Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for having another go at this issue. Let me address the questions that he raises. I do not accept the point that he tries to make about whether this is, in some sense, an inappropriate procedure. As I have indicated, this is a product of a joint negotiation. The UK did not control the timing. It is as agreed with the other party to the debate and the discussion.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be coming to this House at the earliest opportunity once he returns from Brussels, in order to make a statement to discuss this and to receive scrutiny from my hon. Friend and from other Members of the House. That seems to me entirely appropriate. I cannot, of course, comment on matters relating to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but what I will say is that, in withdrawing these “notwithstanding” provisions, we do not regard that UK sovereignty is being in any way impeded or undermined—on the contrary. Therefore, I think his concern can be and should be allayed, but I leave it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to address those points tomorrow.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard evidence this morning that the IT systems and processing procedures to allow the Northern Ireland protocol to be implemented on 1 January are not in place. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to rectify that situation to meet the technical provisions that he is bringing forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am afraid that inadvertently the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented my position, or misdescribed my position. I am saying that we are following the Northern Ireland protocol and, therefore, following any provisions that he refers to, but what we are doing is putting in place mechanisms that make them as easy and as facilitated as possible, so that the experience of someone trading in Northern Ireland should be as close as possible to that which they would have today.

The Bill will allow us to amend or modify certain provisions in relation to VAT and excise, including mechanisms to ensure that, in so far as possible, VAT will be accounted for in the same way as it is today, as I have said. In addition, it will make provision for amending current legislation for excise duty. Most of these changes are necessary to ensure that there is comprehensive VAT and excise legislation in place in relation to Northern Ireland at the end of the transition period.

In addition to those steps, there is also a small number of other taxation measures that need to be in place before the end of the transition period. They include provision for an increase in the rate of duty on aviation gasoline, which will apply across the UK. Otherwise known as avgas, the fuel is a form of leaded petrol predominantly used in private aviation.

[Alan Brown]

I notice the Minister said private aviation. Is the Treasury going to look at hydrocarbon fuel duty overall? Kerosene is zero duty rated, which is ridiculous, when motorists pay duty. We need a system in which the duty is applied to kerosene used by airlines, but given the fragile state of the flight industry, we should perhaps do that in a cost-neutral way to it and the Treasury, by incentivising the use of sustainable fuels. Is that something that the Treasury would look at?

[Jesse Norman]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in bringing this matter into a debate that has no direct relevance to that issue at all. I, like him, would like to see as green and sustainable a world as we can arrange. This is a measure that does not relate to kerosene; it relates to avgas, and it has to do with the need to harmonise—or rather, to manage—the relationship between Northern Ireland and the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. The requirement for an increase is set out in the Northern Ireland protocol—again, it relates only to Northern Ireland—but we are expanding it to the whole of the UK to ensure consistency, to avoid burdens on business, and to reduce compliance risks for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is extremely small in its magnitude.

The Bill will also make provision for the introduction of a new system for collecting VAT on goods entering the UK. This includes moving the VAT collection on certain imported goods away from the border, and removing the VAT relief on low-value consignments. Together, these provisions will help to level the playing field for UK businesses, and they will protect the UK high street from VAT-free imports. The Bill will also take forward measures to ensure that the Government retain their ability to prevent insurance-premium tax avoidance after the end of the transition period. This will provide Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with access to the same tools to prevent insurance- premium tax evasion—sorry, I should have said “evasion” rather than “avoidance” earlier—regardless of whether or not an insurer is based in an EU member state.

Finally, the Bill will make provision for new powers that will enable HMRC to raise tax charges under the controlled foreign companies legislation for the period from 2013 to 2018. This technical provision will deal effectively and efficiently with the legacy state aid decision relating to the period before the UK left the European Union.

Draft Drivers' Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 5th February 2019 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I thank both hon. Gentlemen for their support for this important piece of secondary legislation. I will address the points that they have raised.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked whether I concur with his view that a no-deal scenario would be devastating for the haulage industry. We should be in no doubt that the Government do not minimise the disruption that would be caused by a no-deal scenario—that is perfectly clear. That is why we are pressing for a withdrawal agreement and why I encourage hon. Members of all parties to support the Government on that.

[Alan Brown]

Supposing Parliament supports the withdrawal agreement—it is a long shot—what would that mean for the transition period? All it does is kick things into that transition period. What is the timeframe for getting a free trade deal and agreeing a customs arrangement to go with it? What is the timeframe for developing the technology that is needed to prevent a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland?

Draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Monday 12th November 2018 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

That is precisely what they apply to: the domestic commercial environment. If someone commits multiple offences, they can be fined on multiple different grounds. If someone commits systemic or fraudulent offences, they will of course be prosecuted at a significantly greater level.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked how long people have to pay. If it is a fixed penalty deposit, they are required to pay immediately at the roadside, and they can be immobilised if they fail to do so or if there is a risk that they might flee. In response to his other question, if they fail to do so they can be taken to court. The normal regime of enforcement applies.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

A communication today from representatives of the haulage industry speculates that the new permit system will be over-subscribed at the UK end, so the same may apply to reciprocal arrangements. Are the fines enough of a deterrent? If companies do not get the permits they seek, people’s livelihoods and businesses are at stake.

[Jesse Norman]

In previous Committees I have described several scenarios and set out why we believe that hauliers will be able to get permits in each case, whether through a liberalised trade regime, through a European Conference of Ministers of Transport regime or through bilateral arrangements. None of those, however, is germane to the question before the Committee, which is what the fines associated with the various offences should be.

Let me fill out the picture. The Committee will recall that we undertook a consultation on the level of fines. There has already been considerable discussion with industry on the matter.

Draft International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Draft Trailer Registration Regulations 2018

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 6th November 2018 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. These draft instruments were laid on 13 September and 9 October, following extensive industry engagement and consultation throughout the past year. The instruments collectively implement the proposals outlined during the passage of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which I was pleased to guide through this place earlier in the year.

The road haulage sector plays an integral role in keeping our economy moving and in enabling businesses throughout the UK to trade with our international partners in the European Union and beyond. In 2017, the UK haulage sector moved more than 7.8 million tonnes of goods internationally. This is a crucial industry to the wider economy, and that has underlined the Government’s focus on putting in place the necessary arrangements for after we leave the EU in March 2019. I hope Members will allow me the opportunity to share an overview of these instruments and how they work collectively for the sector.

The International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 will establish the framework and systems for the effective administration of a permit system. From November 2018, this regime will cater for our existing permit arrangements with non-EU countries and European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits. From exit day, in the absence of a deal, the regime will cater for existing permit arrangements with EU member states, which are currently covered by EU law. The system will also be the basis for any future permitting arrangement that may arise from our negotiations with the EU.

As the Committee will know, in our negotiations with the EU we are seeking reciprocal arrangements on road haulage. The current arrangements work well for the haulage sector in the UK and for hauliers in continental Europe. This has underlined our intention to seek mutual recognition of international operating licences and access arrangements that do not restrict the current levels of trade.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Will the Minister confirm how extensive the talks have been on reciprocal arrangements and where they are at? Just last week, we discovered that the Secretary of State has not begun discussions on aviation agreements. I hope that those on haulage are further ahead.

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we undertook a consultation before the draft regulations were introduced. Before framing the original legislation there was widespread discussion with industry bodies and other organisations relating both to haulage permits and to trailer registration. I am therefore comfortable that we have covered all of the bases as regards this area of road haulage.

[Alan Brown]

The key point is where these discussions regarding reciprocal arrangements are at with the EU, rather than discussions with the UK industry. I am asking about the EU.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for the correction. As the hon. Gentleman will know, discussions with the EU are being handled through No. 10 and the Department for Exiting the European Union. We are not in a position to comment on the specific details of any of those discussions at the moment, beyond the facts that we are making progress and envisage a deal that will be thoroughly in the interests of the UK and which will permit haulage to flow in as liberal a way as we would like. As the Committee will know, we have made ample arrangements for different forms of contingency in the event that that should not be the case.

Members will be minded to agree that it is appropriate for the Government to prepare for all possible outcomes of our negotiations, including the prospect of no deal. As outlined in the technical notice on road haulage, in the event of no deal, hauliers will be able to use ECMT permits. In addition, we will seek to use existing bilateral agreements concluded prior to one or other of the parties joining the EU. There are 20 such agreements with EU countries—which the Government expect to be reinstated once EU law ceases to apply—some of which require permits and others that do not. Where necessary we will conclude new arrangements where there is no existing bilateral agreement. Clearly, existing agreements may need to be updated, but in any event we expect to have these arrangements, if required, in place to allow international road haulage to continue after exit day.

The draft regulations implement a permit scheme as it would operate on exit day if no new agreements are reached with the EU or member states. That will enable some continuity of road transport services in the event of no deal. Where new agreements are reached with the EU, or with individual member states that will require permits, amending regulations will be made to reflect the terms of such agreements.

The draft regulations place a prohibition on undertaking international journeys without a permit where an international agreement requires one. It is important to note that these draft regulations by no means require the implementation of a permit regime with the EU or for any other international journeys. Rather, should an international agreement require that a permit is held by the operator and carried on the vehicle in question, the draft regulations allow that permit to be issued. Journeys that do not require permits are not within the scope of the draft regulations.

