Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 31 January and will be made under powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, also known as ATMUA. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, this legislation created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement alleviation measures for airport slots related to the impacts of Covid-19, subject to a vote in both Houses. This allows the UK to adapt its approach to best support the recovery of the aviation sector.

Ordinarily, airlines must operate their slots 80% of the time to retain the right to those same slots the following year. This is known as the 80:20 or “Use it or lose it” rule. This encourages efficient use of scarce airport capacity. We have been amending the airport slots requirements since the summer of 2020; we have seen a promising recovery in passenger demand during 2022 and in the early part of 2023, but there remains some continued uncertainty in the industry and demand remains below the levels seen before the pandemic. The Government have therefore designed a package of measures for the summer 2023 season that sees a return to the normal 80:20 rule on slots usage. This will encourage more efficient use of slots, combined with flexibility to help manage that remaining uncertainty.

When the pandemic originally struck, the 80:20 rule was fully waived. This avoided environmentally damaging and financially costly ghost flights. We then made fairly generous alleviations for the four subsequent seasons, while travel restrictions remained. Last summer, in 2022, we changed the usage ratio to 70:30 because we felt there was a more positive outlook in demand and wanted to ensure that the slots were used as effectively as possible.

However, as noble Lords will recall, there was some disruption during the summer season last year and we made an additional alleviation, a one-off slots amnesty, which helped to calm the disruption and meant that the aviation sector was flying the schedule that it said it would. That very much helped to reduce last-minute cancellations, which ended up being around the 2019 levels.

For summer 2023, the season that starts on 26 March and runs to 28 October, we are planning to return to the pre-pandemic 80:20 allocation—there has been no change in that. We will continue to include the enhanced justified non-use provisions, which we introduced for winter 2022, for those areas where there is still considerably reduced demand. That might be because of pre-departure testing, flight bans, quarantine or self-isolation requirements, all of which put a significant dampener on demand. It is in those circumstances that the justified non-use provisions come into play. Following consultation with the industry—that is, airlines and airports—we have decided to include an alleviation of a 5% slot hand-back, but this must happen before the start of the season so that there is no uncertainty going into it about whether a route will be operated on a day or at any particular time.

It is worth noting that the instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. This is because aerodromes are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland. In any event, there are no slot co-ordinated airports in Northern Ireland.

I have had many conversations with the aviation sector and we are very focused on ensuring that summer 2023 is a success. I believe that the provisions within this statutory instrument will contribute greatly to that. However, we also recognise that the sector has nearly recovered and the alleviations we are proposing are therefore limited in nature. I beg to move.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this. She will be appreciative that I am not my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. She looked slightly puzzled earlier that he was not here. I can only say that he is on important duties elsewhere. I have gone through the material and, as my colleagues in the Commons were keen to say, there is not a big policy difference between us; we are quite happy with the measures that the Minister has set out. I will just make a few points.

Obviously, it is vital for our economy that the aviation sector recovers fully to its pre-Covid levels. My understanding is that we are likely to come back to this issue again in the autumn when the summer season will have been reviewed and we will have to decide whether we need to offer some further form of alleviation.

I have looked a little at the data on the strength and pace of the recovery, and my understanding is that aviation in 2022 was at 83% of 2019 levels. It would be good if the Minister could provide us with a bit more of an update on monitoring since those stats were produced and offer us a bit more on how the sector is recovering generally. I live in Brighton, not a great distance from Gatwick, which is a very important part of our economy. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with that from her time spent—usefully or otherwise—knocking on doors in the Brighton Pavilion constituency. I am sure that she will have come across a few people from the aviation sector during that time.

What financial assistance is currently being made available to airlines to support their recovery, and what more can the Government do to underline that? Although I guess the information is less important for Heathrow and Gatwick, is targeted support being offered to regional airports? I note the closure of Doncaster Airport, which is very unfortunate. The strength of our industry is very reliant on its regional recovery as well. With that, I restate my support in general terms for the policy objectives adopted and ask the Minister whether she could cover those points—in particular, whether we are going to be here again in six months’ time.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I bumped into him earlier; all I will say is that he looked very dapper, so I am sure he is going somewhere important.

I am very happy to go through the questions raised by the noble Lord. Will we be back here in autumn? I do not know; quite possibly. You have the summer season and the winter season. The winter season will start towards the end of October, and it will very much depend on the outcome of the consultation. We tend to try to do the consultation with industry as late as possible before the next season starts, but we need certainty, so we need to do it before the season starts. We will consult with industry again. It will depend on how the summer has gone and how things are looking from a Covid perspective for the winter but, as I think I said the last time I was standing here, at the moment, alleviations are moving in one direction, and I do not particularly want to continue them forever. It is right that we get back to the normal slots regime at some stage because it is important for the efficient use of capacity. We will monitor that carefully and speak to the industry in due course.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on this topic. First I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on sponsoring and leading on the Bill, as well as his honourable friend in another place Peter Gibson and my honourable friend Daniel Zeichner on his earlier work.

As expertly set out by the noble Lord, the purpose of the Bill is to increase the safety of passengers by introducing new checks on taxi and private hire drivers. For that very reason, we welcome the measures contained in the Bill. Specifically, as I understand it, the Bill would oblige taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities to submit information about refusals, suspensions and revocations of driver licences to a national database. Licensing authorities would have to check the database before making licensing decisions. That seems both logical and very sensible.

At present, all licensing authorities require DBS checks, but these reveal only prosecutions. Many unacceptable incidents do not lead to charges or even to police involvement. The important thing about the Bill is that it brings co-ordination to the national licensing system, something long overdue.

The Bill would create an additional check by allowing the sharing of other relevant information, by requiring licensing authorities to keep registers of licences issued and to make this information available on request. Supporters of the Bill have said that although the main focus is protecting the public, it will also benefit drivers by boosting their reputation and providing an important measure of comfort—and, more than that, confidence—for taxi service users.

I hardly need to say this but, a year on from the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, nobody needs reminding that we must do all we can to enhance public protection, particularly of people in a position of vulnerability. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to some very useful examples to suggest how this measure may be of value and use in ensuring that we do not let a few rogue drivers into the taxi-driving profession. It must be said that the taxi trade is generally well regulated. Taxi drivers offer millions of examples every day of being the very best in providing a public service, which most of us use without a second thought because they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has told us, trusted and friendly. They are of course never short of offering their opinions and worldview on more or less every topic.

