Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Report on the impact of leaving the European Union on the international transport of goods—

‘(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of—

(a) the impact of leaving the European Union; and

(b) any relevant international agreement with the European Union or European Union member States,

on the international transport of goods by road.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must consider in particular—

(a) waiting times at ports for goods vehicles transporting goods internationally;

(b) the likelihood of procedures to park goods vehicles transporting goods internationally on the M20 motorway in Kent (“Operation Stack”) needing to be activated in the future;

(c) the likelihood of requiring additional parking around ports for goods vehicles transporting goods internationally; and

(d) the likelihood of the United Kingdom remaining a party to the 1987 Convention on a Common Transit Procedure, as amended.

(3) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes which would result from the policies of Her Majesty’s Government at the time of the assessment and continued participation in the European Union Single Market and Customs Union.’

New clause 3—Report on the effect of ratifying the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the effect of ratifying the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (“the 1968 Convention”) on the international transport of goods by road.

(2) The assessment must consider—

(a) the likelihood of drivers of goods vehicles with United Kingdom driving licenses needing to purchase an International Driving Permit to travel to European Union member States after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union; and

(b) the likelihood of reservations to the 1968 Convention issued by the United Kingdom, insofar as they relate to the international transport of goods, being subject to a legal challenge.

(3) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament on or before 28 March 2019.

(4) In this section, “International Driving Permit” has the same meaning as in the 1968 Convention.’

Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, leave out from “or” to the end of line 42.

This amendment would remove reference to first come first serve or an element of random selection as methods for granting an application for a permit.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

‘(1A) The regulations must ensure that the cost of applying for a permit under this Act to travel to an European Union member State is not disproportionate to the cost an applicant would have incurred in previously applying for a Community Licence.’

Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, after “Kingdom” insert

“, and setting out the number of permits requested, granted and refused”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the number of permits requested, granted and refused.

Government amendments 1 and 3.

[Tom Brake]

It is certainly not my intention to detain the House for long, so if people need to make moves to secure the presence of the person who has secured the Adjournment debate, I give them that warning now. A discipline of the House that is imposed on small Opposition parties is that we have to speak briefly, and I would, in fact, recommend this to all in the House. I am not going to single out anyone in particular, apart from perhaps the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who I think could benefit from a bit of discipline in his speeches in this place. That would free up time for others to speak in debates such as the Canada debate earlier today, which I was hoping to speak in.

Although I will not detain the House for long, I want to spend a bit of time focusing on my new clauses 1 to 3 and amendment 2. New clause 1 would require the UK to negotiate to remain in the EU’s community licences scheme post Brexit. That would enable UK hauliers who have international operator’s licences to deliver goods to and from the UK to continue to do exactly that, including through cabotage rights that would enable them to carry out journeys within another EU country. This is a very sensible proposal and one that Labour and the Liberal Democrats tabled a joint amendment on in the Lords, with slightly different wording from the one that we have here today. There was cross-party, or at least two-party, agreement that this was a sensible proposal.

I am hoping that when the Minister responds, he will say that the Government will negotiate on that basis, or at least negotiate to achieve exactly the same thing, and will particularly have regard to the financial and administrative impact that an alternative scheme might have on hauliers. Apparently, the purpose of our leaving the EU was to get rid of red tape and make it much easier for hauliers and others to conduct business. There is a risk, however, that replacing EU community licences, which cost nothing and are easy to secure and on which there is no limit on the number that can be issued, with a scheme for which hauliers have to pay and which might require them to renew on a regular basis, far from getting rid of red tape, will actually add to it. However, we know that some of the proposals from different factions within the Cabinet, particularly for things such as maximum facilitation, could impose huge additional costs on business and not get rid of red tape at all.

I hope that the Minister can say precisely what the Government intend to do about replacing community licences if they are not to replace them with an equivalent scheme. The purpose of amendment 2 is to ensure that, if the Government do not secure a successor scheme that is identical or similar to it, the cost that hauliers will have to pay is restricted. While some of the big haulage companies might be able to pay whatever the new permit might cost, the change could place a significant cost burden on smaller hauliers—those operating perhaps one or two vehicles. I hope he can say what plan B or the backstop would be in the event of a failure to deliver a community licence equivalent.

