Brexit: Road, Rail and Maritime Transport (EUC Report)

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate on a report on which we worked very hard. It gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Whitty, who chaired the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, and to the staff, who had an enormous quantity of evidence to sift through. My noble friend is a hard act to follow, and I believe that the report’s recommendations remain valid 16 months after its publication. We spent equal time on all the important areas—not least the impact on the Northern Ireland economy, as my noble friend said.

I will say a little about private motoring but will concentrate mainly on road haulage. On private motoring, can the Minister say whether there is any progress on achieving—as my noble friend Lord Whitty asked—the green-card-free circulation area? Also, in the Government’s response to the report, they stated that the Department for Transport was “progressing” bilaterals on driving licence recognition. How much progress has been made and how many bilaterals have been pencilled in, even if not formally signed? Thirdly, do we have any figures showing demand for international driving permits and whether the Post Office route has led to problems?

We know how important road haulage is to the lifeblood of our economy. The CBI indicated that there is more roll-on roll-off lorry movement between the UK and the EU through major ports each year than there are container ships to and from the UK and the rest of the world. Using the Department for Transport’s statistics, the CBI said:

“The consequences of no deal for the haulage sector will ripple through the economy, not least for food and drink trade, with food products accounting for 15% of all commodities exported via road and 36% of imports.”


The Freight Transport Association says that the average haulier operates on a 2% profit margin, so any costs arising from no deal with be passed on to its customers.

In the Government’s response to our report, dated July last year, the then Minister, Chris Grayling, talked about the new exit date of 31 October and referred to the preparations still being in place for the original 29 March leaving date. Apart from another new date of 31 December 2020, we have had two new Conservative Administrations and one or two new Transport Ministers. I do not think that the 16-month gap will have led to many changes. The negotiations are still ongoing, with road haulage still a point of friction.

I accept that the Covid-19 pandemic has further complicated the task. Nevertheless, I have a few questions for the Minister as to whether there have been any changes since our report was published. The Government understandably want a deal, seeking reciprocal arrangements that are “as frictionless as possible”. It is stated that a permit scheme was “not our preferred position”. Has there been any progress in this area?

Recommendation 6 of the report indicated that we did not consider a cabotage agreement essential to the UK, apart from the separate issue of Northern Ireland. However, given the figures for some east European countries, the UK must have some leverage in this area, as those countries will want to protect their interests. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that as negotiating leverage. If there is no agreement on cross trade or cabotage, what help will the Government give UK hauliers to adapt their businesses?

Recommendation 5 indicated that some sectors or operators might be more badly affected by no deal. However, the Government were unable at the time to identify those areas. Are we any clearer about these sectors and operators? The Government referred to

“the main effect being an adjustment in how hauliers operate.”

What assistance, if any, will they receive for that adjustment?

Recommendation 7 refers to the possibility of

“a limited, shared allocation for cabotage and cross-trade journeys”,

and thought this “might provide a model” for the future. Does the Minister agree? How burdensome might it be?

Recommendation 8 refers to

“social standards and conditions of employment.”

It states:

“The limited benefits of regulatory divergence are unlikely to outweigh the opportunities of greater market access.”


The Government’s response referred to

“how EU regulation may develop in future.”

Surely the Government do not expect to future-proof any deal? I know of few negotiated deals anywhere that achieve that.

Referring to the ECMT permits—I apologise for the jargon; it stands for the European Conference of Ministers of Transport—the demand vastly outstrips supply. The Government accept that these would be additional to other market access arrangements and are not sufficient on their own, and said that they do not intend to rely on such permits. The Government say that they are working with the industry on “practicalities”. What are those practicalities?

On bilateral agreements, the Government are—quite rightly—concentrating on an EU-level arrangement. However, the Government’s response says

“where existing bilateral agreements revive on exit”.

It sounds a bit like Sleeping Beauty, does it not? Can we know what these revivals on exit will be?

Finally, I want to ask the Minister for an update—as did the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Whitty—on the position of lorry parks and other contingencies in Kent, both from the road haulage point of view and regarding the environment for the citizens of Kent.

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to road hauliers for helping to keep the UK fed and provided for during the Covid-19 pandemic. I speak as someone whose late uncle was a lorry driver, as were my two brothers-in-law, who are now retired. My stepson is still a lorry driver. I hope very much that the Minister can give us some more concrete information. I must say, I am doubtful, but nevertheless I welcome any information since the publication of this report.