I share in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about the need for greater accessibility and protections for those who are disabled and vulnerable users of taxi services. I also share his aspiration for taxi services to be seen much more in the light of being a public service, rather than a private add-on. We need legislation that perhaps modernises the framework in which taxis and private hire operators work.

I have one question of the Bill’s sponsors; I am sure it is something I have missed. Will the Bill cover Uber service providers? I have assumed that it will but would welcome reassurance on that point. My guess is that the taxi trade as a whole would welcome that assurance too, because it believes in a level playing field and Uber offers what is, after all, a national service.

Labour has supported the Bill through the House of Commons and we will continue to support the measure in your Lordships’ House today. I wish it well from here.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd March 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson]

It is, I gather, but that is the instruction from the Minister. We are working to the Government’s definitions.

This is a good opportunity to raise the issue of the voluntary registration scheme currently provided by the National Caravan Council, not to be confused with the Caravan Club. The council is an industry body which operates a very well-established scheme of registration. It is concerned that the Bill should not muddy the waters on registration. I am sure that it would like its own scheme to continue, but I am concerned that we do not end up with two different registration schemes with slightly different requirements and criteria. This will already add complexity to the existing situation, and we need to be careful that it does not become confusing as well as slightly more bureaucratic. How will the Government’s proposed scheme fit with the National Caravan Council scheme? Have she or her officials had discussions with the council, because it remains concerned about the issue?

Our other amendment in this group, Amendment 17, was drafted simply to help provide clarity to travellers who may, as a result of us not being a party to the community licence any more, be subject to different trailer registration requirements in different EU countries. The point has been made in debate here that Germany, for example, is quite stringent in its requirements on trailers. We are seeking to take the opportunity of this Bill to raise public awareness of the variation in the attitude between different EU member states to trailer registration. I very much hope that the Minister can give us some information to allay concerns.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 16 in this group. It is a probing amendment that would cover commercial and non-commercial trailers. It relates, along with Amendment 18 in the next group, to concerns raised by Karin Smyth, MP for Bristol South, prompted by a tragic case involving constituents of hers, Donna and Scott Hussey. Their son, Freddie, was killed in 2014 when he was hit by a trailer that had come loose from a Land Rover. The trailer’s tow-hitch was not secure as the position of its handbrake prevented it being properly locked down. The family and Karin Smyth have been campaigning ever since on the issue of trailer safety, and they have attracted support from successive road safety Ministers, including the current Minister, Jesse Norman. The National Trailer and Towing Association also supports legal changes.

My Amendment 16 simply says that there should be a compulsory register of trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes, regardless of whether it is used in the UK or internationally, and that the register should be maintained by the Secretary of State. It is pretty obvious that registration is essential as a requirement for regular safety checks. There is no evidence in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill as to why the Government have set the weight rules at 750 kilograms and applied the regime to commercial trailers only. Why limit the scope in the way in which the department is proposing? Why not take advantage of the legislative opportunity that this Bill provides to widen the scope of safety checks? The Freddie Hussey case is not the only example of failed safety measures leading to loss of life. The Husseys, understandably, have done quite a lot of research and have come across several similar cases.

The impact assessment says that the Bill presents an opportunity to improve safety through better regulations. This amendment seeks to probe this possibility. I also give notice, if I may, that, if I get an unsympathetic response from the Minister, I might want to push this issue on Report. I would, of course, much prefer to get there by agreement and co-operation. I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to this and I hope that the Committee will be also. When we come to Amendment 18, I will flesh out some of the thinking behind this approach and the trailer safety requirement, which I will move later.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of an interest that I have: I own one very large commercial trailer. However, it is extremely unlikely that I will be taking it on to the continent, and therefore it is not in scope of the Bill.

I have some sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The difficulty is that the burden on individuals and the cost of implementing it probably would not outweigh the benefits. However, his amendment as he describes it is about the need to test these trailers rather than register them. I share his concern about the safety of these trailers, particularly those under 3.5 tonnes that are used for transporting cars and goods. There is no requirement whatever for these vehicles to be tested; I myself have seen some in an absolutely terrible state. There is an issue, and the department needs to look closely at these smaller trailers because I have seen them involved in quite a few accidents.

We already test HGV trailers under the plating and testing regulations, but these trailers are not currently registered in the way that we are proposing. We will be registering some under the Bill in order for them to operate on the continent. Still, if the Government were minded to, they could bring these trailers under 3.5 tonnes in scope of testing by other means without using the Bill. So the noble Lord raises an important point; it is perfectly proper to use the Bill to raise the issue, but I do not think that this is the right vehicle—excuse the pun.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

16: Clause 12, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations must provide for the compulsory registration of trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes kept or used on roads, whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom, in a register kept by the Secretary of State.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I will restrain myself except to pick up a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Clearly, he is concerned, as I think all of us are, that we do not overburden the regulatory field. I understand that, but I think registration is an important element of safety and it has to be in place.

This takes me back to a time when I was responsible for food standards regulations as a national official. In the Food Safety Act 1990, the Government got it right because they insisted that we had to have a system of registration for food premises. At the time, I thought that that was all well and good, but there was insufficient regulation on top. Nevertheless, the Government were right to insist on proper registration, and the proper application of regulations and standards began to apply after that; the sector has improved immeasurably since. I would apply the same logic to this area of regulation and I hope that the noble Earl will be sympathetic to that. I agree with him about vehicle testing. That is addressed in Amendment 18 and I will comment on that in a moment.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in answer to my noble friend the Minister, my trailer weighs 27,000 kilos, not 3,500 kilos. I also control what I call the little trailer which weighs only 17 tonnes.

I want to put forward one further argument in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. These 3.5-tonne trailers are often lent out among friends. Quite often people do not own their own trailer but they know someone who has one and they borrow it in the hope that it is in good mechanical order. Generally speaking, you do not have the time to check that it is in good mechanical order, and even if you were a little concerned about it, it is a bit of an insult to approach someone with a view to borrowing their trailer and then say, “I am not towing that”. For practical reasons, you might be towing a trailer that really is not quite right.

On the noble Lord’s point about why registration is needed, I shall repeat what I have said. Currently, HGV trailers used in the UK are not registered but they are tested annually. There is a Ministry plating certificate on the vehicle which is linked to the trailer’s chassis number. The current system has everything that the noble Lord wants to see in order to have a proper system for testing trailers, so I do not think that registration of these trailers, as his amendment would require, helps on the safety position. However, I urge the Minister to think carefully about the principle that the noble Lord has set out as regards the testing of trailers because I have concluded for myself that there is too much of a risk with these 3.5-tonne trailers. I have seen too many examples of poor ones. It is not a matter that we need to legislate for at this point. The Minister has all the powers she needs to deal with the problem, but she ought to think about it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

18: Clause 13, page 9, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations must make provision for mandatory safety standard requirements which all registered trailers must satisfy, with inspections of such trailers to be undertaken on an annual basis.”