The draft regulations provide for how to make an application and how the Secretary of State will determine which applicants are allocated a permit where the number of permits available is limited. They set out matters that the Secretary of State must take into account when making a determination, which are designed to deliver the greatest economic benefit from the permits, protect the interests of UK hauliers, and apply a fair and consistent allocation process. That focuses primarily on how frequently a permit will be used and the proportion of an operator’s haulage that is international. The draft regulations provide some discretion in those criteria, so that there is sufficient flexibility to respond to changing demands and ensure that permits are allocated fairly, but they require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on the process to ensure that it is transparent for applicants. That guidance has been provided ahead of this debate. The circumstances in which a permit may be cancelled and the process for appealing the cancellation of a permit are also covered.

[Alan Brown]

When the 2018 Act was being debated we were assured that there were enough permits to go around and to meet current demand. Is that still the case? A scoring system has been outlined, and a limited number of permits suggests that not all applicants will be able to get a permit. What is that going to look like?

[Jesse Norman]

I think the hon. Gentleman may have misread or misheard the main debate, because there has always been a possibility that there would not be enough ECMT permits to go around. That is why there are elements for a fair allocation, even in that contingency. The point I have just made is that bilateral agreements also exist to provide further reassurance. As I have said, though, we do expect a liberalised deal to be in place before then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

That is an ingenious but verbal distinction. In this case, there may be circumstances in which emergency loads need to be carried, and the Secretary of State has the discretion afforded under this legislation to allow him—or, in due course, possibly her—to make an allocation on that basis. That is in exceptional circumstances; we expect that provision to be rarely used. In the application process for permits as they stand, it is an automated matter, using the criteria that we have described and set out, very helpfully in detail, in the “Guidance on Determining Permit Allocations”.

Let me turn now to the issue of trailer safety, which the hon. Lady has rightly raised.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way before he moves on. I asked this question earlier: will the Government contact individual companies or bodies directly about this, or will it be left to individual companies to find out and then apply?

[Jesse Norman]

These measures have been very widely published. The hauliers’ associations are very well briefed on the matter. How freight will continue after 29 March has been a topic of national discussion and interest. Therefore, we expect people to be very well briefed. I will also keep the matter under review, but we certainly expect people who are potentially at risk because they have to take international journeys or make international transfers to be aware of these rules and to act on them.

Leaving the EU: Aviation Sector

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown]

Can the Minister explain what the Government’s confidence in reaching an aviation agreement is based on, given that the Secretary of State told the Airport Operators Association conference that discussions have not yet begun?

[Jesse Norman]

As so often the case, I am sad to have given way to the hon. Gentleman because these points are covered precisely in my speech and if I had had the extra 45 seconds to be allowed to make them, I could have reached them. We are seeking liberalised aviation access. We recognise that is what UK and EU consumers and businesses want and need. As we move forward it is important to be clear that we recognise that it is in everyone’s interests to do a deal quickly and to make it a good deal.

Before I turn to the many specific points that have been raised, as colleagues have said aviation is crucial to the UK’s economy and its standing as a great trading nation. It has been a global success—there can be no doubt about that. We have the third largest aviation network in the world and the biggest in Europe, with direct flights to more than 370 international destinations in 100 or so countries, providing at least £22 billion to the UK economy every year and supporting more than half a million UK jobs.

As a Government we do not wish to see the introduction of new barriers that would hinder the growth of our aviation industry—I do not think any Member of Parliament wishes to see that. That is why we are seeking to strike the right deal with the EU, one that allows that sector to grow and prosper. We should be clear that not just the UK will benefit from a liberal aviation market. It is in the interest of all EU countries and citizens that a comprehensive air transport agreement is negotiated.

Lest we forget, 164 million passengers travelled between the UK and EU airports in 2017. UK residents made 42.7 million visits to the EU and spent an estimated £21.3 billion while they were there. It cannot be in the interests of either UK or EU businesses or consumers for flights to stop, let alone be interrupted. That is why we are working so hard to reach a deal which continues the current arrangements, in as close to a liberalised form as we can.

As hon. Members across the Chamber have said, consumers and industry want certainty, and quickly. So do the Government and much, if not all, of the EU and its member states. It is true that negotiations on transport have yet to begin—that is an EU decision—but let me assure Members that we are ready for that when they do. We work closely with the aviation industry to ensure that the needs of the global sector are factored into our negotiations. Our objectives for future partnership on aviation are precisely to preserve the connectivity, the high safety standards and the efficient use of airspace that consumers benefit from today.

There are many reasons why the EU should and will, I think, agree to a liberal aviation deal with the UK. The UK has been at the forefront of driving forward the liberalisation of aviation markets across the world, precisely the point made eloquently by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). It is that liberalisation that has driven down prices and opened up accessibility to aviation markets for many people across this country.

We provide EASA with a significant amount of expertise and have played a key role in enhancing safety standards across Europe. One of the ironies of the present situation is that EASA was set up if not largely by the Civil Aviation Authority then with heavy influence from this country. We are a global leader in aviation security, with one of the best security systems in the world. Our geographical position in the aviation network means that along with Ireland, the UK services more than 80% of traffic entering or leaving EU airspace from the north Atlantic.

