrol with the DVSA, and a very effective job it does too of pulling over truckers and checking whether their documentation is in order on a whole variety of different grounds, including compliance with the community licence. That is the difference, and that is the distinction we wish to draw and that it is important to make.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Number and allocation of permits etc
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “criteria”, insert
“, including compliance with emissions standards,”.
This amendment would explicitly include compliance with emissions standards as a criterion the Secretary of State may use in determining whether to grant an application for a permit.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 38, leave out from “or” to the end of line 40.
This amendment would remove reference to first come first serve or an element of random selection as methods for granting an application for a permit.
Government amendment 1.
Rachael Maskell
The amendments stand in my name. I shall first speak to amendment 7 and then to the amendment about emissions.
This part of the Bill highlights a number of different ways in which the permits will be allocated. How the permit is allocated will impact on our economy. The wording of the clause suggests a restricted number of permits, but it is unclear how such a restriction will be devised. How will the Minister and his Department determine the number of permits needed?
Journey numbers can be assessed and trends extrapolated post-Brexit, but the norms of yesterday may differ very much from the new reality in which we shall be living. Will there be a set number of permits, or will the numbers fluctuate in response to demand, such as by removing a cap on the number of permits? Clarity would be most helpful. If only a fixed number of permits are allocated, we need to understand how they will be scheduled throughout the year, so that that there is no feast and famine to the initiative. Surely a flexible approach would be the most sensible way to manage it so as to ensure that the UK economy is unrestricted in the number of journeys required by logistics companies.
We are deeply concerned by the suggestion that permits will be issued on a first come, first served basis, or randomly, because that suggests that there are no strategic objectives or any prioritisation of imports and exports. To drive forward the UK’s economy in a planned and measured way, there must be a planned and measured approach to how permits are allocated to build synergy with economic priorities. For example, if the car industry were unclear about whether it would receive the permits it required for its goods to cross the channel a number of times, such uncertainty would result in companies being more likely to disinvest in the UK.
The Labour party does not believe that we should restrict the number of permits as suggested in the Bill. That would be against the interests of the UK economy. We therefore believe that it would be helpful to remove the existing wording in brackets in clause 2(1)(c) in order to remove the suggestion that the process is random or conducted on a first come, first served basis. Just because people are there early, at the front of the queue, does not mean that they should have the most important place in our economic planning.
Turning to emissions, Labour believes that the way in which permits are issued could result in social engineering. There is no greater example than that of fuel emissions from vehicles. The UK has an air quality crisis that is causing the premature death of 50,000 people in our nation every single year. By tightening up on the environmental issues, the Bill gives us the opportunity to bring real environmental change through how permits are issued in future by using levers to force change in behaviour. On Euro 5 and Euro 6 emissions standards, the way in which permits are issued could help with focusing on behavioural change, which would be a far more welcome approach than that suggested by the Bill. Should the amendment be agreed, the Minister’s focus would be on improving, in a meaningful way, the UK’s abysmal record on air quality, which would bring real health benefits to our nation.
Mr Goodwill
I shall speak against the amendment because it seems to me that it would have the opposite effect to that described by the hon. Lady. If she is saying that UK trucks do not comply with emissions standards, I have to tell her that despite everything we have read about some diesel cars not complying, trucks have a very good record of complying, not least because the analytical equipment that exposed Volkswagen has for a long time been able to be carried on the back of a truck. Most trucks therefore comply with 90% or more of the actual emissions standards they are meant to meet.
Rachael Maskell
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the UK will not be subject to those EU jurisdictions on leaving the EU? The mechanism will be negotiated and it will relate to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, wherever that gets to. Perhaps those standards will not apply in the UK.
Mr Goodwill
The Minister has made it clear that leaving the European Union will not be an excuse to undermine the tough environmental standards that are in place. Indeed, the majority of trucks used on British roads are produced to European standards. There is no suggestion whatever that the Volvos, Scanias and MANs of this world will produce a down and dirty truck just for the UK market. UK trucks have a good record. Indeed, unlike cars, truck engines operate at optimum temperatures and optimum loads and therefore are likely to perform particularly well. I pay tribute to the engineers who have delivered those fantastic systems introduced in Euro 6 and in Euro 5 before that.
The point I am making is about the hon. Lady’s wish to impose a tougher standard on a truck allocated a permit. Reading between the lines, I got the impression she would say, “We will only give a permit to Euro 6 trucks”, but that would result in a similar situation to that in which London taxis found themselves, whereby a higher emissions standard was forced on taxi operators in London and the older taxis went to operate on the streets of Manchester. If she is saying that only newer Euro 6 trucks would qualify for a permit, we would find the better performing trucks being used on continental runs, leaving the dirtier, older trucks operating on British roads. By allocating permits to cleaner trucks, she would have the opposite effect to that which she hopes to achieve.
Rachael Maskell
I am certainly not saying that; what I am saying is that this is a real opportunity. Given that we do not have certainty over future environmental protections—as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested—because that legislation is not enshrined in UK law, there is a real risk of dirty lorries on our roads. Obviously, we want to prevent such a scenario. Given the complete failure on measures to improve air quality in our country, it is important that we consider every opportunity to do so.
Mr Goodwill
I am afraid to say that that is yet another Brexit scare story. No one has suggested that leaving the European Union will be an excuse to lower this country’s standards. Indeed, we will have the freedom to impose tougher standards if we need to. We have seen trucks being replaced. Indeed, the best thing for clean air in this country is to have a strong, successful economy so that haulage companies can invest in new equipment that produces much cleaner emissions.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a superb point. It is about the unintended consequences the amendments would have. Does he agree that the best way to deal with this issue effectively is to get clean diesel on the road as fast as possible—it is much better performing than petrol in environmental terms—and to stop the scare stories about diesel?
Mr Goodwill
Certainly, motor manufacturers need to answer questions about how their vehicles have been complying. It is not just Volkswagen that has been caught out over non-compliance with the rules. Other mechanisms have been used to ensure that cars can comply on the test cycle but perhaps not so much otherwise. Some motor manufacturers use a temperature get-out, but we are talking about trucks.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, trucks do comply. They have not been getting away with the sorts of tricks that some motor manufacturers have been caught out over. The hon. Lady’s amendment would result in the law of unintended consequences. She suggests that to get a permit a truck has to be Euro 6 or better, but that would result in such trucks being used on cross-channel routes, with the dirty trucks back in the UK. Although I can understand everybody’s wish to have cleaner air and better vehicles operating on our roads, I believe the amendment would have the exact opposite effect.
Jesse Norman
Let me start by responding to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which proposes that the criteria to be considered in allocating permits may include compliance with emission standards.
As the hon. Lady will know, we have launched a consultation on what the criteria should be. One criterion we have suggested is precisely the emissions class of the lorries being used. That is beneficial for European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits because it has the effect of maximising the number of ECMT permits we will have, and we can also consider applying that criterion for future permit arrangements with the EU.
Vehicles are already required to comply with emissions standards under UK law, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby has made perfectly clear. It is important to note that there can be no doubt about the Government’s commitments to a cleaner environment, on the day on which the clean air strategy has been published. That document and the intention to legislate go far beyond anything under any previous UK Government.
Alan Brown
Will the Minister confirm whether the consultation and proposed secondary regulations take transport emissions into consideration?
Jesse Norman
The consultation was published last week, so the hon. Gentleman is perfectly able to consult it if he wishes. It says that the emissions class of the lorries being used could be one of the criteria employed. We are consulting on that. That is the point of a consultation; we do not go in saying it will be a criterion. We consulted on it because it is important to get a balance.
Alan Brown
I want to clarify that the law of unintended consequences, which has been used as an argument against amendment 8, actually falls if the Government are already consulting on the inclusion of transport emissions.
Jesse Norman
The consultation is on the class of the lorries being used. If the consultation comes out in favour of an issue having some weight, the Government will look harder at what weight it should have, and will do precisely what has been contemplated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, namely balance it against potential unintended consequences. My right hon. Friend was pointing out that to legislate at this point would be to invite those unintended consequences, because it would lack the further scrutiny and balancing that a consultation is designed to give.
The Bill already gives the power to use a range of criteria, including compliance with emissions standards. It does not need to be included in the Bill for us to use that criterion. It is important that primary powers give flexibility to the criteria and allow for them to be amended in future. We intend to include those criteria in regulations, which will, of course, themselves be debated by Parliament and be subject to approval in both Houses.
We also wish—as no doubt future Governments will wish—to be able to change the criteria to make improvements to the scheme or as there are evolutionary changes in the industry. It is reasonable to include such detail in secondary legislation, which would allow those changes to be made more easily. I absolutely support the intention behind the amendment, in so far as it is to ensure that our haulage sector minimises emissions and complies with high environmental standards, but the amendment is not required to achieve that and I hope the hon. Lady will not press it.
Amendment 7, also tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, proposes removing the reference to
“first come, first served or an element of random selection”.
She asked how that would operate. It is important that those references remain in the Bill, not only because they deal with the more difficult situation, where there is a limited number of permits, but because they allow us to allocate permits in the “normal” manner, where there is no limit on permit numbers.
Let me look at the idea of first come, first served, in response to the hon. Lady. Our existing permits schemes are undersubscribed—it is very important to be aware of that—so applicants have always received what they have applied for. In 2017, for example, we issued 66 permits for Ukraine from a quota of 400. For Georgia, we issued six permits from a quota of 100. Permits are issued on demand, and in those cases it makes sense to issue permits as applications are received—that is to say, on a first come, first served basis.
In the future, where more permits may be available than are applied for, permits can be issued to all available applicants. The current drafting, with the reference to first come, first served, ensures that the Secretary of State clearly has the power to provide in regulations that permits may be allocated on that basis, and that no other factors are required to be taken into consideration.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the surplus number of permits, but if we faced a scenario where there was increased demand on the number of permits—of course, we are entering a new scenario here—why would a cap be put on the number of permits available?
Jesse Norman
It entirely depends on whatever permit regime may be in place. It may well be an entirely liberalised one, with an enormous number of permits available, that therefore does not apply a cap—or it may not, as agreed.
Rachael Maskell
Following through on that logic, why even stipulate that it needs to be on a first come, first served basis? If applicants reach the set criteria to warrant having a permit, surely that should be the basis on which a permit is awarded.
Jesse Norman
I am struggling to make myself clear. I have just gone through a case where there are more permits available than the numbers demanded. Under those circumstances, it makes every sense for the Secretary of State to have a clear power to allocate on a first come, first served basis.
Jesse Norman
I will come on to other circumstances later, if I am able to proceed, but there is no doubt that that clarity is of value, and that is the clarity that the Bill affords.
This is clearly a more simple process, both for Government and for hauliers. It would mean that hauliers would not be asked for as much information, and that additional criteria would not need to be applied. It would therefore keep the process as simple as possible. I will give detail on other cases later.