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, this amendment follows on from Amendment 16. Basically, I am asking the Government to introduce a scheme for mandatory safety standard requirements, which all registered trailers should then comply with. The amendment asks for these to be conducted on an annual basis.

Obviously, the amendment will not bring back Freddie Hussey but it might prevent deaths such as his occurring in the future. This was a terrible and tragic case. Mrs Hussey was with Freddie on a footpath and he was crushed by a huge trailer that came loose. They were simply doing what most parents and children do every day—walking along a footpath—and he was cut down by a 2-tonne trailer. His parents ask simply: how can vehicles more than 1 tonne in weight which travel at speed—and, if they come loose, will not stop—not need safety checks? It is madness. An MOT or safety check could have prevented this and picked up on the bent handbrake. It was the bent handbrake—obviously not properly serviced—that caused the problem.

A trailer can often—and in many circumstances will—weigh more than a car and other vehicles on the roads but obviously if trailers are in the wrong hands and are not well maintained and have not been properly checked, they are lethal. As we know from recent terrorist attacks, vehicles are lethal weapons and they kill people—large numbers of people. The safety issue here is paramount.

Paragraph 58 of the DfT’s own impact assessment says, under “Indirect benefits”:

“Trailer registration may also bring about safety improvements by facilitating enforcement of existing regimes related to trailer roadworthiness … the act of completing registration may prompt owners to check and address any roadworthiness issues”.


That is blindingly obvious but, as the impact assessment says, if road safety improvements can be made, the modest reductions in accidents could result in significant societal changes and improvements. Mr and Mrs Hussey might argue that young people—always more vulnerable on or near roads—would be less likely to be the victims of other people’s negligence.

There is a powerful argument behind this safety requirement on trailers. I think the department and the Minister ought to seize the opportunity to make some progress on it. While in general this piece of legislation is there only because of the disaster of Brexit, it would be nice if we could take the opportunity to make use of it to improve safety standards. As I said at the outset, the Husseys are not the only ones who have suffered a loss as a result of poor maintenance, inadequate inspection and the lack of a more rigorous testing regime. I have not seen hard data in terms of numbers but they have a lot of anecdotal evidence and copies of cases reported in local newspapers of young people in particular ending up the victims of poor trailer maintenance. It is something we should take seriously. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made that point rather well earlier. It is a concern. Because this is an underregulated sector, we have to use the opportunity to better regulate it, secure long-term improvements and reduce the number of deaths on or off the roads that are caused directly or indirectly by trailer malfunction and poor maintenance.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I am in a little difficulty on aspects of this, as I was saying to my colleagues before coming to this meeting today. I shall delicately go through my reservations. I accept that trailer safety is very important. As my noble friend has pointed out, in the Hussey case the trailer concerned weighed 2 tonnes. That is a pretty big trailer. I can understand that where big trailers are involved there is a need for some sort of regulatory arrangement. What troubles me is in Amendments 16 and 18. Amendment 16 says:

“Regulations must provide for the compulsory registration of trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes kept or used on roads, whether the trailer is being used internationally or only in the United Kingdom”—


in other words, effectively all trailers. Amendment 18 says,

“with inspections of such trailers to be undertaken on an annual basis”.

In other words, a little trailer—one of these aluminium boxes that you buy in Halfords for a couple of hundred quid—would have to go in to some sort of MOT-type station for an annual test. I have to say to my noble friend that I have great difficulty in going down that route. Big trailers can of course do a lot of damage.

The answer to this is to make it mandatory, where you have the clipping mechanism for the trailer, to put a lock and chain on as well. That would give an extra element of safety over and above the mechanism in the male and female, they call them; I do not know the actual term. If you had some sort of chain and lock arrangement on smaller trailers, in my view that would be quite sufficient.

We should be very careful about introducing a system for smaller trailers with an annual inspection that could affect hundreds of thousands of people and put them to what I would call unnecessary expense. People are going to complain that it costs 30 quid to test your trailer every year, and that is after you have registered it as well, and it only cost you a couple of hundred. In my view, when it comes to small trailers the situation would be exactly the same as in Scotland over air rifles. The Scotland Office estimates that there are 500,000 air rifles in Scotland, but I am told that up till now only 15,000 people have taken out licences for them so, if those figures are correct, we have criminalised nearly half a million people in Scotland who have so far failed to take out a licence on air rifles. I am worried about systems where you impose on people responsibilities that, on reflection, we might think are really gold-plating what my noble friend has raised, which is an extremely important issue of safety. I apologise to him if I have in any way undermined his case, but I do so with the greatest of respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

Yes, absolutely. We will look further into it and see what other data we can find.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, although I am grateful for it and for the information she has given us. I think that one death is one death too many, and the case I mentioned was particularly tragic. Let us be clear about this: it involved a tonnage lower than the 3.5 tonnes level. Nevertheless, it was clearly sufficiently heavy to be fatal. As I understand it, the victim was crushed by the weight of the trailer, and that was obviously the cause of his death.

The circumstances of the crash are such that although the driver, who was brought to court, was clearly responsible for the death, he received a sentence of 200 community hours and a six-month driving ban, whereas had he been over an alcohol limit we all know that he would likely have faced a term of imprisonment, because that is what is applied. Had he been on his mobile phone, quite possibly a similar penalty would have been imposed, but because it related to a defect, the penalty was rather different. One can understand the anger and frustration of the parents: they want a sense of justice. That is why they have a web page calling for justice for Freddie. While we can all express sympathy, we will never bring Freddie back, but they are very compassionate people and they want to make sure that something is done that drives down the number of fatalities, however low it is. I accept that 2% is quite low, but there are a large number of accidents: 5,000 was the figure given, and 1,700 killed or seriously injured is in itself no small number.