We start from a unique position of having wholly aligned regulatory standards with the EU. No two agreements are exactly the same; we recognise that. Each one will inevitably be tailored to suit the circumstances of the parties involved, but we seek an agreement on which we can build a further liberal future aviation relationship. The benefits that both sides gain from air transport are clear, and the benefits that we have described are so evident that we feel some justification in believing that the arrangements will continue.

As a responsible Government, we must also contemplate the unlikely event that we might conceivably be forced to leave the EU without a deal. We believe that flights between the UK and EU will continue, even if that happened. It would be in nobody’s interest to introduce obstacles to airlines or to limit the choice of destinations that passengers enjoy today. The continuation of flights is far and away the highest probability, but we have to prepare for all eventualities until we can be certain of the outcome of negotiations. Our preparation plans continue at pace, against the possibility of a no deal, in part to support the final deal we eventually agree.

As part of that planning we have published three aviation technical notices. These set out the pragmatic approach that the UK would take in any no-deal scenario. The point of that approach is to avoid disruption to air services, to support businesses and consumers, and to maintain their rights across the EU. We expect the EU to do the same. We think they will. It is character for them and in the interests of both UK and EU consumers and businesses. Our preference, of course, would be to have in place a multilateral contingency agreement with the EU27. We are pleased that the EU is preparing for contingency plans as well as for future partnership discussions. We would welcome a common approach, but we must prepare for all scenarios.

It is certainly true that the UK and EU aviation sectors urgently need reassurance that we are working on positive post-EU exit solutions for all possible outcomes and that in any scenario there will be continued connectivity. Regardless of the outcome, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will provide the maximum possible certainty to individuals and businesses about their legal rights and obligations as we leave the EU.

Turning to third countries, we are also aware that the issue reaches beyond the EU. We are working hard to deliver another priority, which is to replace quickly EU-based third country agreements with countries such as the US and Canada. We are working with these countries to ensure new replacement arrangements are in place after we leave the EU. Despite some reports to the contrary, talks have been positive and we have made significant progress. We believe with some confidence that these arrangements will be ready for exit.

The UK also has 111 independently negotiated bilateral air service agreements with countries all over the world, including China, India and Brazil. There will be no change to these when the UK leaves the EU. As always, we will continue to seek new and improved bilateral air service agreements with the rest of the world, seeking to improve connectivity, choice and value for money for businesses and consumers.

I turn now to the points raised in the debate, starting with those of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. He said that it was critical that the choices that constituents are able to make remain the same. We recognise that. It is important to be aware that tourism is booming across the UK and is now worth over £66 billion annually to the economy. As he knows, we are proposing reciprocal visa-free travel arrangements to enable UK and EU citizens to continue to travel freely for tourism. The Home Office has set out proposals on the movement of workers and will set out future immigration policy shortly. We have been clear that we seek a comprehensive agreement on air transport that provides for continuity of services and opportunities.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was an adequate fall-back. As I said, our preference is for a contingency agreement with the EU27 to be in place, but since the Commission will not engage with the UK at the moment, for tactical reasons of negotiation, we need to discuss bilaterally with member states what arrangements will be put in place. The aviation technical notices clearly set out the pragmatic approach we propose in any no-deal scenario. Specifically, we intend to give permits to EU airlines—this addresses the point the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made about Ryanair—to allow them to operate in the UK, and we expect that to be reciprocated by the EU.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and other colleagues asked what practical steps the Government are taking to secure the mutual recognition of aviation safety standards. Of course we recognise that our continued participation in EASA in some form will reduce regulatory burdens for the sector. As we set out in the White Paper, there is an established mechanism and a precedent for third countries to participate in the EASA system.

All UK-issued safety approvals and certificates conform with the international requirements of the Chicago convention, so all those associated with the international operation of UK-registered aircraft should continue to be recognised for the operation of air services by UK aircraft. Let me be clear that we are pressing the EU for technical discussions to take place between the CAA and EASA as soon as possible, to ensure that any respective contingency and other plans are fully aligned. We seek an improved shared understanding of the situation on all sides.

The hon. Gentleman expressed concern that the Government may not be prepared to use the opportunity to prepare the aviation sector for the next five to 10 years. As colleagues across the House have rightly pointed out, that issue is in many ways independent of Brexit. As colleagues know, the Government are developing a new aviation strategy, the purpose of which is specifically to achieve a safe, secure and sustainable aviation sector. That is a long-term strategy. It is not a 10-year or even a five-year thing—it is a strategy out to 2050 that is designed to lay the foundations of a strategic shift and development in the way our aviation industry operates.

We have a strong focus on consumer issues, but of course we also champion the economic benefits of aviation. We will consider how we can maximise the role of our world-class aviation sector in developing trade links, but we recognise the need to focus inward on industrial strategy as well as outward on international trade. On 7 April, the Government published the aviation strategy next steps document, which outlines the key challenges ahead for aviation and our considerations in responding to them. We plan to deliver a final aviation strategy in early 2019—for those who asked, that is not so far away.