Moving on to random selection, the Bill enables regulations to be made that provide for how the Secretary of State is to decide whether a permit should be granted. Such provision may include specifying criteria or other selection methods, including an element of random selection. If the demand for permits exceeds their supply, we will look to allocate them in a way that maximises benefits to the UK economy, and that is fair and equitable to hauliers. We have made that perfectly clear, and it was repeated on Second Reading. We will set out criteria in regulations, and the Secretary of State will provide guidance relating to the information that applicants must provide in their applications.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for talking through how he sees the system operating. I still question what happens on a first come, first served basis to people at the end of the queue, in the worst-case scenario. Would they still warrant a permit? Also, the Minister used the word “random”. It seems a rather unplanned way of looking at the aspirations for our economy. Does the Minister agree that that is perhaps not the right word for the Bill?
Jesse Norman
The word “random” is a technical way of describing a mode of allocation. I do not think that it is not the right word; I think it may well be the correct word. The hon. Lady may take it in some folk sense of the word “random”, but that is not what is intended in the Bill. Let me proceed, and I will address the question that has been raised as we continue.
We are consulting on the criteria and methods to be used for allocating permits. Those criteria and methods will be included in regulations, and could include relevant factors such as the need for an applicant to hold a valid operator’s licence, the environmental standard of the vehicle organised to be used, as I have described, or the sector in which an applicant operates.
There may be cases, however, in which the application of such criteria does not enable the Secretary of State to allocate all the permits. It is therefore necessary for other methods of selection to be available. It is important to remind the Committee that we have said that we will look to allocate the permits in a way that maximises the benefits to the UK economy, and that is fair and equitable to hauliers. Those are the governing principles behind the assessment of the criteria.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister explain why the words that he has just used about the importance of our economy are not in the Bill, as opposed to the phrase “random selection”? Surely that is what the permits system is all about.
Jesse Norman
The Bill contains a framework by which permits are to be allocated. Maximising the benefits to the UK economy and making that framework fair and equitable to hauliers are overriding principles behind the legislation, as I pointed out on Second Reading. The Government have been quite clear about that. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place that all permits might be allocated randomly and that getting a permit would be purely a matter of chance. That is not the case. Where random selection is used, it will not be used on its own without any other criteria being applied.
Although we expect some of the provisions in the Bill not to be necessary, we are under a duty to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that allow a range of outcomes to be realised. We have made explicit mention of “first come, first served” and “random selection” in the Bill in order to make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that include such provision. Given that there may be circumstances in which “first come, first served” or an element of “random selection” are required, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State’s powers to be spelled out clearly in the Bill, which will ensure that there is no doubt that those powers are available to him or her and provide transparency about what may be included in the regulations.
We have aimed to be open about the potential use of those methods and I have sought to set out the circumstances in which we envisage they may be used. To limit the powers would limit the ability to operate a permit scheme that works to the benefit of hauliers. We will consider all the responses to the consultation before bringing regulations forward, so that the criteria and methods we are using are suitable, and the regulations will be subject to debate and approval by both Houses, but we want to ensure that the Bill enables regulations to be made that address scenarios in which the application of criteria needs to be supplemented by other methods of selection. I hope that the detail I have set out allays fears about how they may be used and that the hon. Member for York Central feels content not to press her amendment.
Government amendment 1 will ensure that the Bill allows flexibility for whatever permit scheme we may have in future. It will allow the Secretary of State to issue permits in cases where the criteria prescribed in regulations may not be suitable. On Second Reading, hon. Members raised the issue of music tours and their hauliers not being able to travel internationally. That is a good example of an industry where a one-size-fits-all permit scheme may have some unintended consequences. Applying a single set of criteria to everyone might mean that some who are providing a highly valuable service with wider economic benefits are particularly disadvantaged. Amendment 1 will allow specific steps to be taken to mitigate that effect.
The Bill currently allows a number of permits to be available for a class of applicants, although the variety of situations in which those permits could be used is varied and often unforeseen. It might help the Committee if I give some examples. Let us take, for example, the case of an emergency where hauliers could not have foreseen the need to obtain a permit. In such a case, amendment 1 will allow permits to be issued to deal with those emergencies. That could be, for example, where there is a need to move fuel for energy supply, or to move medicines. There are also circumstances in which a haulier might be looking to move goods that are particularly important to the economy, perhaps with one-off, unusual loads, such as aeroplane parts, large turbines or the like. We want businesses to be able to move their goods, especially where there is a much wider economic benefit from that haulage.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister explain to the Committee why he is seeking temporary exemptions from the permit scheme, as opposed to emergency permits being issued to address the scenarios he has outlined?
Jesse Norman
We have taken the view that exemptions are the simplest and cleanest way to handle the cases we are talking about. Of course, some cases will be emergencies, but there might be circumstances that are not emergencies at all. I have described some examples, such as the movement of aeroplane parts, that would fall into that category. There are other cases that are worth touching on, where the type of haulage that a business does is unlikely to receive a permit due to the pattern of haulage movements, despite high economic benefits. That would be precisely the kind of case we have seen of music tours where a single journey from the UK might involve numerous stops across Europe. The amendment allows us to cater for those eventualities as well.
To be clear, the number of permits for such purposes will be small. We believe that we should apply a standard set of criteria to all applicants wherever possible. The amendment will allow us to smooth off some of the rough edges that come from having a permit scheme for, for example, matters of key national security or wider economic interests.
Alex Norris
I know that the Minister cannot give exhaustive lists of what is an emergency or special need, but can he be clear that circumvention of industrial action would not fall into that action?
Jesse Norman
I have not considered that. I certainly think that there are cases of industrial action that might constitute a national emergency. We have seen that in fuel haulage, for example. I am not sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I understand the spirit in which he intervenes.
The power before us is relevant only where the number of permits is limited. As I have said, we expect to reach an agreement where there is no limit on the number of permits, which would avoid the need to use subsection (2) of clause 2. I remind the Committee that we are consulting on the detail of a permit scheme, including how permits are allocated, which will inform the regulations that are made under the clause.
The policy scoping documents published in March set out that we intend the Secretary of State to have powers to allocate permits directly. These will be used for areas of economic importance or for security. Amendment 1 does not change the policy on the methods for allocating permits; it simply ensures that a small number of permits can be kept aside to deal with those cases, even when they are not a clear “class of applicants”, as the previous drafting would have required. That allows us to be clear with Parliament about how we envisage a permit scheme operating and how the powers in the Bill would be used.
Rachael Maskell
I really appreciate the Minister giving way. Could he outline how exemptions would not be abused by hauliers?
Jesse Norman
Of course, attempts to seek exemptions would be examined carefully and soberly. I have already said that we do not expect this to be anything other than a small number of exemptions. We are not expecting abuse of this provision. The point is to try to be clear and to allow for unusual circumstances, and to do so in a limited and constrained way. The haulage industry already rightly expects us to offer that level of flexibility to allow its own businesses to operate as flexibly as they do now. These simple and sensible amendments will allow us to work for the haulage industry in any future permit scheme, and I hope that the Committee will support them.
Rachael Maskell
Clearly we are handling the Bill in a most unusual way, because a consultation process is currently live on whether we should be using environmental measures to determine how permits are to be issued, so I will withhold my judgment on that. We will be able to address the issue at the next stage when we consider the regulations. I am happy not to press amendment 8.
On amendment 7, the Minister’s descriptions of “random” and “first come, first served” still do not satisfy the real requirements of driving our economy forward and ensuring that it is secure and that lorry movements will be able to support that. However, I also recognise that the Minister has said that the Government are consulting on those elements. Again, we will be able to address the issue of how the permit system will operate at the next stage of drafting the regulations.
I must say that the Minister was confused in the way he presented his rationale for the inclusion of these terms in the Bill. It is completely superfluous to suggest a “first come, first served” or “random” selection if the consultation is going on currently. I do not understand why they are included in the Bill.
Jesse Norman
The effect of not including them in the Bill would be that it was less clear to Parliament that these possible means of selection were available to the Secretary of State. Surely the hon. Lady agrees that more transparency is better than less.
Rachael Maskell
The drafting could have been greatly improved if it make the points that the Minister is trying to make. I still believe that the wording is somewhat clumsy but, given that this issue will be superseded by regulation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Committee for those comments on the amendments, and I am grateful for the support that hon. Members have given us on the question of flexibility. In response to the question about abuse, which was perfectly proper, I should say that we will certainly expect hauliers to demonstrate why they required a permit under those unusual circumstances, and what goods they plan to move. It is important to give that clarity. As I said, we do not expect it to be more than a small number. I thank colleagues for their contributions. Amendment 1 is a simple amendment, and I beg to move—
The Chair
You should have done that earlier, while the group of amendments was being discussed. I am sorry about that.
Amendment made: 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) for a number of permits determined by the Secretary of State to be available for grant in cases in which the Secretary of State considers it inappropriate for provision made under paragraph (c) to be applied, for example because of an emergency or other special need.”—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment would allow regulations to provide for the Secretary of State to reserve a certain number of permits for grant in cases in which it is inappropriate to apply the normal permit allocation procedure set out in regulations, for example because of an emergency or special need.
Jesse Norman
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out from “permit,” to end of line 3 and insert
“including provision specifying—
(i) when an application is to be made, or that the time when an application is to be made is to be determined by the Secretary of State;”
This amendment would ensure that regulations can provide for the time when a permit application is to be made to be determined by the Secretary of State.
The amendment relates to times when permit applications must be made. The Bill currently outlines that regulations may specify when an application may be made, and our intention was to include that in regulations, but the effect of that may be inadvertently to limit the flexibility to issue permits. For example, where we expect the demand for permits to exceed supply, we will ask hauliers to submit applications during a specified period that would allow permits to be allocated consistently, in accordance with the criteria included in the regulations.
However, because of the various possible permit types and different permit agreements that we have with different countries, we want to be able to accept applications at different times, in some cases where we have more permits than we require, and for permits to be issued in special cases, as we discussed earlier. We want to accept permit applications at any time, but by setting out in regulations where applications can be made we would be limiting that.
The haulage industry will, as I said, expect us to offer as much flexibility as we can. The amendment makes simple, sensible changes that, again, allow us to work for the haulage industry. I hope that the Committee will support its inclusion.
Rachael Maskell
The Minister’s explanation seems perfectly reasonable. He says that he believes that there will be a limited number of circumstances, so it will be interesting to see that in reality. I will reserve my other comments for discussion of clause 3.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Temporary exemptions
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and period of temporary exemptions made under this section.
(5) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force and annually thereafter.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on temporary exemptions from a prohibition imposed in regulations.