I accept the general point that road safety has been steadily improving over the years, largely because of improvements in vehicles and because we have become better drivers as a consequence of improved training and so on. But I think there is still an issue here. The weight level needs to be lower. More work needs to be done on this. Although obviously I will withdraw the amendment today, it would helpful if we could have some further discussions before the next stage of the Bill, and I retain the right to bring a similar amendment back—perhaps an amendment that the department and the Minister would find more agreeable—on Report. This is a significant issue and we should always try to do as much as we possibly can to improve safety. After all, it is the steady accretion of intelligent regulation that has driven down the number of road-related accidents and deaths over time. For instance, going back to the 1960s, people were not that happy when safety belts were introduced but they have made a massive difference to the outcome of road traffic accidents, as have many other features that have mandatorily been imposed on motorists, including alcohol limits, which have made a very significant difference as well.

We should always look for those opportunities and, as the impact assessment says, this is one. It is a question of getting the balance right between regulation and continuing as we are. I make a strong appeal to the Government, the Minister and the officials to give that some further thought, because there is more we can do here.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

To clarify, the reason for this is that with most Bills we pass here, the Government believe that they need the legislation—whether we like it or not—and have a clear idea of how they are going to implement it. This Bill suffers from a number of uncertainties over exactly how it is going to work in practice and even whether it will be needed. It is worth remembering the Minister’s opening words, which were to the effect that this was a Bill the Government hoped they did not need.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

The amendment I have in this group is just to tease out when the Secretary of State might bring forward the licensing arrangements. We would like to have some idea of the timetable. I accept that this is a Bill the Government do not want to use and I suspect that the industry would rather they did not either. Most of us would think that it would be better to have the current system than what is on offer here, not least because operators will end up being charged. But I would like some idea of the timetable and how the Secretary of State intends to organise these regulations.

I rather take to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is very valuable for Clauses 1 and 3. Obviously, I support Amendment 22, moved by my noble—and good—friend Lord Tunnicliffe.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, this debate relates to the previous group of amendments, although the Government’s view is slightly different, as I will explain.

As I said, we aim to pass regulations under the Bill as soon as possible to implement both the trailer registration scheme and the permits scheme. However, we cannot be sure that this will be within three months of it passing because, as well as having to reflect a full and proper consultation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, it will have to reflect the agreed future haulage arrangements with the EU. The implementation period may also extend the time by which we may need to make regulations; certainly with regard to the permit registration scheme.

We fully understand the practical implications of not having a permit or trailer registration scheme in place. As I said, we will bring forward regulations in good time to deliver these schemes. I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a specific timetable at the moment. We do not believe that we should include this specific requirement in the Bill simply because it may not be possible to deliver it.

Moving on to the sunset clause for the delegated powers in Clauses 1 and 3, which is similar to the recommendation from the DPRRC, I understand and indeed agree with the intention of sunset clauses to avoid creating new delegated powers that may be not be used, but we do not believe that to be the case with this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is right to say that we hope we will never use this Bill for the EU agreement because obviously we hope that we will have continued liberalised and open access to our European neighbours, but we will be using the legislation in Part 1 to regulate for permits for international road haulage by UK hauliers once regulations made under it come into force. This means that it would cover all the permit schemes where UK hauliers are required to carry permits, whether that be unlimited in the European Union or whatever may come from that, if needed; existing and future agreements with non-EU countries; and, indeed, the ECMT permit scheme—which we have not heard about so far today.

If the agreement between the UK and the EU does not require the use of permits, the regulations will not prohibit haulage to EU member states without a permit, but they will for other agreements. We believe that the regulations under Clause 1 should also continue to allow us to regulate the permit requirements of our existing and future international agreements, so the delegated power will not be left unused and a sunset clause would be unsuitable in this case.

I understand the concern about using EU exit legislation for other purposes but I hope that noble Lords do not view this clause as granting new, wide-ranging delegated powers. Clause 1 is a re-enactment of Section 1 of the International Road Haulage Permits Act 1975, which the Bill will repeal. This enables the Government to regulate permit arrangements with other countries, and it is important that our preparations for leaving the EU provide a consistent legal basis for all the permits we administer. The amendment would not only restrict the use of the clause, it would also be a restriction on the existing powers the Government already have under the 1975 Act.

Moving on to Clause 3, again we do not believe that there should be a sunset clause in this specific case for a different reason. It allows for the relaxation of the requirement to carry a permit in exceptional circumstances, and we need to use that to cover existing international agreements. I apologise—that is the same reason as for the first group.

Beyond the first set of regulations made under the Bill, they would need to be updated and amended as our new international agreements change or as permit agreements are made. That deals with the temporary exemption.

On the trailer registration part of the Bill, I re-emphasise that regardless of what agreement is reached with the EU, we would still enact this to align with the Vienna convention. I recognise that the amendment would provide for a sunset clause to be extended, but given how we are seeking to introduce the regulations under the clause, we would inevitably need to seek to extend it indefinitely, so we do not think that it would be beneficial.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th March 2018 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“EU Community Licence arrangements
(1) It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement from the EU, to seek continued UK participation in the EU’s Community Licence arrangements.(2) If the continued participation referred to in subsection (1) is achieved after the passing of this Act, no Minister of the Crown may make regulations under sections 1 to 5 or 23(2) of this Act.”

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, you will have to bear with me; it is a while since I have had to do this.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to Grand Committee and hope that she enjoys it as much as we will. Amendment 1, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is very simple. Its aim is to ensure that the Government have as a negotiating objective continuing participation in the EU Community licence arrangements. Those arrangements have served the UK well. One might argue that they have created a frictionless regime for borders, are easy to understand and largely ensure safe passage of UK goods across the EU 27 and from the EU into the UK.

The Minister should welcome the amendment because it is surely what the Government want to secure in their negotiations. To put it into the Bill would give the freight industry the sort of confidence that it requires and demonstrate beyond doubt that the Government are very much on the industry’s side. If anyone needed reminding of the importance of freight to our economy, they need go no further than read last night’s Hansard. I have had the benefit of reading it, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, among others, was passionate in his arguments on behalf of the freight industry generally, but for our economy in particular, when he moved amendments on freight-related issues. In particular, his Amendment 104 to Clause 7 of the withdrawal Bill caught my eye. It has similar objectives to this amendment in the sense that any new procedures that we put in place should avoid increasing delays to freight transport. The only surefire way to achieve that is to continue the current scheme.

The volume of traffic between the UK and the EU is enormous. In 2016, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley reminded us, 67 million tonnes of unitised freight were imported or exported, of which 14 million tonnes were temperature-controlled. There are 3,000 trucks a day carrying temperature-controlled loads. In one year alone, 55 million UK customs declarations had to be made, and my noble friend says that this is likely to multiply fivefold after Brexit.