Turning to airports and Border Force, the Department for Transport continues to work closely with Border Force on the “Welcome to the UK” initiative. Border Force recognises that, given predicted passenger growth, which is undiminished by the concerns that were raised, queues at passport control may get longer. The purpose of the recent announcement that millions more people will be able to use e-passport gates was precisely to meet that long-term contingency. The two sides are committed to working closely with the industry to minimise queuing times by reducing last-minute schedule changes and ensuring that service-level agreements are set at the right level. Alongside that, the Government plan to consider whether there are additional or alternative funding mechanisms in the medium term.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East rightly asked whether skills and training will be adequately maintained in the face of the changes to the sector after Brexit. I reassure him that the Government are very much committed to working with industry to support the aviation sector. The Department is working closely with officials across Government to explore all those issues and to incentivise the growth of the UK aviation sector in the longer term by examining options to stimulate skills and training alongside and through the work that is being done in this sector under the industrial strategy. We believe aviation is critical to both the UK and the EU, and we are determined to make it so in the future, too.

The hon. Member for Strangford, who was not in his place when I mentioned him earlier, is absolutely right to highlight the continued investment in this country. He said good times are around the corner. I think times are pretty good at the moment, given the way tourism is booming and the economy continues to grow. We have a late-stage economy that is still growing at more than 2.5%—I think we can all be very pleased about that. He is absolutely right that that performance is not discounting a disaster post Brexit; it is actually discounting continued business and economic growth, and rightly so.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire rightly pointed out the huge falls in flight costs that resulted from liberalisation. She highlighted Hanover. I am pleased to say that when George I came to this country from Hanover he did not have to go by aeroplane, but it would have been a lot cheaper if he had done so—in her judgment, the Elector of Hanover could have come here in a matter of hours for something like £50. Let me reassure the hon. Lady that Ryanair should have no reason at all not to fly to Britain. The UK intends to continue to offer arrangements that will allow it to fly unimpeded to this country, and we expect the EU, in the open spirit I described, to do the same, as we grant permits to EU carriers. But we want a comprehensive, liberalised agreement, and she rightly focused on the benefits of that.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) raised non-disclosure agreements. I do not think there is anything that any Government could or should be concerned about in that respect. This is a very delicate time in discussions with the EU over Brexit, and such agreements are quite common.

I was invited to wind up by 3.57 pm, so I will quickly pick up some other points. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned licences, and I have a private pilot’s licence myself. Tragically, I have not used it much recently, but I am sensitive to the point he raised. I am confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage any issues and to ramp up. Given the time, I should probably sit down. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hollobone.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. If I had heard all of it, I would be able to respond in some detail.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister has referenced some of the points that I have made. What he did not do, however, was to guarantee to protect the slots for Scottish airports.

[Jesse Norman]

After this much discussion and documentation, the idea that the Scottish National party can hide behind the lack of a formal guarantee is frankly an insult to the process and to this House. To abstain, as the Scottish National party is doing, and not to reach a decision, is to say that it will give up the at least 100 additional flights per week. It will mean no more slots and no more economic growth for Scotland from this proposal. Frankly, that is a risible position.

Airports National Policy Statement

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Thursday 7th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jesse Norman]

Our expectation is that it will be up to 15%, but we wait to see how far that 15% can be fully utilised. We have made it perfectly clear that, although this is not a matter for Government as such, we expect to see many regional airports come forward with plans, as many have already said they would. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has already given evidence of the support of Scottish airports.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State said in his statement on Tuesday that the Government will find a legal mechanism for the protection of slots. How is that going to happen? That seemed to be a rather more vague commitment.

[Jesse Norman]

That is right. We have taken legal advice on it. We believe that public service obligations are a mechanism that can be used to give legal support for that position. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a degree of comfort from that.

I want to turn to some of the many points that were raised. I have only about two and a half minutes remaining, so I will be as quick as I can. I apologise if I miss some, and colleagues are welcome to write to me with these concerns. One suggestion made was that the scheme fails to monetise all the costs. The advice I have had is that we have monetised the air quality impact, which was identified as an omission by the Transport Committee and included in the updated appraisal report. On the question of whether there is a potentially costly risk from a delay in hitting full capacity, our judgment is that this is not specifically geared towards the delivery of a scheme in 2026 exactly, which is immediately being filled up thereafter. Sensitivity testing on this suggests that there might be limited impacts, even if there were some form of delay, which we do not expect.

Let me go through these other points, many of which I have already touched on. As I mentioned, we agree that the conversation on mitigation must focus on the communities most affected. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who highlighted the importance of freight. He also made a powerful case, as many regional airports have done, for wider connectivity within the UK itself. I would not be surprised if I saw a bid coming forward from Manston, in a different incarnation from its current posture. I thank him for that.