We have already touched on the issue of temporary exemptions to the permits regime. The Minister has said that he believes that there will be very few exemptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North highlighted an example where we could see a number of exemptions given. That is of deep concern to Opposition Members, in that it is trying to circumvent industrial action.
I have also raised the question of whether the exemptions could be abused, and how strict the regime will be. We have already heard about a number of examples where temporary exemptions could be made, but I still question whether permits could be applied for in those circumstances. We would like to have a better understanding of that.
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady said, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make a temporary relaxation of permit requirements, which is limited to dealing with an emergency or some other special need. By “special need”, we mean a situation in which it is essential to move particular kinds of goods—for example, as I have touched on, where there is a shortage of petrol or other fuel because of disruption in supply chains. We could also include moving medical supplies or radioactive materials.
Permit requirements will come from international agreements, so the UK cannot unilaterally decide to make an exemption. The other country will need to accept UK vehicles without a permit. The effect is that the power is as much about UK vehicles being able to take goods to other countries as about bringing goods into the UK. We intend that exemptions will be targeted at those who need to travel without a permit. That could be a particular kind of vehicle—a fuel tanker or a vehicle carrying specific goods, such as vaccines. The exemptions are made by publishing a notice or writing to a specific operator being exempted, similar to exemptions made in other regimes, for example with drivers’ hours. The circumstances in which this power is used are expected to be rare, and therefore we do not expect it to be used with any great frequency. It is important that it is included in the Bill in the event that exception is needed. That is why we have asked the Committee to agree that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
The hon. Lady’s amendment raises an interesting point. I think it is appropriate for the officials and me to consider what information about this should be published, but I do not believe that it needs to be a provision in the Bill. The circumstances in which temporary exemptions are to be granted are expected to be sufficiently rare that, although we can consider what information is published on them, I do not think there is great value in laying this issue before Parliament.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister therefore explain how he will make that information available so that Parliament can scrutinise whether the regime proposed for permit exemptions is operating well, and how he plans to gather that data and make it available more widely?
Jesse Norman
It is in the nature of these things that they are unpredictable. It is also the case that, where that information is published, as opposed to simply being notified, it will not be absolutely clear how many will be availing themselves of the exemption. We certainly do not wish to create onerous requirements. I am happy to have a further conversation outside the Committee, if the hon. Lady has ideas or suggestions about how information should be taken into account in any future work that we do.
Rachael Maskell
I listened carefully to the Minister, on how he is willing to engage on the amendment, given the lack of clarity. I am just considering again the regulations that will have to accompany the Bill, should it proceed to enactment. In the light of that, clearly there will be regulations on how the exemption scheme will operate. If he is willing to look at how the number and type of temporary exemptions are provided for through the regulatory process, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. Will he consider that?
Rachael Maskell
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Production of permits and inspection of vehicles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to clause 6. As discussed before, there needs to be greater clarity around the inspection regime of permits. I have not been satisfied by the Minister’s response about the inspection regime. It seems strange to have a permit system but no systematic way of examining the permits to ensure that they are compliant with the vehicles they are attributed to, so we need to look at this serious issue. It seems that a slightly random process is applied to hauliers and whether they are hauled off the road and have their permits and documentation examined. If, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, we are to take control of our borders, it is incumbent on us to have a systematic way of ensuring that vehicles’ documentation is in order. We therefore need greater clarity on how the inspectorate system will work and on whether there will be more resources put into the inspectorate, given that more documentation will have to be manually examined in the absence of digital opportunities. We need to ensure that there is full compliance with the regime.
There is a further concern. The Minister has set out for us today how there will be exemptions to the scheme and how vehicles, drivers and operators could fall through the gaps between exemptions and the lack of a systematic way of examining permits. Will the Minister give more attention to ensuring that our borders are secure and that trade will still be able to flow? People across the country will be surprised if hauliers do not have the correct paperwork on board, and people who voted to leave the European Union will be most disappointed that our borders will not be more secure.
Perhaps the Minister will set out how he anticipates ensuring a comprehensive inspectorate around his permit proposals, and how he will ensure we do not see the holding up of haulage, but at the same time have strong compliance.
Jesse Norman
I am slightly struggling with what the hon. Lady wants: on the one hand, she wants a comprehensive system where it seems that everyone gets checked at borders; on the other hand, she wants frictionless trade. Those two things are incompatible.
Rachael Maskell
May I help the Minister? I assure him that I want us to be part of the EU community licensing scheme, which would remove all those challenges.
Jesse Norman
That, of course, does not go to the circumstances contemplated by much of the Bill. The Bill is precisely designed to address issues where we may need a permitting regime. Therefore, what the hon. Lady said does not go the point, I am afraid.
Let us be perfectly clear: the Bill does not contain new powers. Examiners from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency already have powers to stop vehicles in other enforcement legislation. Community licensing is already enforced in roadside vehicle checks. At the same time, many other regulations are checked, including drivers’ hours regulations and vehicle roadworthiness. We intend to enforce permits in the same way as community licences. We have not created any new powers to stop vehicles. Vehicles are stopped at present; in that sense, our borders remain secure. Our hauliers are subject, as the hon. Lady knows, to a set of enforcement powers that ensure that regulations on moving goods are properly complied with. All this clause does is give similar powers for a future permit scheme, to ensure that it is properly used and enforced.
Rachael Maskell
Does the Minister not recognise that we are moving into a completely new scenario? Most of our haulage traffic crosses between the European Union and the UK, which will be a different jurisdiction after 29 March next year. Therefore, we are talking about a very different set of scenarios from the one we currently operate in, which will make more demands on the system. Currently, as part of that same community, we do not have to carry out those checks because there is recognition across those borders.
Jesse Norman
I think the hon. Lady misunderstands; there is a community licence scheme in place. When hauliers are pulled over at present, their community compliance is checked in the same way that their drivers’ hours regulations are checked. If she does not understand that, she may just not understand how our system actually works.
Rachael Maskell
I do understand how the system works, but we are talking about a different set of scenarios because we will have a border, whatever its nature may be. That is why we are dealing with a different set of circumstances. If we are outside the community licensing scheme, clearly, the way that the permit will operate, hence the necessity for this Bill, will mean that we will not be part of that wider community that currently exists. It is not just about making sure there is compliance; there is more need and demand to ensure that there is compliance with a new permit scheme.
Jesse Norman
The current scheme operates in the way I have described. What is contemplated under the Bill as regards the powers to enforce will track the current scheme. That is to say, the Bill does not contain new powers. In that sense, there will be a high degree of carry-over, quite independent of the arrangement that we strike with the European Union, which, as the hon. Lady knows, we expect to be one of liberalised trade. The point is that community licensing is already enforced and it will continue to be under the new regime in the same way it is already enforced. There are no new powers.
All we ask of the Committee is to recognise that these powers are required to implement the purpose of the Bill, the principles of which were agreed on Second Reading, and that they are properly fit for the task and reflect what we are doing in relation to the community licence. They are thoroughly sensible powers for proper enforcement of a permits regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Report on effects of EU-related provisions
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 9, page 5, line 30, after “Kingdom” insert
“and setting out the number of permits requested, granted and refused”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the number of permits requested, granted and refused.
The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last amendment I have tabled to this part of the Bill.
The amendment looks at the way the permit system is operating, how it is working—or perhaps not working—and providing the data necessary for Parliament to carry out its scrutiny function. It is a simple amendment that asks Ministers to set out
“the number of permits requested, granted and refused”,
so that there can be real understanding of why permits are refused, and of the level of refusal, should that situation occur. It would also be useful for the industry to get a detailed understanding of processes that the Government operate over their permit arrangements, hopefully leading to a reduction in the number of permits refused in the future. This is not only an informative amendment, but again, one that deals with gathering simple data. I am sure we are looking at only a small number of permits that will be refused, but I believe that this is a sensible amendment, which will help with the scrutiny function over how well the Bill operates in the future.
Jesse Norman
I can be brief and supportive on this. The Government brought forward an amendment in the other place to add clause 9 to the Bill, honouring an undertaking that my noble colleague Baroness Sugg gave
“to consider how best to review the impacts of any permit scheme, should one be required.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 April 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1100.]
We have been clear that we are seeking continued liberalised access to the EU. However, I recognise that there is some concern about the impact of any limited scheme on the haulage industry. If a report is required under clause 9, the Government would naturally plan for this to include the number of permits requested, granted or refused, and I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment requires the Secretary of State to do anything that he would not expect to do in any case. For that reason, the amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing it.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister reflect on how he communicates how the refusal system is working? While I take on board what he has said, clearly there is concern that if there are refusals, greater understanding is needed around that, and whether that is due to the limitation on the number of permits provided—a concern I raised earlier—or to applicants not complying with the permit scheme’s requirements.
Jesse Norman
We are talking about circumstances in which a report is required. If so—and that may not be the case—the Government would plan for this to include the number of permits requested, granted or refused. Inevitably, that then becomes a matter for official discussion, scrutiny and further consideration. Of course, it is also a matter that can be raised and debated in Parliament. The hon. Lady should feel some reassurance on that front.
Rachael Maskell
In the light of the Minister’s response and of the fact that Parliament will have the opportunity to ask questions and have debates on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10, 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Trailer Registration
Alan Brown
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 13, page 9, line 1, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing proposals for a trailer registration scheme. This report must make provision for whether—
(a) the proposed registration scheme would be compulsory or voluntary;
(b) non-commercial trailers will be included in such a registration scheme; and
(c) it would be appropriate for the operation of such a registration scheme to be run by a third-party authorised by the Secretary of State.
(2B) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament outlining their proposals for a trailer registration scheme within six months of the passing of this Act.
In many ways this is similar to amendment 12. This, again, is about trying to get further clarity from the Government about what the permit scheme might look like. The Government previously acknowledged that they did not want to put too many exemptions on the face of the Bill. There has been a whole discussion of whether the Bill might apply to non-commercial trailers, and this is about trying to tease that out. The Government should clarify the issue, because there is still talk of whether it is a compulsory or voluntary registration scheme.
We are just trying to look for clarification that the Government have to do a report that confirms whether the registration scheme will be compulsory or voluntary, whether non-commercial trailers are included, and also whether it would be appropriate for a registration scheme to be operated by a third party. The third-party issue is included because the National Caravan Council already operates its own voluntary registration scheme, and it is suggested that there is merit in duplicating this scheme. All that will depend on what the Government bring forward in terms of whether the scheme will be voluntary or compulsory, and also how matters evolve in other parts of the legislation that consider safety, and whether there should be further measures looking at road safety measures in terms of registration too. There seems a lack of clarity at the moment in what the endgame will look like. The amendment just tries to tease out whether the Government will provide that clarity and a report. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Rachael Maskell
Labour supports this amendment. Clarity is needed on the eligibility of the compulsory and voluntary schemes, and the amendment would be helpful in making it clear where obligations sit in this regard. Labour wants to extend the application of the legislation to non-commercial trailers, since incidents occur as a result of poor tow bar instalment and failed safety features on domestic trailers. It is therefore important to incorporate domestic-use trailers into the scheme. The significance of a voluntary registration scheme is unclear if there are no other levers on this issue, such as liability if incidents occur. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the use of the voluntary scheme to the Committee.