We want at all costs to avoid the queues we have seen when Operation Stack has had to kick in. That would kill our export trade and decimate our ability to move materials into the UK for industry and farming purposes. Seeking to emulate what we already have must be an objective of the Bill, and that is what my amendment achieves.

I look forward to the happy prospect of the Minister not just welcoming my amendment but agreeing to busily import it and incorporate it into the Bill. I cannot believe that the Government would want to create any doubt in anyone’s mind about their intention to be successful in their negotiations and to secure the self-same benefits for the road freight sector that we currently enjoy. I am sure that the FTA and RHA would welcome that certainty. I am confident that our farming industry would want it and that manufacturers, the pharmaceutical sector and, importantly, the construction industry would want it too.

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I say just a few words about some of the other amendments in my name in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I have put our names to sunset provisions simply because, if the Government are successful, not only do the main provisions of the Bill cease to have relevance but we both feel that the clauses should cease to have a place on the statute book. These amendments are supported by the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee; I draw colleagues’ attention to the Constitution Committee’s report that has just been published. I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 1 because it drew attention to the fact that, yet again, we have an example of the Government trying desperately to devise a way to maintain a position that we already have. They are fighting to keep the benefits that we currently enjoy as members of the EU. Although the Government have been quite innovative in their approach—in so far as there is any detail—the situation will clearly not be anything like as good as what hauliers currently enjoy.

The formulation in the amendment is similar to that used in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, for example, in which we urge the Government to pursue Euratom membership. The Minister will be familiar with my Private Member’s Bill on the open skies agreement; it is the same formulation. We have a perfectly good arrangement in the EU at the moment, which we will leave for something less satisfactory. This group of amendments ensures that the powers granted under the haulage permits Bill are not applicable if we stay within the EU’s Community licence regime—in other words, if we successfully negotiate to remain in some kind of positive relationship within the EU.

I draw attention to the very harsh words of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. They reflect the sort of thing that we have heard quite regularly recently, but they are rather stronger than we are used to:

“The Bill is wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”.


The committee also points out that:

“16 of the 24 clauses contain delegated powers, all of them subject only to the negative procedure”.


We have not even got draft regulations in order to see what the Government are aiming at.

It is clear that the Bill was written in a panic at the very last minute. It is the first instance I have come across of the Government legislating while saying that they do not want to and admitting that they do not know how the system will work. That is not how British democracy should work. It is yet another example of the destructive impact of Brexit. Having admitted that they did not want to have to legislate in this way, the Government should have included in the Bill some sunset clauses or the use of only the affirmative procedure. As it stands, the Bill is not worthy of a democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The proposed amendments would enshrine in the Bill an objective in negotiating the EU withdrawal agreement and, should a certain agreement be reached, Clauses 1 to 3 would cease to have an effect.

I will speak first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which seeks continued recognition of Community licences issued by the UK in the negotiations. As I outlined on Second Reading, the Government’s objective is to maintain the existing liberalised access for UK hauliers. Road haulage is at the heart of the £110 billion of trade that takes place between the UK and the EU every year. We are confident of success in the negotiations, as the continued movement of goods is in the interests of both the UK and the EU.

As noble Lords have pointed out, access is currently secured through participation in the Community licence arrangements. Outside the EU, only EEA members are currently party to the Community licence system. Although continued participation in the Community licence arrangements could be one outcome, the best way to secure mutual recognition and continued access for our hauliers will be through negotiations. I am afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in saying that we do not feel it would be right, or beneficial to our negotiations, to place any negotiation objectives in the legislation. As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, that would tie our hands.

The Government will take all reasonable steps to see that there are no restrictions on the movement of goods. This can take many forms, including the Community licence, mutual recognition of the operator licence or a permit-based agreement. Many international agreements that are permit-based do not restrict the numbers of permits exchanged; indeed, some of our existing agreements do not require permits at all, including our agreement with Turkey. As I said, our aim is to continue the liberalised access we enjoy today.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Will the Minister pause for a moment? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that Amendment 1 would set the objective in stone. It would not. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, it simply says that an objective of our negotiations should be essentially to retain what we currently have. What is wrong with trying to do that? How does it tie the Government’s hands? I cannot see that it ties their hands at all. The amendment simply says that that should be an objective. If it is only an objective, what do the Government feel binds them in any way?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would have no difficulty at all in convincing the courts that the matter was set in stone.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I am not here to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his absence. I am keen to hear the Minister give her explanation, which is what the Committee needs.

[Baroness Sugg]

I will try my best, although I may not be as clear as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As I said, the existing Community arrangement is currently only for EU members and EEA members. When we leave the EU, we will not be either of those. What is suggested is one option, but there may well be an equally satisfactory option, such as an unlimited permit system or, as I said, mutual recognition of operators’ licences. We want to be able to keep those options open and not to be sent down the road of agreeing to the Community licence. There is no reason why a permit that replaces the Community licence could not provide the same level of access as exists currently. That could well be our negotiation objective.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I take the opportunity to reassure him that of course the Secretary of State will take all reasonable steps to meet the demand for permits from UK hauliers. We regularly meet industry to understand its requirements and priorities, which will be reflected in our detailed negotiations with the European Union. While the amendment would not tie our hands in the negotiation, I hope that what I have said gives the noble Lord confidence that it is not necessary to include this aim in the Bill.

[Baroness Sugg]

I understand the noble Lord’s concern. Later, we will discuss Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which addresses these issues. There is an explanation and, with the noble Lord’s permission, we will address it then.

The amendments on a sunset clause suggest that, should recognition of Community licences be secured as part of our negotiations, Clauses 1 to 3 should cease to have effect. I understand the intention and I agree that we do not wish to create delegated powers if they are not going to be used at any point in the future in relation to EU exit, but I would like to set out why this Bill has a wider application than just to our road haulage access with the EU. It should also apply to the European Conference of Ministers of Transport multilateral permit scheme and our bilateral agreements with non-EU countries.

While these non-EU agreements have, until now, been dealt with under administrative powers, now that we are introducing this Bill we think that it is important that those agreements are brought in scope, so that there is compliance and consistency in the administration, allocation and enforcement of permits with whatever agreement we reach with the European Union. There would be problems with having different legislation covering similar permit schemes. We are keen to ensure that UK hauliers can use one online system to apply and get permits for the EU as well as non-EU countries, as that would reduce burdens on them.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Do I understand the noble Baroness right? Is she seeking to incorporate the ECMT scheme within the parameters of the Community licence? Is that part of the objective of the negotiations?