We have touched on the question of bans versus mitigation. There is a suggestion that flight paths are somehow locked in place with no ability to vary. To be clear, as we move to a world of digital airspace, the capacity to vary flight paths greatly increases. That will take a number of years and that is why it has to be developed in context with the decision about the flight paths and therefore the noise implications of that, but it is important to bear that in mind.

I am grateful to the Committee. I appreciate that, in addition to the due documents that were laid before Parliament, a whole host of other materials have been subsequently published. I am grateful to hon. Members for looking at that. If they have further comments on that material, we would be happy to hear them.

Heathrow

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. We have seen many brilliant examples of crowbarring local and national issues into debates, and I salute her ingenuity in so doing. She rightly makes the point that this proposition has been left unexecuted for far too long, although it has greatly improved as a result. It will bring an almost £75 billion boost to the UK economy, provide better connections to growing world markets and allow better support for regional airports and the regions of the country. She is right that we need to press ahead.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I am rather naive. When the Secretary of State for Transport came to the Dispatch Box to present the decision on Heathrow expansion, I thought he was moving on from the rail shambles and on to firm ground—a subject he had a firm grip on—but clearly that is not quite the case. We are hearing mixed messages about liabilities and a rather flippant, “We don’t need to worry. It is a normal commercial recovery mechanism that Heathrow has put in.” The Government have to be clear about this if they are to carry the vote of the House and take this forward, and time is limited.

The Secretary of State said that the Government had acted on 24 out of the 25 recommendations of the Transport Committee’s report on the NPS, but that claim seems to be unravelling as we go through the Government’s response. Again, it seems the Government are not on top of this. There has been much debate about the cost of surface access and who pays for that. The Government are going to have to be very clear, because they keep saying there are no liabilities there and it will all be private-funded. They need to start to understand the mechanisms for the payment of surface access upgrades; will that be a private finance initiative through fare recovery? What will it be, and what are the associated contingent liabilities? Quite often, the Government end up giving infrastructure guarantees, so will they be in place for surface access upgrades?

In terms of the 15% of new slots—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I will need to understand the protection of the 15% of new slots for the new domestic routes before the vote takes place; that is important.

[Jesse Norman]

The latter point is so far outside the scope of this UQ that I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I address it in the Committee session this afternoon.

On the issues the hon. Gentleman raises that are germane to the question, let me start by thanking the Scottish National party for its support for this project, which it rightly concludes will be of great value to Scotland—and that is agreed across all parties. There are no mixed messages here and there is nothing fluffy about the legal position on which the Government have—as it appears, uniquely—taken advice. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the statement of principles was published in 2016 and has been available for almost two years, so if there is fluffiness it is not on the Government side of this House.

We have taken very seriously the 24 out of 25 Select Committee recommendations that the hon. Gentleman raised. We are grateful to the Select Committee for its detailed and painstaking work and have acted on many of its recommendations; we have left one to be a point of further discussion, and dispute potentially, but we have been overwhelmingly positive in many ways towards the Select Committee response. That should be reflected on the record, and we are grateful for the support it has given to this project.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

indicated assent.

[Alan Brown]

I love the rolling of the eyes as the Minister gives way.

[Jesse Norman]

I just want to make some progress.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

Car Insurance

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Monday 5th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I would say I was speechless at the joy, except that I have to make a speech. I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for opening the debate as she did on the important subject of insuring cars rather than the individuals who drive them. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I welcome the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) to his position on the shadow Front Bench. It will be a delight to address some of his points.

I hope I can assure hon. Members that the Government take the cost of motor insurance seriously and are committed to ensuring that it is reasonable for all motorists. To do that, we have sought to identify the root causes of high insurance premiums and to address them directly, but we have no plans to change the current motor insurance system, as stated in our response to the petition, and there appears to be consensus across all the parties whose Members contributed to the debate that that is the correct position.

I will first outline the system and some of the issues and then come on to all the important questions raised by colleagues from across the House. The UK was one of the first countries in the world to recognise the benefit of compulsory motor insurance, back in 1930. Our long-standing approach has been that it is an individual’s use of a vehicle that has to be insured. The current system of insuring individual drivers, rather than vehicles, does not, as has been noted, prevent named drivers from being added to an insurance policy for shorter or longer periods, which can be a cost-effective way for friends or relatives who share a car to be included on a single policy. For a typical family of four sharing a car, the saving with a named-driver policy rather than each family member having their own policy has been estimated to be more than £1,000. There are also new insurance products coming on to the market that facilitate short-term cover, including insurance by the hour and car-sharing arrangements, without the need to change insurance law. Such products make it easy to arrange cover for someone else using your car. One new car insurance app quotes an average of £10.90 for an hour’s coverage, which can be set up at very short notice, and I am sure we can expect further developments of such pay-as-you-drive solutions in the coming years.