However, Labour does not believe that a third-party operator should run the scheme and wants to see this kept in-house, especially as it is a critical road safety issue. We believe that this function should be exercised through an arm’s length body. We support the call not to delay producing the report mentioned in clause 13, thus ensuring that it can be used to influence the drafting of regulations to accompany this Bill.
Jesse Norman
We turn now to the second half of the Bill and trailer registration. I will respond to the points made and talk about the wider thrust of the legislation. Hon. Members will be aware that the consultation launched on 16 May covered the extent of the proposals in the Bill across both haulage permits and trailer registration. We are consulting with the industry to help us get the details of any permit scheme and the trailer registration scheme right. The consultation on the proposals, as they currently stand, seeks views on a number of issues relating to trailer registration. Our proposals require the registration purely of those trailers undertaking international travel to a foreign country that has ratified the 1968 Vienna convention. This goes to the point about voluntary registration. That would apply to commercial trailers weighing over 750 kg and non-commercial trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes. Ministers and officials in the Department have been engaged with industry throughout the development of these proposals. In spring this year, we held workshops to discuss them with hauliers and relevant trade associations, among a range of other stakeholders.
In addition to the public consultation, we have published a number of documents to assist and inform discussion of the Bill. Policy papers have been issued on the Bill and on the 1968 Vienna convention, which the trailer registration scheme is being introduced to support. Policy scoping notes are available to Members in the House of Commons Library.
The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. Trailer registration is commonplace throughout continental Europe. As such, if we did not place any obligations on users taking trailers abroad that would be likely to attract targeted enforcement action from foreign enforcement authorities. That point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby on Second Reading. That enforcement action would cause disruption on a significant scale, even to those trailers that are correctly registered, and would have an adverse effect beyond hauliers, causing disruption to UK businesses and the international supply chains within which they operate.
Alan Brown
The Minister talks about disruption that might be caused by enforcement action. Does that not suggest that the registration scheme would need to be compulsory? If it were voluntary, it could still have the same net effect of enforcement action. Compulsion would make that easier to process.
Jesse Norman
We are concerned with enforcement action by foreign authorities, against which trailer registration would be a defence. That provides a reason for supporting trailer registration, as we have described it.
Alan Brown
If it is only voluntary, perhaps foreign enforcement agencies will not have any confidence in signing up for the scheme. If it were compulsory, one would assume they would be less likely to take enforcement because they would understand that there is already a compulsory scheme in place in the UK.
Jesse Norman
I think that language is not helping deliberation on this matter. We require registration for the classes of trailer that I have described, which undertake international travel to a foreign country. It is not voluntary for those trailers that fall within those categories. It is mandatory and therefore meets the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I will go on to discuss it in slightly more detail.
The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. As I have said, trailer registration is commonplace. The measure is designed to mitigate the effects of enforcement action undertaken abroad.
On the basis of engagement with industry and previously reported enforcement to UK authorities, we have drawn a distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, which is the basis for the higher weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for non-commercial trailers. Engagement with non-commercial stakeholders has indicated a negligible number of such trailers.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister explain to the Committee whether, when an incident occurs, it makes any difference if it is a commercial or non-commercial trailer?
Jesse Norman
Our experience is that there has been very little enforcement against non-commercial trailers abroad. There has, however, been some enforcement against commercial trailers, for which this would be a defence. That is a reason for recommending the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
With respect to the Minister, that did not answer the question I asked. I asked why there would be any differentiation in the weight of the trailer, if it was owned commercially or non-commercially, should an incident occur.
Jesse Norman
Three and a half tonnes is a standard weight in international haulage. There are virtually no non-commercial trailers above that level. Since there is enforcement against commercial trailers, it makes sense to exempt a smaller number of commercial trailers, and that is what the Bill does.
The risk of enforcement action against non-commercial trailers is minimal. While the convention allows for enforcement action against all trailers that weigh more than 750 kg, all previous reported enforcement action has been directed towards large commercial trailers. We have no evidence of countries taking enforcement action against unregistered foreign caravans and horse trailers. The small risk of enforcement action against common non-commercial trailers does not justify mandatory registration, but the keepers of such trailers may register them voluntarily if they wish.
Sarah Champion
I apologise, but I think the lack of clarity is catching. [Interruption.] I know—it is spreading like wildfire. I understand that the Minister is seeking to ensure we have parity with international colleagues to reduce the risk of British trailers that go abroad being in violation and vice versa, but I thought the Bill was also about making our roads safer. He is talking about parity with the EU in trailer registration, with us not running risks overseas, but I do not understand where his consideration is on safety on our roads. Will he speak to that?
I also do not understand why “commercial” relates only to weight. We could define the commercial use of a trailer. For example, I think of someone doing roadworks towing a little trailer with a big, heavy road roller on it, and if that were to come loose we would be in real trouble—it would take out a family, not just a small building. Why is the Minister focusing only on weight in the definition of commercial? Will he confirm that the regulations are also about making our roads safer?
Jesse Norman
The regulations are focused in particular on the movement of trailers overseas. If there are collateral effects in improving our road safety, that is all to the good. Thanks to interventions and amendments that have already been made, we have strengthened aspects of the measure, but the Bill’s central focus is to address the registration of trailers going overseas.
Mr Goodwill
I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham. I am one of those rare people who has a non-commercial trailer over 3.5 tonnes, which is indeed used for transporting a traction engine. Although a private HGV, that trailer already has to pass its annual MOT test. Indeed, such trailers have to pass a test every year—there is no three-year exemption. Those are therefore not unsafe trailers, so I hope that she does not labour under the misapprehension that large numbers of trailers are running around the country on non-commercial heavy goods vehicles that are not tested every year by the Department.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comment. Of course, he is right.
Sarah Champion
May I come back on that intervention? I do not know the protocol.
Jesse Norman
Why not let me speak to the point, then the hon. Lady can come back to me?
The Chair
Order. Members are free to intervene as long as the speaking Member takes the intervention. In this context, if a Member does not have a request to intervene accepted, they are free to rise and speak simply to make their point. People can get up and give speeches—it is almost a free-for-all. If you have a long intervention, it might be worth saving it instead of saying a few words.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful, Mr Davies. The hon. Member for Rotherham may wish to make a forensic dissection of the Government’s position or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby when she comes to speak. However, let me address the points that she made.
The first question is: what is a commercial trailer? Of course, it is not defined by weight. There are criteria as to what constitutes a commercial trailer, and the legal definition we are using is the idea of a trailer used for transport of goods or passengers’ belongings for commercial purposes, such as transport for hire or reward, or own-account transport, or for other professional purposes. That is closely aligned with the definition of a commercial vehicle in EU law.
The hon. Lady raised earlier the question of why one would have a weight threshold. I repeat that 3.5 tonnes is a common weight threshold for additional scrutiny obligations of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed to in UK law, both in EU law and in the Vienna convention. We have no evidence of countries enforcing against unregistered foreign caravans and horse trailers. The smallest enforcement action against common non-commercial trailers, such as the one described by my right hon. Friend, does not justify mandatory registration, but the keepers of such trailers will be able to register them voluntarily if they wish, and of course they are subject to other regulatory constraints.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun raised the matter of whether it would be suitable for an authorised third party to run a registration scheme. He raised the question of the status of the National Caravan Council and its CRiS—central registration and identification—scheme on Second Reading. As I said in that debate, I have previously met the NCC to discuss the proposals before us today in relation to CRiS and the scheme that it operates, for which I have a great deal of regard.
The Department’s legal team have considered that issue and the question of whether the registration standard specified in the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic allows for a private organisation to operate the service. In order to fulfil the standards of the convention, it is clear that the trailer must be registered by a ratifying country or an administrative division of the nation. In this case, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will operate the scheme, which will ensure that registration fully meets the standards outlined in the convention.
The NCC offers a valuable service to its members and to the industry more widely. The scheme is not intended to duplicate or replace the NCC’s scheme. The registration standards of the convention simply necessitate that registration is not undertaken by a third party, and we are under an obligation to obey those standards. Guidance will be issued to explain how the registration scheme applies to users. It will clarify which users do and do not need to register under the scheme before using a trailer in a 1968 convention country. The guidance will make it clear that registration is not necessary for leisure-use trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes. As such, we do not envisage that that will replicate the work of the NCC, but the Department will continue to work with it to avert any such risk.
I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but I hope that Members will concur that it is not necessary in the light of the significant volume of material that the Department has published regarding our proposals and the ongoing consultation. We have worked extensively to involve stakeholders in the development of the proposals, and the consultation is directly seeking views on a number of issues relating to trailer registration. That will inform the ultimate detail of the first set of regulations to enact the scheme, which Members will note will be made by the affirmative procedure, allowing for their further consideration.
Alan Brown
I listened to what the Minister said, and I appreciate the clarification on the third-party issue. I am not particularly precious about that, and his explanation made sense. There is sense in the DVLA overseeing the entire scheme anyway.
The Minister mentioned the unhelpful language of “voluntary or compulsory”. Truth be told, I am still a bit confused about that because clause 13 (1) says:
“Regulations may provide for the compulsory or voluntary registration of trailers kept or used on roads”.
It seems to me that it is still a bit unclear, and it would be good to get further clarity. The amendment is really about getting that clarity for all parties, so they understand what will be compulsory and what might be voluntary. That said, particularly given the discussion on paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2A), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered,
That the programme order (this day) be amended as follows—
In paragraph (1)(a), leave out ‘2.00 pm’ and insert ‘2.30 pm’. —(Jesse Norman.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 22nd May 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2018 - (22 May 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 13, page 9, line 2, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
This amendment removes provision which is replaced by NC1 and NC2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 1—Trailer safety: report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—
(a) involved trailers, and
(b) caused injury or death to any person.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether—
(a) regulations under section 13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;
(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section—
“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—
(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than 750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;
(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;
“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause requires a report on road traffic accidents involving trailers to be laid before Parliament, including a recommendation as to whether compulsory registration or periodic testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms should be introduced. This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Amendment (b), to Government new clause 1, in subsection (1)(a), after “involved” insert “commercial or non-commercial”.
This amendment would ensure that the reporting requirements apply to both commercial and non-commercial trailers.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 1, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The report must contain an assessment of levels of compliance with existing provisions relating to the construction, condition or safety of all trailers.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess and report on the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.