[Baroness Sugg]

No, not exactly. If the outcome of the negotiations is a permit-based system, whether unlimited or whatever, yes, we would use this legislation for the allocation of other permits for ECMT and non-EU countries. As I said, that is to simplify the system, have everything in one place under the regulations and allow hauliers to have just one point of access. Beyond the first regulations made under this power, they would need to be updated and amended as our international agreements, whether they be with EU or non-EU countries, change over time. We would need to retain the ability to create regulations under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid that until we know the exact system of the permits, we will not be able to give the noble Lord that assurance. Obviously, we need to avoid there being a false market for these permits. We will look at how permits are allocated and if they are limited in any way, which we hope they will not be, we will certainly consider how to avoid that. Again, the allocation system should make sure that additional permits are not allocated to people who are not using them. It is certainly something we will consider.

I hope I have addressed the need for this legislation, regardless of the agreement reached with the EU. I understand the sentiments of noble Lords in proposing these amendments and welcome the discussion it has enabled. However, as I said, we do not believe that the Community licence system is the only way to proceed and therefore do not think the Bill is an appropriate place to set out that negotiation objective. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, it is the tradition in Grand Committee to agree to withdraw amendments, and I shall shortly do so. However, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. I thought I gave her a rather generous invitation to accept Amendment 1.

There is something I find more puzzling still. Over the weekend I extended my reading to take in the international road freight permits policy scoping document. While it does not give us a lot more information, paragraph 1.6 says that the Bill is intended to support the Government’s aim of continuing the liberal access for commercial transport to the EU. It goes on to say that the importance of keeping essential trade flowing is recognised by the EU and is strongly in the mutual interest of both sides, and the industry is therefore confident that a deal will be secured to ensure that essential trade flows will continue without any restriction on access.

I take the argument that this is an opportunity for the Government to look at other ways in which haulage could be permitted, not just in the EU but more widely. I welcome the observation made by the Minister about the way in which they are going to try to simplify the permit scheme and, it seemed to me, bring schemes together to look for a simple way forward in the future. The beauty of the Community licence approach is that it is very simple. Once the primary point has been satisfied and you get the standard international operator’s licence in place, things flow from that. Therefore, I do not think that it is too big an ask to try to have that as an objective in the negotiations.

I will obviously undertake to read what the Minister has said in her reply, but I think it likely that I shall want to bring back this amendment, or one very similar, at Report. I do not think we have heard enough from her to persuade me otherwise, hard though she has tried this afternoon. Our haulage industry requires a bit more certainty and a sense of the Government’s direction of travel, what they have in mind and what their objective is.

If I have one fundamental objection to the Bill, it is that it is only a framework and is entirely skeletal. That much is very clear, not least from the reports that have been prepared by the Constitution Committee and the DPRRC. It is not a very satisfactory Bill, because we will end up having something skeletal as a contingency—that is what this Bill is. If we have to press the button and make it go live—to make it work and make it govern the way in which haulage operates as an industry—the Government will end up having to colour in a lot of the blanks that the Bill leaves, and will have to take rather urgent action to do that at a time when most of us, not least the industry itself, will be worrying about issues relating to Brexit.

I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his help in attempting to clarify things for her. I am grateful for the support I have had this afternoon for Amendment 1, across the Committee. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling these amendments and allowing a discussion on the important issue of haulage between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I take this opportunity to reiterate that this Bill does not create a permit regime or hard border on the island of Ireland. Clarity about this issue is of great importance, given the Government’s commitment to having no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls. We must preserve north-south co-operation, of which transport is a priority area for the North/South Ministerial Council, established under the Good Friday agreement.

The regulations brought forward under the Bill may prohibit a goods vehicle from undertaking an international journey to a country outside the UK, unless they have a permit, where an international agreement has been concluded requiring permits to be carried. In relation to Ireland, we have included an additional requirement that the Secretary of State must certify that the Government of Ireland have consented to the use of permits on journeys on the island of Ireland before this comes into force. This has been included to recognise and respect the long history of co-operation with regards to transport on the island of Ireland; the Government believe it is an important addition to the Bill.

Clause 1 is drafted to make it explicitly clear that regulations requiring permits for journeys on the island of Ireland will not be introduced without that clear agreement; we have singled it out because of the importance of ensuring that there is no hard border.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Just to clarify, if the agreement reached with either the EU or the Government in Ireland was such that they consented to a permit regime being introduced for haulage through Ireland, does that not envisage a situation where there might be a hard border?

[Baroness Sugg]

The clause as drafted ensures that there has to be a direct agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Ireland before any such scheme is introduced. It aims to avoid exactly that.

[Baroness Sugg]

The permits would need to be recognised by the EU to be used. As I said, this is an extra clause to ensure that we can also have a separate agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom before anything is put in place.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Picking up on my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s point, does that mean that there has already been some negotiation between our Government and the EU on the possibility, or prospect, of a permit scheme having to be put in place? Are the negotiators aware that this contingency legislation has been drafted and do they see it as a practical way forward, with all other considerations put aside?

[Baroness Sugg]

As noble Lords will be aware, there have been many conversations between the EU and the UK on Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. Obviously, that was addressed in the December agreement. I am afraid that I am unable to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—despite consulting widely, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said—whether this specific piece of legislation has been discussed with the EU in detail. I will find that out and write to him. The example we have given in Clause 1 is an attempt to provide clarity on how the prohibition of using a goods vehicle without a permit in regulations may be limited, so it does not apply to journeys on the island of Ireland. It is designed to show that there is flexibility to agree something different on the island of Ireland, which is why we believe it is important to include an illustrative example.

Moving on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the Bill allows for a range of outcomes while also meeting our commitments on north/south co-operation as set out in the joint report. We do not think that the amendment as it stands will allow us that same flexibility. As we have not yet agreed the arrangements for haulage for when we leave the EU, we want to keep that flexibility to ensure that any agreement can be implemented. The Bill does not give the UK Government the power to restrict the number of trucks crossing the Irish border; it gives us the power only to implement any new cross-border arrangements that are agreed directly with the Republic of Ireland. As I say, both the UK and Irish Governments have made clear their commitment to avoiding a hard border and preserving cross-border co-operation in any scenario. There is no question of either Government agreeing to such restrictions on cross-border haulage.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on permits and what they will show, obviously we are consulting carefully on that, but we expect it to be the name of the company—as opposed to the truck—its validity and its unique number, which is similar to what we have on the Community licence.