It is important to note, as colleagues have, that it is not at all clear that changing the system would reduce the cost of insurance. In fact, there is every reason to think it could raise it. The complexity involved in changing the system would have significant cost implications, yet would not necessarily produce tangible benefits for the consumer. Some countries opt for a car-based rather than a driver-based system because they have no-fault legal regimes, under which each insurer compensates their own policyholder. So it is a question not just of how people purchase insurance but of the wider civil law principle of liability, which is different in the UK from those other countries. Changing our motor insurance system would almost certainly, therefore, involve complex legal changes and require detailed consultation. A change in the underlying legislation would mean that all insurers would need to redesign the systems they used to offer quotes, which, as the hon. Member for Reading East hinted, would be a complex and lengthy exercise and could have significant cost implications for both the industry and, in due course, consumers. Given the alternative solutions available, such as adding a named driver or adding “drive other car” options to motor insurance policies, such significant reforms would be disproportionate.

The price of insurance currently depends on a range of factors, including many that are driver-specific: driving history, including previous claims and unspent drink-driving convictions; the use made of the vehicle, for example, whether for commuting or business; and years of driving experience. If insurers were required to cover the vehicle and were not able to take such factors into account in their pricing, the cost of insurance would likely rise for those with a good driving record and a history of safe driving and they would end up bearing, on a net basis, the additional costs of drivers who were not as careful or safe. The evidence for that is that insurers already tend to charge much higher premiums for any-driver insurance policies, under which less good drivers can join a named driver. Named-driver policies allow friends or relatives who share a car to be included on a single policy and provide the insurance provider with the necessary information to assess the potential risk of each individual.

Turning, as one or two colleagues have already done, to the scenario used in the petition, I wish to note that it is based on a drink-driving situation. Three friends need to get home from a night out, two of whom, including the driver, are under the influence of alcohol and are unable to drive. The petition suggests that a system that insured the vehicle would enable the third friend to drive the group home. However, as has been mentioned, the risk could be significantly greater than is suggested. As has been noted, the owner’s friend may never have driven the vehicle and may have much less overall driving experience or a significantly worse claims history. In an era where vehicle technology is changing rapidly, the variety between newer and older cars is only getting greater, so the driver’s individual experience of a particular make and model of car will have increased significance.

We have to think about the cost of covering vehicles, not people, as well as the incentive that creates. If that group knows that one of its members—they may be the least experienced driver—will be sober, that could create an incentive that removes the restraint on people’s drinking. There may therefore be collateral unexpected consequences, even within the scenario that was set out. That by no means means that the Government are not determined to seek to reduce the cost of insurance, and it is important to make that clear. We have no plans to change the current system, but that does not mean we are not tackling other key issues known to drive up the cost of premiums, several of which have been discussed today.

One issue that has not been discussed is that of the measures we are taking to tackle the high rate of fraudulent, minor and exaggerated whiplash claims. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the fact that 85% of personal injury claims made in 2016-17 relating to road traffic accidents were labelled as whiplash or soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. I am afraid these data are four or five years old, but that figure compares with 30% in France and Denmark, 31% in Spain, 35% in the Netherlands and 68% in Italy, which is a bit more like us. A large number of claims management companies actively encourage claims after even minor crashes, thereby potentially exacerbating the problem. The magnitude of costs that insurers inherit from whiplash claims are often passed on to consumers through higher insurance premiums, raising the cost overall.

In February 2017, the Government announced a robust package of reforms to crack down on minor, fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims. The measures will be introduced in a civil liability Bill in due course. Subject to parliamentary time and consideration, the Government aim to implement the whiplash measures as a package in April 2019. It is estimated that the reforms will bring down the cost of motor insurance by around £35 a policy. Leading insurers, such as Aviva, have publicly committed to passing on savings through lower premiums. Motor insurance operates under something of a cloud, as we recognise, and has often been criticised on competition grounds, as colleagues have noted. In many ways, however, it is an intensely competitive industry, and insurers will have be under pressure to pass on savings or risk being priced out of the market. We as the Government will monitor the industry’s reaction to the reforms and will consider further action if required.

I want to pick up on some of the points that Members have raised, which include some important issues that are collateral to the petition, but are important for us to touch on. The hon. Member for Clwyd South mentioned that she had three key tests for legislation in this area. The first was the effect on costs, the second was the effect on the innocent party and the third was whether it would help or hinder road safety. I hope she will recognise that one of the unintended consequences might be to push up the cost of personal injury claims. The UK is famed for its relatively high level of personal injury claims, which is one reason why it yields whiplash claims. Those claims are one of the things funded by insurance premiums. The downside is higher costs, and we have identified that problem, but the upside is that personal injury claims tend to get paid out at a higher level in this country. We are keen to ensure that the link between driver insurance and driver behaviour is maintained precisely to maintain personal accountability.