Amendment (aa) to amendment (a) to Government new clause 1, at end insert
“and the installation of tow bars”.
This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Amendment (c) to Government new clause 1, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where reporting on a road traffic accident under subsection (1) which involves a tow bar attachment, the Secretary of State must include an assessment of whether the tow bar attachment contributed to the accident.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include information on tow bar attachments when reporting on road traffic accidents involving trailers.
Amendment (d) to Government new clause 1, in subsection (3), at end insert “, and each year thereafter”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report on trailer-related accidents before Parliament annually.
Amendment (e) to Government new clause 1, in subsection (4), at end insert—
““tow bar attachment” means any device used to connect a motor vehicle and trailer for the purpose of towing the trailer.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment (c).
Jesse Norman
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. As colleagues across the Committee will be aware, trailer safety has rightly been discussed in some depth, both throughout debate in the other place and on Second Reading in this place. It is an issue with which I have personally been engaged throughout my time as a Minister. It has been a great pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Bristol South, and I am delighted to see her here today. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with her work on trailer safety.
Before we consider the amendments, it is worth outlining the facts that brought the hon. Lady to the subject. In January 2014, young Freddie Hussey was killed by a runaway trailer as he and his mother, Donna Hussey, walked to their home in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and since her election to Parliament she has worked indefatigably with the family in their campaign to improve trailer safety. In April, I attended the latest in a series of trailer safety summits arranged by the hon. Lady. The event brought together a range of stakeholders in the trailer and towing sector to discuss how safety can be improved. Freddie’s parents, Donna and Scott Hussey, also spoke of their own experience and their subsequent campaign to improve trailer safety, and it was a great honour for me to have a chance to discuss these issues directly with them.
As the Committee will be aware, the Department and its agencies have undertaken significant work as part of our continuing commitment to improve towing safety standards since the tragedy. Highways England leads the national towing working group, which brings together a range of towing stakeholders to address the issue. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency reviewed and published further guidance on safe towing practices alongside launching the “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign. A large number of existing measures deal with the safety and roadworthiness of trailers, and we continue to review them. Like motor vehicles, almost all trailers must now be approved before they may enter service. That may be undertaken at the level of manufacturer and model, or on an individual basis for bespoke or custom-build units.
There is an annual roadworthiness examination that applies to larger trailers with a gross weight of more than 3.5 tonnes and trailers in a number of other categories. Under that regime, about 250,000 trailers are tested every year. I am pleased to say that the units exhibit high standards with a pass rate at first test of almost 90%, but—it is important to say “but”—as has been noted, the regime applies overwhelmingly to commercial trailers, with a minimal number of non-commercial trailers falling within its scope. As the hon. Member for Bristol South noted, about 1.4 million trailers fall outside the current testing regime despite weighing more than the vehicles they are towed by, which do require an MOT.
On Second Reading, the hon. Lady asked how our report will be undertaken, and I would like to provide some clarity today. The report will draw on existing data, but we are looking at what else may be included to inform a full and proper consideration. Members will understand that when producing such reports, it is crucial that we are able to speak with authority and make recommendations that are informed by data. The Department for Transport has a worldwide reputation for the quality and comprehensive nature of its work in data collection and use. I would like to reassure Members about an issue raised on Second Reading by saying that the data used in the current reporting systems is comprehensive and world-leading. It informs the Department’s work on road safety and is reviewed regularly.
The reporting form used to capture information on accidents contains many different data categories, allowing us to understand and identify trends in road traffic collisions. It provides details about the roads, vehicles and persons involved, as well as any injuries that occurred. Reporting systems continue to be refined to improve the depth of the data that informs departmental assessments. I am happy to share the contents of the reporting form with Members, if they would find it useful.
The hon. Lady is right to point to the under-reporting of accidents. Levels of under-reporting appear to be fairly consistent, which is a challenge to overcome, as I hope Members understand. The wholesale development of new reporting systems to collate new data would require several years’ work and is not achievable in the timeline of this legislation. It is crucial that the reports are based on validated and verified data to assess the issue, so the STATS19 accident data will inevitably form an integral component of the report we undertake. The report will, however, provide the starting point from which we can consider whether significant changes are necessary to how we report on trailer safety. Due attention will be paid to the challenge of under-reporting of accidents and we will consider what other types of data we may be able to obtain to inform our recommendations beyond that contained within STATS19. Working with stakeholders in the sector may well comprise an element of this undertaking.
The debate on these issues has been valuable and I thank both Members and peers for their thoughtful and considered contributions. As Members will be aware, on Report in the Lords, Baroness Sugg confirmed my intention to undertake a report on trailer safety, and the continuing discussion, both in the House and with stakeholders at the trailer safety summit, reaffirmed this commitment.
The Government amendments before the Committee today are intended to ensure that we can deliver fully the intent of the amendments made in the other place. That will be achieved in a manner that reflects the extent of our devolution arrangements. Should the safety report recommend that periodic testing is extended to cover all trailers weighing over 750 kg, that may be achieved through an extension of the existing safety regime. The proposed amendments replace the amendments tabled on Report in the Lords and comprise two additional clauses within part 2 of the Bill. Both amendments include in full the recommendations peers sought on the issues of trailer registration and trailer testing.
The provisions in new clause 1 on trailer safety will replace those proposed in the Lords. The new clause details the report to be undertaken and states that it must be published within one year of the legislation coming into force. The report will cover the number and causes of road accidents that involved trailers and caused injury or death to any person involved. The data contained in the report is not restricted to those points, but will contain that as a key thrust of the considerations. The report will cover recommendations sought by peers on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing over 750 kg.
The reporting period will cover a continuous period of at least 12 months and end no earlier than 18 months before the provision comes into force. That will allow the Department for Transport time to validate and fully consider the substantial body of data that will underpin the recommendations in the report. “Reported Road Casualties GB” is published each autumn, and we anticipate that the proposed timeline will allow us to draw on, at a minimum, the release later this year.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am listening with interest to the Minister. Does he plan to capture data about trailers weighing more than 750 kg? There is potential in the legislation to make registration of trailers weighing more than 750 kg compulsory, if that is substantiated by the data.
Jesse Norman
As I said, the report will make recommendations on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and for testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing more than 750 kg.
Amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South, further proposes that the report will consider the
“levels of compliance with existing provisions relating to the construction, condition or safety of all trailers.”
A great deal of data is already recorded for those trailers that are subject to an annual test and checked at the roadside by the DVSA. The information may well prove valuable in the assessment of the safety of trailers generally, although hon. Members will be aware that it will not cover data for the great number of trailers to which the hon. Lady refers, which are not currently subject to the regular testing requirements. Nevertheless, a consideration of the compliance with those provisions will contribute to the report.
With a trailer population outside the annual test regime in excess of 1.4 million, each weighing between 750 kg and 3.5 tonnes, it is difficult to gather a robust data sample for those trailers to inform the consideration in the report. While the Department will consider which data sources we may draw on to inform any judgments on the standards of roadworthiness of light trailers generally, there is a need to be proportionate in how we gather data in the context of a wider enforcement strategy.
Larger trailers are the focus of existing enforcement, because they have long been recognised to pose the biggest risk. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol South will appreciate that our position at the moment is that the amendment should not be made. The Department is keen that the report should be beneficial and will examine which additional sources of data we may draw on to inform a full consideration of trailer safety and compliance with both existing provisions and any new provisions that may arise from the report.
Regarding amendments (aa), (b) and (c) to new clause 1, tow bar safety was raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and it is certainly an important issue when considering trailer safety. She spoke in particular of vehicles to which a tow bar has been subsequently been fitted, but which carry safety concerns. It is worth focusing here on the definitional question whether “tow bar” covers only the attachments merely to cars or the towing vehicle, or whether it also captures the attachment part of the trailer and where it attaches. That raises questions about definitions that make her amendment hard to carry through, but I will speak to both halves of the question.
Car and vehicle tow bars are subject to examination at annual tests. Cars and heavy vehicles with tow bars fitted are subject to checks both on the mechanical condition and on the relevant electric fittings. The rates of failure of tow bars of this kind at annual tests are extraordinarily low. The figures are published, and in 2016-17 the number of tow bar defects accounted for 0.001% of total defects for cars and light vans—an absurdly low figure. In the case of heavy goods vehicles, the rates of failure are also very low. Nevertheless, Members are right to raise concerns about the consequences of a tow bar failing. At the trailer safety summit, I saw evidence of the state of some tow bars that had been allowed to deteriorate.
Sarah Champion
I took the opportunity of the extended lunch break to call my garage, RH Motors, which does MOT testing, and asked about trailers and specific tow hitches. Staff there had recently been on the training, and they said that the threshold for notifying a problem with a tow hitch as a fault is very high; it tends to be due to acute corrosion. With the new regulations having literally just come in, they were not sure whether more guidance had been issued for MOT stations. Will the Minister consider that for future guidance?
Jesse Norman
That is an interesting question and I will certainly consider it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning it. At the trailer safety summit, we saw evidence from the police force in Somerset of the condition to which some tow bars had been allowed to deteriorate. It is a source of genuine concern. However, it is worth pointing out that the scope of the amendment goes rather further than our discussion on Second Reading. In the proposed form, the report would require an assessment of all accidents involving a trailer to determine whether the tow bar may have contributed. While the contributing factors are recorded, which may allow us to discern such a link, the amendment would oblige us to assess retrospectively accidents for which the data has not already been recorded, which would be very difficult.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will address this point later, but as the police gather data around the causation of accidents, is it not right that they should also record whether or not causation is related to the towing equipment of a vehicle?
Jesse Norman
It is certainly true that police gather information on factors that may bear on causation—of course, causation itself is a judgment rather than a fact. The case for recording such data is under active consideration, but we are concerned about the balance between the amount of potential infraction and the good that it would do by creating an additional burden in an already very full assessment process. That is precisely one of the things that would come out of the wider assessment we are doing now, and is therefore of a piece with the direction of travel of the Government. We recognise that this is an important issue: I have asked officials to consider in the safety report what data may inform further investigation, and this may cover exactly the points raised by the hon. Lady.
The vehicle defect contributory factor is a useful starting point, which is already in the report. Relevant case studies may allow us to explore within that category the question of tow bar safety. Tow bars are clearly integral elements when taking a full picture of the trailer safety situation, and it is correct that they are considered in the report, although I hope, for the reasons outlined, that the hon. Member for Bristol South will not press her amendment.
The hon. Member for York Central has tabled amendment (b) to new clause 1 to outline with greater clarity that the report will cover both commercial and non-commercial trailers. To assuage any concerns that hon. Members may have about the scope of the report, it is important to say that the current drafting covers all accidents involving trailers in Great Britain, without distinction between commercial and non-commercial usage. Those terms are not actually defined in the Bill and may be shaped by the consultation, so it would be premature to insert that requirement. There is no trailer weight category excluded from the trailer safety report, so making the amendment would not change any of the requirements on the Secretary of State set out in new clause 1. I hope the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.