[Baroness Sugg]

We expect that the permits would be the same; it is just that the agreement on how the permit system is enacted would be made only if it was subject to a direct and separate agreement between the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Would a company based in Ireland but travelling through the UK require a permit?

[Baroness Sugg]

If its journey would then go on to the European Union, yes, it would. However, if it was going just to the UK, that would fall under the agreement.

I understand that these amendments are designed to ensure that there are no new restrictions and to get clarity on the issue of the island of Ireland. We are committed to this goal and believe the current drafting of the Bill has that intention; as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, highlighted, it has been extensively consulted on. However, I will take noble Lords’ comments on this—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I am sorry about this but on the permits from within Ireland that means a company based in Dublin, for example, would require a UK government permit to travel through the UK to go to the rest of Europe and beyond. Have we consulted with the Irish Government on that issue? It seems an important consultation to undertake. What if they are not happy for us to have a permit scheme which will apply to companies based in Ireland? I do not know how many of those there are; possibly not that many, although I am sure there are a sufficient number to be a burden on their businesses. Have they actively considered that?

[Lord Berkeley]

Before the Minister responds, I will widen the question a little. My noble friend mentioned the example of a lorry starting in Dublin and going through the UK to the continent, and asked whether it needs a permit. That is why I tabled Amendment 14B, which we shall come on to in due course, to ask whether foreign trucks need a permit to enter the UK. Surely it does not make any difference whether it is delivering from Dublin to the UK or going through the UK to deliver to Paris, as it still needs the same licence. Is my assumption correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I support the initial comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. It would be a disaster if we had to regulate the issue of permits in the way provided for, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us that we will take all necessary steps to avoid such a situation. However, I think that it is a sensible provision in a Bill as a backstop, while recognising that it would be terrible in the way if we found ourselves in such a situation as the noble Lord described.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on this. Pretty much every year, I try to get tickets to go to Glastonbury. You go on the website at 9 am and are still there at 10.30 am, and you suddenly discover that your youngest daughter has got tickets but you have not. There is something clearly wrong about a system that does that in my family, let alone anywhere else. The notion that we might have some random process—first come, first served or whatever—is clearly something that we should not allow ourselves to sign up to.

I want to hear on the record some reassuring words from the Minister. This may be a vague Bill, a schematic Bill, a framework Bill and all the rest, but this matter needs some clarification.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, “first come, first served” implies immediately a limited number of permits, a shortage of permits and problems in the industry. I want to read the general conditions from one such permit issued nearly 35 years ago, which civil servants may find useful during the negotiations. It is quite short, but raises a number of issues. Under “General Conditions”, it states:

“This authorisation, together with the journey record mentioned below, must be carried on the vehicle and be produced at the request of any authorised inspecting officer. It authorises only the number of journeys indicated. It is not valid for national transport. It is not transferable. The carrier is required to comply, in the territory of each Member State, with the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of that State, and in particular with those concerning transport and traffic. This authorisation must be returned to the issuing agency within fifteen days of date of expiry. Before each transport operation, the holder of this authorisation is required to prepare any journey record provided for in bilateral agreements. Such journey record must be returned at the same time as this authorisation”.


So it is a fairly complicated process for the hauliers.

If it is not used within 15 days of the date of expiry, it is returned, but that permit has already been allocated to a specific journey—if that is what it says in the terms and conditions. Is that permit then written off? Does it affect the total number or permits that are allocated, or can we simply allocate a substitute permit, having declared that permit to be written off? I am asking this because, if a limited number of permits are allocated, there is going to be some argument about where they are going. I am trying to establish how we calculate the total numbers that are allocated.

I have been thinking about the earlier intervention by my noble friend Lord Snape. He talked about it being of benefit, in certain circumstances, to our haulage industry. There is a problem there, because we want to avoid that. If we are going into these negotiations on the basis that we want enough permits to supply all the demand, the last thing we want to do is starve the Irish of permits. If they need them, they should be given them, because that helps our case in the negotiations with the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That did not answer my question.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I am sorry. If we are in one of those desperate situations where there is a shortage of permits compared to what we need, retaining that subsection is extremely damaging because it means that, in most circumstances, we cannot allocate on a needs basis. I should have thought that there are certain things we need to import or export that have a high degree of priority. Having that clause drives a coach and horses through that, does it not?

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Before the Minister answers, can I ask her to take this away and discuss it in the department? I think she may get different advice when there has been a full discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

The thing about regulations is that they are unamendable. You either buy the package or you reject the lot. This provision does not terribly help, because it could end up contradicting the regulations. That is why my noble friend is suggesting that the Minister might want to take it away to give it a bit more thought. I am struggling to think of a set of circumstances where these two things will work.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Can I add to that intervention? I can give the Minister another criterion. What about regional considerations, which might well be in our favour?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 14B in my name.

Amendment 9 is quite simple. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a report saying what is in any agreement that has been made on the allocation of permits for UK-registered vehicles to operate in the EU. I do not need to go into it in any more detail than that. We have had a good discussion about that this afternoon, and I am sure that the Minister will welcome this. She will probably say that she is going to do it anyway, and if she is not going to, she jolly well should. However, there is a reciprocal problem that we have not discussed so far—although my noble friend Lord Snape mentioned it—which is about EU lorries coming into the UK. Amendment 14B would allow the Government to make regulations to issue permits for non-UK registered vehicles to come into the UK. This would include vehicles, as I said earlier, from the Republic of Ireland.

Does the Minister agree that there is a need to issue such licences? I hope that she does, because otherwise, EU lorries will roam around the UK freely, doing exactly what they like, presumably doing cabotage for several months before they run out of fuel. It seems unfair, and I am sure that the European Union negotiators will accept that there has to be a reciprocal arrangement. Does the Minister envisage an allocation of permits to each member state, or will there be one lot of permits to cover the whole 26 or so member states—apart from Ukraine and places like that, because they are not within the EU? If the answer is, “No, it is an EU one and that’s fine”, will the Republic of Ireland to be happy with that, and how will it get its allocation—will it be separate or together?

I can see from past experience that the French and Dutch Governments in particular may want more than their fair share, or more than what we may think is their fair share, so there is the question of how we would deal with that.