The hon. Lady, like the hon. Members for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Reading East, was absolutely right to note the high cost of young people’s insurance claims and the higher risk that young people face in their motoring. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Reading East, I cannot comment on what the coalition Government did or did not promise about a Green Paper, but I can tell him that these issues are of enormous interest and importance to the Government. We have commissioned a lot of work under our Driver 2020 programme, which is specifically designed to explore different forms of intervention that can bear on young people and improve their driving and therefore their insurability. That includes work on hazard perception, simulated training, education, parental engagement, data recorders, telematics and the rest. That is important.

To respond to the hon. Member for Darlington, we absolutely have not ruled out some form of graduated driver licence. We do not think it is the right policy at the moment, but we are looking at it. As she acknowledged, there are different forms of GDL, and it is important to be specific about the elements that might be brought in. It is not policy, but as she has said, and as the Prime Minister has said, we are considering that for precisely this reason. It falls into a wider desire across Government and certainly on my part to reduce the risk to young drivers, particularly in rural areas.

In my county of Herefordshire, I went to an extraordinary demonstration organised by the local fire service called Dying 2 Drive. It is run in connection with the ELY Memorial Trust, which is a wonderful local charity dedicated to helping prevent road accidents for young people. It is the most petrifying experience. Young people in sixth forms are exposed to a road traffic accident with fatalities right there. The situation in front of them is then solved through an intervention by the fire service and the police. It is a very moving experience. It is very hard to see it and drive without great care and attention thereafter, and the evidence is that it is very effective. I would like to see it rolled out by all kinds of fire services. It underlines the wide range of interventions that can be used to try to help this problem of young people at risk on our roads.

I will pick up a couple of other points that have been made. Adverse consequences are a theme that everyone has rightly touched on. We all recognise that the cost of premiums is higher than we would like, particularly for certain groups in society. We are determined to adopt a series of reforms—I have talked about whiplash and the work being done on young people—to try to reduce the high premiums and their impact on particular groups, but we have to be aware of the law of unintended consequences and the danger that such reforms may inadvertently drive up costs and premiums. Costs may be reallocated to people in a way that undermines the incentives to drive well and drive safely. It would be a disaster if we had those counterintuitive and counteractive results.

I am grateful to all Members who have contributed and to the hon. Member for Clwyd South for introducing the debate.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way just as he was finishing. In terms of the costs for young drivers, I mentioned the fact that the extra 12% insurance premium tax is a further hurdle for those drivers to overcome. Could the Government look at reforming that?

[Jesse Norman]

It is hard to respond to that question, because it is about a tax and is therefore handled by the Treasury, rather than my Department. Also, it is not a tax that falls specifically on young people, but on the industry as a whole. As with any tax, one should consider not only the tax but the things it is intended to pay for and might be paying for, whether that is reducing debt or funding public services. The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that over the past few years the Department has pioneered a continuous insurance enforcement system that has significantly reduced the number of uninsured drivers by some 40%. Again, we take the point about the concern, but we specifically want to address the cause of it, which is the number of uninsured drivers. That is the core point of the remark.

To wind up, I am grateful to colleagues across the House and the hon. Member for Clwyd South for introducing this debate. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for putting it on our docket. We all recognise that the cost of car insurance is an important issue for all motorists. That is why the Government are committed to the things we have discussed tonight: tackling fraudulent whiplash claims, working with the motor insurance market, keeping premiums as low as they can be and addressing the risks and concerns that relate to young people and those in rural areas. I hope on that basis that the House will be satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Brown and Jesse Norman

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister to his post. On his opening remarks, may I remind him that there is a north beyond the northern powerhouse, and it is called Scotland? In general, in order to deliver high-quality, reliable rail services, funding needs to be based on the needs of the sector, taking account of future growth, the size of the network and essential maintenance. Does he agree with those sound principles?

[Jesse Norman]

I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the fact that the north goes beyond the northern powerhouse—of course, I entirely agree with him on that. That is why the Government are involved with the borderlands growth deal, the precise point of which is to work with local authorities on both sides of the border. He will be aware that the high-level proposition to the UK and Scottish Governments on that was submitted last year. We will continue to work on that, and of course we will continue to invest in roads, alongside that process, to the extent that we can.

[Alan Brown]

On the principles I was trying to lay out, Scotland has 17% of the UK rail network but was allocated only 10.4% of the UK spend. The Government regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has stated that £1.9 billion is needed for essential repairs and £2.3 billion is needed to meet future demand. So why was the funding formula cut and why were experts ignored, leaving Scotland with a £600 million shortfall?

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there has been a fiscal settlement which has changed over time, very much in consultation with and with the support of the Scottish Government. Of course, any changes to UK funding in England will be followed by Barnett consequentials, with an impact in Scotland.