Under amendment (d) to new clause 1, the Secretary of State would be required, for each year following the first report, to lay subsequent annual reports on trailer safety, compulsory registration and periodic testing. The first report will provide a valuable opportunity to consider trailer safety in depth and, as I have said, will draw on recent data recorded under existing recording systems. We also wish to consider how else we can bring in additional data or contributions from industry stakeholders, to ensure that we consider the full breadth of issues relevant to trailer safety, but at this stage I do not deem it appropriate to make a commitment to further reports without knowing the outcome of the first report. Either way, the effect of this amendment would be to place a costly requirement on the Government, which is not necessarily warranted unless the first report turns out as feared. None the less, I am happy to consider the need for further reports based on an initial assessment of the overall waterfront, which the first report is designed to do. If the report recommends further registration and testing of trailers, that will take considerable time to implement, and it is important to be aware of that. Equally, if an extension of registration and testing is not recommended, an immediate further report may well offer no additional value.
The parliamentary debate has been valuable and considered. As my noble Friend Baroness Sugg said, we have considered extensively trailer safety and what more Government can and should be doing. That underlined my commitment to undertake a report on trailer safety. The process will allow us to consider how to take this matter forward, but I hope the hon. Member for York Central will be minded to await the initial report before making further commitments as to how this issue is best addressed.
I have gone through this quite thoroughly, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for the way he outlined new clause 1 and responded to the many amendments before us on trailer safety. I would like to speak to many of those amendments, and indeed an amendment to an amendment.
First of all, may I welcome the progress made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Tunnicliffe? His contribution particularly focused on trailer safety, and it is right that we acknowledge that, as well as the contribution made by Baroness Sugg to the progress leading us to new clause 1. It is clear that we will be supportive of the new clause, because we believe it is an improvement on the substantive Bill.
In making such provision for the inclusion of more trailers, should the evidence point to more trailers needing registering to keep the public safe, regulation should be brought forward. It has been welcome to hear that the Minister will be making those considerations once the report has been put together, but in response to his speech, I want to question how he envisages building up a more robust database. He refers to, in the time period allowed, not going to the depths of all the sources that could be available for formulating such a report, so it would be good to know how he plans to proceed. My amendment (aa), which seeks to have further reporting, could be a source of addressing a more in-depth study.
We could not have been more moved by the speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Of course, we all know of her tireless and tenacious campaigning to improve trailer safety following the tragic death of young Freddie Hussey. Just three years old, his life was taken by a trailer that was out of control—a trailer that was only 2 tonnes in weight, that lost connection and then moved forward to failure, due to the position of the handbrake on the trailer. That demonstrates how important it is that we look at the detail of trailer safety and design fault, as well as operator poor use and malfunction. I trust that in the report, we will be able to look at those fine details, because that will be informative for the Minister in determining the best mechanisms to reduce risk on our roads. Ultimately, this is what I believe new clause 1 is trying to achieve: a real understanding of the risks that are presented and the nature of the faults, and therefore what measures can be taken to improve public safety.
Other safety features could also be included—for instance, tyre safety. We certainly know that incidents—some of them tragic—have occurred as a result of the ageing of tyres, and the Minister may want to consider bringing that under regulation and going further than just trailers. We also need to make sure that the work is comprehensive, so looking at weight limits could be an important consideration. I appreciate that we are looking at commercial and non-commercial trailers; I made the point earlier that the ownership of a trailer should not make a difference to the risk. We need to ensure that that is comprehensive. It may be that the data and the evidence show that 750 kg is not the right weight limitation. We need to keep an open mind and trust the reporting of incidents when considering that.
I will ask what I believe is quite a simple question on the changing jurisdiction. The Bill sets out that reporting will be for the UK, but the new clause talks about England, Wales and Scotland. What has happened to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister consider separate data for Northern Ireland, which I appreciate will probably be under a different jurisdiction? Will he take that into account, or was the new clause a tidying-up measure to remove Northern Ireland from the data sources?
My amendment (aa) is to amendment (a) to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South and is incredibly important. It would provide for monitoring incidents and ensuring that we create a culture of the highest standards. While many trailers are privately constructed, it is important that they are built to the highest safety standards and subject to inspection. The Minister’s comment on the scale of this and how we can bring in inspection regimes was interesting. The offer of free tow bar checks from the leadership of the National Trailer and Towing Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham set out on Second Reading, is certainly a progressive step that could well address the question that the Minister posed in his opening remarks.
We need to ensure that trailers, whether for heavy duty or occasional use, are up to standard, and therefore a one-off test may not address the issue. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave evidence of that when talking about the corrosion of trailers. We need to understand more about the lifecycle of trailers to ensure that safety is adhered to. Amendment (a) seeks to ensure that the report considers the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.
My amendment (b) to new clause 1 considers a point that the Minister addressed in his remarks on commercial and non-commercial trailers. As I have said, the risk seems to occur across the board, but we should look at recording the distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, because there may be a higher propensity in the non-commercial field, for example, of the attachment of trailers to create a higher risk, because the full operation of locking down that attachment may not be as efficient as when done by people who do it every day as part of their work. We therefore need to look at the distinction across the board to identify where risk sits in the system, and gathering data on that would be invaluable.
My amendment (c) to new clause 1 looks at the reporting of road traffic accidents, which the Minister referred to earlier. I believe that the police gather comprehensive data on accidents, and directly correlating or associating those with a trailer incident will be invaluable in understanding the risks created by trailers. The amendment would be an important inclusion in the Bill. We are not asking for additional work to be done, just for inclusion in the Minister’s report. I hope that he will consider that further.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
On the point about compliance, which is part of the purpose of my amendment, it is also distressing for the people carrying out those checks, in garages and such places, to tell people that they are not compliant and would fail a test, and, because they have no real ability to make that person do something about it, then see that trailer go onto the road. We need to find some way of supporting the next stage of those checks.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend, who has so much expertise in this field: I think we are all in awe of her knowledge. She is right. We debate things in this House because we care about public safety. We want to know the detail because that is important in order to make informed and correct decisions. If there is risk—and clearly there is; we have heard the evidence—we need to respond to it. It is on our watch, and we fail the public if we do not; and, tragically, we could fail the public severely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about how we should take this issue forward. It is incumbent on the Minister to look into these matters and give assurances that he will bring forward proposals about how we address the whole issue of the safety of trailers, attachments, tow bars and operators’ use of them. We can then inform the industry that we have heard them and take these issues seriously; that, ultimately, should legislation be required, we will not be afraid to enact it; or, should stronger advice and support from the Department for Transport be needed to educate and support the industry and users of trailers, that we will take that forward as well. I trust that the Minister will consider that and I look forward to hearing his remarks.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. My purpose in trying to amend the Bill, working with the noble Lords, on Second Reading and here in Cttee, has always been safety, following the representation made by my constituents, Donna and Scott Hussey, about their tragic loss. I am grateful to the Minister and Baroness Sugg for their support through the Bill and for the wider campaign on the family’s behalf.
My main issue with the Minister’s amendment was the loss of “comprehensive”, without specifying any new consideration. That led me to be concerned about the Government making a further report based on the existing data, which would not take us any further forward than we were before the Lords debated it. I therefore tabled the amendment to push the Government to make an assessment of roadworthiness and, as we have just said, of compliance, which would inform that report.
I am assured by the Minister’s comments. He has said that they will look at the existing data and what else needs to be included. Although he reiterated that the data is considered comprehensive, those statements acknowledge the need to look further and wider.
On the STATS19 form, the Department has admitted that it is difficult for a police officer who attends the scene after an accident to identify the factors that contributed to that accident. For those who have not read it—I can send it round—the STATS19 form is hugely complicated and difficult. Hon. Members can imagine filling it in on a quiet road of a dimly lit evening and deciding what it is necessary to report in it. It is the basis of the evidence collated. There are 78 factors to choose from. It is a subjective issue for the police, who I have been working with to inform the system from the bottom up. That is my concern—that we look more widely at doing that. The Minister has heard that loud and clear on a few occasions, and I look forward to working with the civil servants to try to address it.
My work in the last three years has convinced me that the wider issue is weight and its distribution. Driver awareness is really important, and I am grateful to the DVSA for its campaign, which will continue. On driver behaviour, we want to make driving with an unsafe trailer as socially unacceptable as drink-driving or driving with a mobile phone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, tow bars and their attachments are also very important. Those issues apply in the commercial and non-commercial sectors, which is a point that has been made well today, including by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.
I, too, have met the National Caravan Council, which is concerned about the issue. It has been running a scheme for several years, as have others. We need to learn from best practice across the industry. No one wants to have unsafe trailers on the road, and I look forward to working with all those organisations to continually get the best data, share good practice and inform the report.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems with caravans is that they are often parked up all winter, and therefore the brakes are likely to be seized or the tyres to have deteriorated? When the DVSA carries out checks on the A64 to Scarborough, it finds lots of defects on caravans. I wonder whether the National Caravan Council advises people on how to give their caravans not only a spring clean but vital maintenance.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have similar issues on the route down the M5. I have worked with Avon and Somerset police, and they feel that issue acutely. They would like more resources to be able to do more stop-and-checks on the motorway, and throughout Somerset and Devon. Highways England’s work in the towing safety group is largely determined by the prevention of accidents to stop the back-up along the M5, but we want to look much more at safety. Vehicles are being kept over winter—in some cases, several winters—in large farm areas or other areas that are not checked. Perhaps people do not realise the danger that can be posed by things that they have not seen eroding over that period. That is why driver behaviour and education are so important, but ultimately, mandation may be the only way forward.
Working with the police, I have seen some shocking examples of agricultural and leisure vehicles, such as horse boxes and boat trailers, and photographs thereof, that show that it is a major issue. I understand the issue of proportionality and the risks associated with establishing a new bureaucracy, but—as my hon. Friend for York Central said—the key point is that we do not know the scale of the problem, and we do not know how it impacts on both the commercial and non-commercial sector. That is the point we have to get to. It does not matter whether the accident is caused by a commercial or non-commercial vehicle, it is still an accident and, potentially, a death. I will continue to work with the Government and all parties on this, but I emphasise again that this is why better data connection and the sharing of knowledge and information are key.
I am happy not to press my amendment, given the assurances that the Minister has given. I have a question for the Minister. We have kind of piggy-backed on the Bill, which is an enabling Bill that may not be enacted, as I understand it. Will the Minister comment on what happens, if the Bill is not enacted, to the work done to highlight trailer safety, the report, and the provisions and assurances that have been made? If the Bill is not required, how will the provisions that we have agreed and discussed be taken forward?