The purpose of new clause 2 is to ensure that the Government publish a report on the impact of Brexit on the transport of goods. When I tabled it last week, I was not aware how timely it would be. In the last 24 hours—I am sure there will be others in the next few days—a series of blue chip companies, including Airbus, BMW, Honda and Siemens, have highlighted the projected or potential cost to their businesses of problems at the border. I am sure that the Government would want to report back on the impact, particularly of having to bring back Operation Stack. Many people will remember what happened a couple of years ago when a huge tailback occurred at Dover. Apparently, it was triggered by two French police officers based in Dover not turning up for their shift, and that led to a 15-mile tailback.

What will the impact be if that happens as a result of the need for additional vehicles to be checked? When I visited the port of Dover, I assumed that Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union would already have visited. There has been some interesting coverage on BBC South East recently. It rang round the Opposition spokespeople to ask if they had been to the port of Dover to talk to the authorities about the impact of Brexit. I had been. I had been in the control tower to see the operation. However, when BBC South East asked if a DExEU Minister had been to talk to the port—the largest port, certainly in terms of freight vehicles, with 10,000 passing through it—it was told that apparently not a single one had. I thought that a little remiss. I presume they have been now, given that it got lots of coverage on TV, and so will understand the potential impact on the transport of goods if there are problems on the border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

First, on new clause 2, I am surprised that the Government do not believe that an understanding of the impact of Brexit on the haulage industry would be helpful to them. I would have thought that it would be.

A number of issues have been raised this evening by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), whose campaigning on this issue has come across. I am sure that the Minister can and will want to address that. He does not necessarily have to do that through a Bill, as there are many other ways of doing so.

On new clause 1, I heard some reassurance from the Minister that community licences might be an outcome of one of the options he is looking at. He is also looking at other options that might do away with the need for them in the first place, which clearly would be of assistance to hauliers, particularly if the cost of the permits they will have to pay for is limited. Replacing a paper-based system with something else might assist that process.

I would not want to embarrass the Minister so early on in his ministerial career by pressing my new clause to a vote and causing him to lose, so I do not intend to do so. He has given some reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

Consequential amendments

Amendments made: 1, page 16, line 34, at end insert—

‘4A In section 90A(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (offences in relation to which a financial penalty deposit requirement may be imposed), in paragraph (a)(i), after “vehicle” insert “or trailer”.’

This amendment will ensure that financial penalty deposit requirements may be imposed in respect of offences relating to trailers.

Amendment 3, page 17, line 1, at end insert—

‘5A In Article 91B(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10)) (offences in relation to which a financial penalty deposit requirement may be imposed), in sub-paragraph (a), after “vehicle” insert “or trailer”.’—(Jesse Norman.)

The amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to Amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Consideration is now completed.

[Rachael Maskell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the exchange we just had, I was not asked whether I wanted to press my amendments to a vote or to withdraw them. Is that within order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes. I listened to what the hon. Lady said during her speech, and she did not move her amendments. It would be normal that, if the hon Lady—if I had read the debate in such a way as to think that the hon. Lady wished to call a separate Division on one of her amendments, I would have made sure that that could happen. I took advice on whether the hon. Lady intended to ask for a separate Division on one of her amendments, and the advice was that Opposition Front Benchers did not intend to put any amendments to a vote. It is now too late to change that. The hon. Lady looks askance, but perhaps the message from her Front Bench, through other Front Benchers, to the Chair was not clear.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. Lady would like to make a further point of order, I will allow her to do so, but we cannot change what has happened.

[Rachael Maskell]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see the hesitancy with which you are providing this ruling. I just want to clarify that, at the beginning of my speech in this debate, I did move amendments 4 and 5 formally. I want to put that on the record so there can be no doubt about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

There is not any doubt about it. The fact that the hon. Lady used the word “move” is not actually sufficient. I ascertained, as the occupant of the Chair always does, whether there was an intention on the part of Opposition Front Benchers to ask for a separate Division on any particular amendment, and the advice—or information; it is not really advice—was very clearly that there was no intention to do so. If the hon. Lady or her colleagues sitting beside her had wished to send a different message, they should have done so through other Front Benchers. There is no misunderstanding. In any case, it is too late to change matters now, because we have come to Third Reading.

Third Reading