Sarah Champion
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the approach taken by the Minister. It is heartening to hear how he is genuinely open to discussion, debate and new evidence coming forward, and I am optimistic that the consultation is genuine—rare in this day and age—and that it will actually influence this Bill so that we get the strongest and safest legislation.
I welcome the Government’s amendment 3, new clause 1 and the associated amendments already taken from the other place, but I also want to speak in support of the new clauses tabled by Labour Front Benchers and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South.
I want to talk about tow bars. I am referring to the retrofitted tow bar or tow hitch to a motorised vehicle, and I particularly support amendments (a), (c) and (e) to new clause 1.
I start from the position that anything on the road that involves a motorised vehicle has to be roadworthy, hence the need for cars and light commercial vehicles to have an MOT, likewise the associated checks for heavy goods transport vehicles and the attachments that they tow. From my position—I think it is common sense—it cannot be right that, currently, trailers under 3.5 tonnes can be without such scrutiny. As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has said, some of them sit in a field or garage for a long time and are then taken straight out onto a highway or motorway without any due regard for their fitness or safety, and indeed without any legal responsibility to have any due regard for this.
Looking specifically at tow bars, I have to admit that the Minister has done a vast amount of research on this and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South has immersed herself in the topic. I came to it two weeks ago by accident, in that I was invited by my constituency business—Rotherham Towing Centre—to come and see their work. They are proud to be only the second facility in the UK to be accredited by Horizon Global, one of the world’s largest towing equipment suppliers. As an accredited centre, customers can be sure that the tow bar fitted to their vehicles is safe and secure, but the reality is that anybody can fit tow hitches and tow bars to their vehicles. The consequences of tow bar failures can be catastrophic, and many of us are aware of horrific incidents—not least the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Unsafe towing can result in serious injury, damage or indeed death. Yet currently there are no legal requirements for tow bars to be fitted by qualified professionals, or indeed for there to be specific standards with which the tow hitches and their fitting need to be aligned. The Minister has an opportunity to change that. There is nothing to prevent an unsafe badly fitted tow bar from being used. As I have already said, at the MOT stage, tow bars have to be seriously unsafe for them to be considered a failure.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on this, but hope he is able to give serious consideration to including the amendments, particularly amendment (a) to new clause 1 as the Bill moves forward.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will be brief. I want to put on record a tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Bristol South. When somebody gets elected and spends a lot of time in this place, they want to be able to say that they have made a difference. After three years of campaigning, the hon. Lady has been able to include in this Bill clauses that could make the difference, and obviously in the future they might lead to further regulations and a further enhancement of road safety, which would be for the benefit of us all. I thank her for her work, and commend the Minister and Government for an unusual approach—they actually worked with the hon. Lady to get to this point and to further improve the legislation.
My one “but” would be about the tow bar amendments. We have heard some fantastic examples of the risk and the potential weak point in the system—how tow bars are fitted and the subsequent maintenance work required. Hopefully the Minister will reflect on what he has heard, particularly the statistic that there is a 91% inspection fail rate, which should cause alarm bells to ring.
I congratulate both the hon. Lady and the Minister, but the Government must still consider those other aspects.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to all colleagues for the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions they have made. I will pick up on each of the issues they have raised.
Perhaps I can start with the hon. Member for Bristol South who, in many ways, is the mother of these amendments. Her point about the importance of affecting driver behaviour and driver education has also been made separately and forcibly to me by the hon. Members for Rotherham and for York Central—it is very important and well understood. In due course, there may well be a case for extending our road safety communications more widely. As the hon. Member for Bristol South will know, we are effective in many ways on road safety education, but it is important that we cover all aspects, so I am grateful to her for that comment.
The hon. Lady asked whether the trailer safety report will fall away. The answer is that it will not. That is because I hope and suspect that the Bill will be enacted—with the support of the Opposition, it certainly will be—and even if it is not enacted, the Government have made a commitment to produce a report according to the standards we have outlined.
Let me pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Of course, it is an offence to use a trailer on the road that is not roadworthy or that is in an unfit condition. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight, as several Members have, the 91% figure found on the assessment. Without getting too philosophical—the House will know my background in this area—there is a difference between data and evidence, and small numbers of data. We need a more comprehensive view. When we have one, we can legislate if we need to with certainty. If we need to regulate, we can do so with all the comfort and assurance that we would need.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with the Minister, but capturing illegal, un-roadworthy vehicles tends to happen when things go wrong. The likelihood of the police stopping someone unless one of their trailer lights are out is incredibly slender. It is more about prevention and having a register. Regular checks would enable us in most cases—something could go wrong the day after the test—to guarantee more likelihood of compliance.
Jesse Norman
One great benefit of the Bill is that it has brought into the foreground a set of issues. It is the beginning of a conversation and a process of reflection that the Government need to have, and it will go well beyond the Bill itself. One can imagine what the different elements of that would be. The first might be education and public awareness, the next stage might be specific intervention, and so on all the way up the tree. I would not rule any of that out—it is just a matter of understanding the basis on which we operate.
In a way, it is a cautionary tale. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned tyre safety, which is another serious issue. She will know that Frances Molloy has campaigned in a very admirable way, having had a bereavement that was just as devastating in its own way as that of Donna and Scott Hussey. The view she has taken is that all tyres over 10 years old should be banned. In fact, in answer to her original campaign, the Department set out in guidance that no tyre aged over 10 years old should be fitted to the front steering axle of a bus. The effect has been remarkable and transformative in that we have seen very little infringement. We have tried on two previous occasions to commission what we considered to be an evidentially robust means of investigation. I am pleased to say that, after several years of trying and failing, we now have a process in mind. That is an example of how one can do an awful lot in advance as part of the process of evidence-gathering—that is what we are trying to do in the context of the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I concur with the Minister on the need for good inspection regimes, whether that is applied to tyre safety, tow bars or trailers. Will he therefore look at what the tow bar industry is doing with regard to the free inspections it is offering the public? Perhaps the Government should support that while looking at the wider issue of trailer safety.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. At the trailer summit, I had a chance to talk to the people running the programme, but there is no doubt that we can do more.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned a range of issues that might have a bearing on this—design fault, operator misuse or the safety of the equipment. All those factors need to be included in the comprehensive consideration I have described. I have said that we expect that to include more data and sources. The vehicle defect category may offer more scope for enlargement if we want to gather more data. She has rightly stressed having an open mind, which is very much what I bring.
We want to involve an expert consideration with stakeholders as part of our reflection. I have found that enormously helpful in other aspects of my portfolio—walking, cycling or road safety—but it is an integral part of the discussion. When we are trying to bring an amorphous body of data under control, it is important to include case studies, which we can do. I hope therefore that what we achieve will be genuinely rich and satisfying, and provide the basis for proper further consideration and, if necessary, action.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
The Chair
For the sake of clarity, although we have just debated new clause 1 and the various amendments tabled to that new clause, we have not yet reached a decision on those matters. That point will come when all the Bill’s clauses have been discussed, shortly before we conclude our consideration of the whole Bill. Either my co-chairman or I will call that matter for decision at that point.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Inspections and information
Jesse Norman
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 14, page 9, line 31, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment removes provision which is replaced by NC1 and NC2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 and 6.
Government new clause 2—Trailer safety: testing regulations.
Jesse Norman
Under amendment 4, the provisions related to testing of trailers, should that be recommended within the report, will be withdrawn to be replaced in full through an alternative approach. As with earlier amendments, amendment 4 will ensure that the intention of the amendments made in the other place may be fully delivered. New clause 2 creates powers for extending the testing of trailers. If the report so recommends, that would be achieved by amending part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to extend existing regimes to apply to all trailers weighing over 750 kg.
It is important to be clear that the original Lords amendment had the defect that it would have created a free-standing testing regime alongside existing powers in the Road Traffic Act that apply to other vehicles. That is why we adopted this approach. Under our amendments, regulations may not be made before the report on trailer safety has been laid before Parliament, so that there can be full consideration.
Rachael Maskell
The Opposition welcome new clause 2 and believe that good progress is being made in addressing vital safety issues. New clause 1 addresses reporting and understanding the evidence, and new clause 2 concerns the application of what happens next, so in some ways it is the most significant part of the Bill. As I have indicated, we want to ensure that significant steps are taken to improve trailer safety and that a solid inspection regime is put in place.
Clearly, we will want to see an initial report on the evidence gathered as a result of new clause 1 to know how best to proceed, and I believe that new clause 2 will enable that to happen. However, we will need to ensure that there is then proportionate follow-up action that provides public safety first and foremost. We want an opportunity for regular inspection, but that action should feed into trailer design to ensure that products on the market are safe and of the highest standard, that trailers are used safely, and that we learn from evidence.
Let me raise one further point. We have talked about British trailers, but obviously people from other countries use our roads. I wonder how an inspection regime will impact them and ensure that the highest standards are achieved across our roads and that safety is upheld at all times.
Sarah Champion
I have a series of questions for the Minister, rather than a speech. Could he give clarity on who is responsible for the periodic testing of trailers and the resources? Will he consider including tow bars or tow hitches in new clause 2, subsection (1), which states:
“Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers”?
I have to apologise—I thought consideration of the Bill would last for four more sittings. Otherwise, I would have tabled amendments to that effect. It would be gracious of the Minister to comment on that.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to colleagues. If a testing regime is to be introduced, the Department will decide what the best way of doing that is. I anticipate that it would be done through an extension of work that has already been commissioned by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and other relevant authorities.
Foreign trailers on our roads will be expected to obey the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that any other trailer would. They will be subject to the applicable law. I want to be sure that I have caught the question that the hon. Member for York Central raised.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister. We are looking not just at the trailers we produce ourselves, but at the use of trailers no matter where they come from. Depending on which jurisdiction they enter our roads from, they could carry risk. If tow bars are not fitted correctly, if the attachment is not locked down, or if the driver is driving carelessly, they pose a risk to the British public. How will the Minister respond to that?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying the point. The answer is, of course, that laws will apply to those trailers just as they would to domestic trailers. However, she rightly raises a wider point. Whether there is a difference in the assessment of trailers brought in from other countries—they may be subject to different regulatory rules—could well be considered in the wider trailer safety report. The report could also consider whether EU standards, or those of other countries, are doing the job we expect them to do. Hopefully that covers all the questions.
Sarah Champion
Would the Minister consider adding inspection of tow bars and tow hitches as the Bill progresses?
Jesse Norman
I cannot take that as a formal amendment, but I will certainly give the matter consideration.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 23
Regulations
Amendment made: 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—
(a) the first regulations under section 1;
(b) the first regulations under section 2;
(c) the first regulations under section 13;
(d) the first regulations under section 18;
(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);
(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment requires the first regulations for periodic testing of trailers (see NC2), and any later regulations which amend an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Extent
Amendment made: 6, in clause 24, page 14, line 8, leave out “Section 11 extends” and insert—
“Sections 11, (Trailer safety: report) and (Trailer safety: testing regulations) extend”.—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment provides that the new clauses about trailer safety (see NC1 and NC2) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commencement and transitional provision
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 25, page 14, line 16, at end insert—
“(1) Where as an outcome of the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom remains in the European Union’s Community Licence regime, sections 1, 2 and 3 will cease to have effect.”.
This amendment would mean that the powers set out in section 1, 2 or 3 would not be available to the Secretary of State where the UK remains in the European Union’s Community Licence Regime.
We have made excellent progress on the Bill this afternoon. In tabling this amendment, Labour was seeking assurances about what we do should we find that the legislation is not necessary. We believe that inserting a sunset clause would be a helpful way of tidying up that element of business. As we have learned from today’s debate, there are still a huge number of uncertainties about the future management of the Bill in the light of the negotiations taking place about the future, not least in relation to the community licensing scheme, which we trust that the Government will seek to be a part of as we move forward. In the light of our discussions and the greater clarity from the Minister today, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Short title
The Chair
We now come to Government amendment 14 to clause 26. The amendment is starred on the amendment paper as it was not tabled with the usual notice to be called today. I have, however, selected it for the convenience of the Committee.
Amendment made: 14, in clause 26, page 14, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment removes the “privilege amendment” inserted by the Lords.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Trailer safety: report
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—
(a) involved trailers, and
(b) caused injury or death to any person.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether— The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(a) regulations under section13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;
(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.
(3) In this section—
“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—
(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than 750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;
(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;
“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”.—(Jesse Norman.)
This new clause requires a report on road traffic accidents involving trailers to be laid before Parliament, including a recommendation as to whether compulsory registration or periodic testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms should be introduced. This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Trailer safety: testing regulations
“(1) Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers.
(2) The regulations may amend provision made by or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(3) The regulations may, in making consequential or other provision as mentioned in section 23(1)(a), amend any Act (whenever passed or made).
(4) No regulations under this section may be made before the report is laid before Parliament under section (Trailer safety: report).
(5) In this section, “relevant trailers” has the meaning given by section (Trailer safety: report)(4).”—(Jesse Norman.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to introduce a system of periodic testing for trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 June 2018 - (26 Jun 2018)
Baroness Sugg
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 11.
“(d) for a number of permits determined by the Secretary of State to be available for grant in cases in which the Secretary of State considers it inappropriate for provision made under paragraph (c) to be applied, for example because of an emergency or other special need.”
(i) when an application is to be made, or that the time when an application is to be made is to be determined by the Secretary of State;”
“Trailer safety: report
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—
(a) involved trailers, and
(b) caused injury or death to any person.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether—
(a) regulations under section 13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;
(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section—
“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—
(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than
750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;
(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;
“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”
“Trailer safety: testing regulations
(1) Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers.
(2) The regulations may amend provision made by or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(3) The regulations may, in making consequential or other provision as mentioned in section 23(1)(a), amend any Act (whenever passed or made).
(4) No regulations under this section may be made before the report is laid before Parliament under section (Trailer safety: report).
(5) In this section, “relevant trailers” has the meaning given by section (Trailer safety: report)(4).”
“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—
(a) the first regulations under section 1;
(b) the first regulations under section 2;
(c) the first regulations under section 13;
(d) the first regulations under section 18;
(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);
(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”
“4A In section 90A(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (offences in relation to which a financial penalty deposit requirement may be imposed), in paragraph (a)(i), after “vehicle” insert “or trailer”.”
“5A In Article 91B(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10)) (offences in relation to which a financial penalty deposit requirement may be imposed), in sub-paragraph (a), after “vehicle” insert “or trailer”.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, on Amendment 1, alongside the Bill, we are developing regulations relating to the issue of permits for hauliers, which will be laid before Parliament later in the year. These regulations will apply to all existing permit schemes as well as those we may need as part of our future relationship with the EU.
Amendment 1 would enable the regulations to specify that the Secretary of State would be able to reserve a limited number of permits. In the unlikely scenario that the UK has a limited number of permits to allocate to hauliers, it is sensible for the Secretary of State to retain a proportion of the available permits to deal with emergencies or other special needs. This would allow the Secretary of State to issue permits in cases where the criteria prescribed in regulations may not be suitable.
Amendment 2 gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to determine when applications must be made, ensuring permits are issued fairly and efficiently. The timing and consideration of applications is likely to differ depending on the country to which the haulier is travelling and the type of permits available. In some cases, where demand is low and permits are likely to be undersubscribed, applications will be accepted and considered throughout the year. In others, where demand is high and the number of permits is limited, applications will need to be made within a specified period for consideration against the relevant criteria to be made in a fair and objective manner. The amendment will enable the administration of applications to take into account the different requirements for different types of permit, which will give the haulage industry flexibility.
Amendments 3 and 4 relate to trailer safety. During consideration in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, tabled an amendment on producing a report on trailer safety and to make subsequent recommendations on an extension of compulsory registration and periodic testing to all trailers weighing over 750 kilograms.
Department officials held productive discussions last week with the light trailer and trailer equipment group, a specialist group that sits under the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and we will be consulting other stakeholders as this work continues. Trailer safety is a complex issue and the insight of stakeholders will be valuable alongside the use of extensive data as the department considers it.
After further consideration of these amendments, it was determined that there was scope for clarifying the new provisions. Accordingly, Amendments 3 and 4, made in the other place, remove the clauses and replace them with Amendments 5 and 6. Amendment 5 sets out the detail of the report. There are no substantive changes to the original amendment and policy intention. The changes we have made are technical in nature.
Noble Lords may note that this new amendment does not include Northern Ireland. The regulation of road traffic is devolved, and it would therefore be inappropriate for the trailer safety report to make specific policy recommendations to apply to Northern Ireland.
The drafting of the new amendment replicates the original clause, with reference to the number and causes of accidents involving trailers which caused injury or death to any person, but removes “comprehensive” as it is potentially ambiguous. It is important for this amendment to be made to the Bill to ensure that the duty placed on the Secretary of State is clear and can be fulfilled. To be clear, this by no means limits the data that may be included. After the report has been published, Amendment 6 would allow the Secretary of State to extend the existing system for periodic testing under the Road Traffic Act 1988 instead of the Bill. Although this is different from the original amendment, I stress that it in no way changes the intention. It will avoid any overlap with the existing regime and provide greater clarity to trailer users and flexibility in how any testing regime could be applied should a recommendation to extend periodic testing be made.
Amendment 7 relates to the powers we have taken under Amendment 6 to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and to make consequential or other changes to any Act. In the interests of parliamentary scrutiny and transparency, the first regulations made under the trailer safety testing regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Additionally, any other regulations made under Clause 23 which amend another Act must be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 8 confirms that Amendments 5 and 6 extend only to England, Wales and Scotland, for the same reasons referred to earlier. Amendment 9 removes the privilege amendment and is a procedural technicality.
I turn to Amendment 10. As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, road traffic offences are often dealt with through the issuing of a fixed penalty notice, which is a fine that must be paid within a set period. This is a pragmatic and effective alternative to prosecuting every road traffic offence in court, and fixed penalty notices will be used to enforce the haulage permits and trailer registration regimes. However, fixed penalty notices are not always effective against non-UK drivers as the notice can be ignored by those who will not return to the UK. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 allows a constable or vehicle examiner to require a driver without a UK address to make an immediate payment or their vehicle may be immobilised. This is known as a financial penalty deposit and payment can be required for,
“an offence relating to a motor vehicle”.
The amendment will ensure that such deposits can also be required for trailer registration offences, making enforcement against UK and non-UK drivers equally effective.
Finally, Amendment 11 makes the same change as Amendment 10 but to equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland: the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. This change is made with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
These amendments made in the other place bring clarity and enhance the original intent of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care and tolerance that she has shown during the passage of the Bill, which is considerably improved. It is far from perfect and I greatly regret the fact that we need it, but it is a lot better than it was when it first came to us.
I will say two or three things about the amendments. On Amendment 1, I remain concerned about the concept of a limit on the number of permits. It reflects a very old-fashioned view of trade and commerce. We no longer live in a world where people know what their business practice will be in three or six months’ time, in many cases. There is a limited attempt to refer to,
“an emergency or other special need”,
but I fear, as the Minister implied, that with permits being issued once a year, if you miss your opportunity, you will have to wait for the next year. I accept, however, that this is where Brexit appears to have brought us: back to an attempt at an old style of doing things.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome these amendments. I share the noble Baroness’s concern about the method of allocation of permits, but I think that we have gone as far as we are going to get on that one. I was particularly interested in the Minister’s comments about Amendments 5 and 6, which she said did not apply to Northern Ireland. I thought the whole point of trailer registration, in Part 2 of the Bill, was that it was a necessity to have trailers registered in case there was a need for any trailer to go outside the UK on to the continent, or into the EU, following Brexit, which of course would also apply to the Republic of Ireland. My logical mind therefore thinks that, if a trailer cannot be registered in Northern Ireland, it cannot leave Northern Ireland—or the UK—for the European Union, which means it cannot go across the border to the Republic.
Notwithstanding that, in Amendment 11, if a driver does take a trailer into the Republic that is registered in Northern Ireland—which apparently it cannot be—they can still be fined. This seems slightly illogical because, if I were a trailer owner in Northern Ireland and not able to register it and therefore go into the Republic, that would not seem quite right to me. Can the Minister explain where I have got it wrong or whether there is something more that needs to happen?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, but also that we have gone as far as we can in those areas. On government Amendments 5, 6, 7 and, I think 8, my research assistant, Catherine Johnson, who drafted the original amendment passed in your Lordships’ House, assured me that the Minister has accepted your Lordships’ amendment but put it in her own words. Accordingly, we support the government amendments and thank the Minister for her efforts.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short debate and for their support for the amendments. As ever, the scrutiny and analysis of noble Lords has improved the Bill—in particular, on the important issue of trailer safety. The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will be covered by the report, and we will work closely with the devolved Administrations. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, Amendments 5 and 6 relate only to the trailer safety report; the rest of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have been clear that our priority is to maintain and develop liberalised access for commercial haulage as part of our future relationship with the EU. It is in no one’s interest to put up barriers to trade, and we will seek to agree a reciprocal deal that allows hauliers to continue to travel freely between the UK and Europe. I agree with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on limited permits. We are confident that we will secure a liberalised approach and avoid the need for any new documents or processes—or, at a minimum, that all hauliers who seek a permit can get one. However, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for all outcomes through the Bill.
Royal Assent
Thursday 19th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 109-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 62KB) - (12 Jun 2018)