Lastly—I hardly dare go back to this question of first come, first served—but how will it be done? I cannot say much more than that, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. I beg to move.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. These amendments have been laid to ensure clarity of purpose in the Government’s strategy. Amendment 12 seeks to get the Government to lay a report within a month of the Bill passing on forecasts of how the permits regime will affect the efficiency of haulage and in every year following. Amendment 13 asks that within three months of the Bill passing the Government produce a report setting out their expectations for future arrangements between the EU and the UK with regard to road haulage. Amendment 14 suggests that within three months of the Bill passing a report on the costs of the future international haulage permit scheme be published.

It is essential to business continuity that the industry knows what the Government are up to and what their expectations are, what forecasts are being made and, most importantly, what costs they are likely to incur should the scheme in the Bill need to be implemented. It is fair to say that the impact assessments published were delphic in the extreme on cost estimating. No figures were given, but there were a lot of words to suggest that there is an expectation that companies in the small and medium-sized haulage sector might seriously struggle with the cost when permits are introduced, particularly given that, on the face of it, it is going to be a full cost recovery system.

The Minister will say that it is too early and that we have not got to the point at which we need to do a lot of this, but at Second Reading she gave some indication of what the range of costs might be for individual permits. We need more information, and there ought to be an obligation on the Government to produce reports setting out forecasts and expectations for future arrangements and costs. Without those things, we will not have certainty in the industry, and the industry definitely needs certainty. From my discussions with the FTA I know that it is concerned not so much about the scheme itself as about how it will work, what the details of implementation will be, the burdens that it will place on its businesses and the likely impact on the haulage industry in the UK generally. These are not unreasonable concerns. We, as responsible legislators, ought to focus on that. I hope that the Government can come up with some answers and will commit to producing reports and assessments of the sort that these amendments describe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, this clause refers to the payment of fees for the permits that we have been talking about. Currently, hauliers have to buy a licence to register as hauliers, but they are also able to have on request a Community licence, which will be equivalent to the permit and which is free. However, under the scheme that the Government envisage, Clause 5 gives them the power to levy fees for the permits. I want to know why the Government feel they should charge fees for something that up to now has been provided to the hauliers free of charge.

The hauliers seem to be suffering several times over. Rather than having this easy-to-access, free and on-demand Community licence, they now have to apply for a specific permit, pay for it, perhaps even queue for it if we are still talking about first come, first served—and all this when in the end they are going to have a much less convenient system.

My particular concern is for SMEs. Given that, when we discussed this informally, the Minister indicated that the amounts of money would be in the order of £50 or £55—if I recall correctly—clearly for a large haulage company operating vehicles on a daily basis, that will not be a massive amount of money and will be passed on to the customers, as is inevitable. However, this will be a significant additional cost for an SME. Can the Minister explain to us the cause of the Government’s decision to reclaim their costs, when clearly they have not done so up to now, whether they are open to persuasion that charging for this would not be a good idea and the basis on which charges will be levied?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raised some interesting issues, some of which I touched on earlier. When I read the impact assessment, I could see that there was clearly some consideration by the Government about the potential impact on SMEs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said. The assessment suggests that some SMEs would struggle. Clearly that worries us: we have a vibrant and viable haulage sector that works well and has served our economy well and we do not want to damage it.

I wonder what full-cost recovery really means and I wonder what extra the permit will be paying for. I saw reference in the impact assessment to a suggestion that inspections would be carried out—ones that perhaps do not currently have to be carried out—to make sure that permits are valid and do the job that they are supposed to do in terms of haulage operators being able to move across the EU 27. In particular, there was a suggestion on the trailer registration scheme that some benefits would accrue through an extra inspection regime. That may well be the case—we will have that argument another day and we have amendments that raise some of those issues—but what does full-cost recovery cover? How much is it likely to cost? What will the impact be on SMEs? What sort of inspection regime will take place? Will it mean an expansion in staff? The Minister suggested that the work will be undertaken by the DVLS, is it?

[Baroness Sugg]

The DVSA.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Acronyms sometimes get the better of me. So, what will it look like? How will it feel? How will it operate? What additional burdens will it place on the businesses affected? Where will the inspections take place? I picked up the point made by the Minister that they will not necessarily be at ports, but ports may be the best place; I do not know. I have seen lorries subject to customs inspections at ports, which works very well for some operations. We need answers to all these questions.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I want to ask a very simple question, which is slightly tangential to the amendment, about fuel dipping. Fuel dipping is where the authorities decide, for whatever reason, to test tanks to see how much diesel they are carrying. Of course, these trucks carry a lot of diesel. I do not know where I heard it, but I heard that some countries on the outer periphery of Europe fuel dip in truck tanks so they can charge duty on diesel coming into their country. During the negotiations, we should be aware of any possibility of fuel dipping by member states and make sure that it is excluded and prohibited.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, towards the end of my time as part of the usual channels the Government Chief Whip advised me that we would be receiving this Bill as a Lords starter. I recall thinking at the time that it was not one of those mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, and becoming instantly suspicious. I should tell the House that suspicion is an integral part of a Whip’s training. Later it comes as second nature.

Despite the distinct lack of interest in the Bill displayed in the Chamber today, I was right to be concerned. It is the first major piece of Brexit contingency legislation I have seen and is in essence a panic measure. Sam Coates of the Times got it right when he said on 7 February, “Last week No.10 said there was no date for the bill; there wasn’t a date and there was lots of work to do. Six days later it was published”. Someone in the department finally persuaded Mr Grayling that it was not a given that there would be agreement on road haulage arrangements after 29 March 2019.

It is a fact that without a system of fully effective multilateral road haulage arrangements, our businesses would literally grind to a halt. In the event of no deal, this legislation is hugely important. The alternative is chaos at our borders and ferry ports. It would make Operation Stack look like a minor hold up in B-road Britain. Thinking about it, I am staggered at Mr Grayling’s complacency in not requiring the Bill earlier and not ensuring that it had Queen’s Speech clearance.

In her customary charming way, the Minister has set out the Bill’s main provisions. Currently, we benefit from eminently sensible EU regulations that flow from the International Road Haulage Permits Act 1975—legislation, I might add, so old that it was enacted the year I graduated. The current regulations require road hauliers to have a Community licence for all operations in or through EU countries. Post Brexit UK-issued Community licences will no longer be valid, unless of course we have secured agreement. UK hauliers would be able to use European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits. These provide for a multilateral quota scheme, are limited in number and do not cover the full range of haulage operations currently permitted by the Community licence.

The problem with the ECMT permit scheme is that it is limited to 102 permits annually. These are specifically allocated to a company for use for one international journey at a time. If the permits are allocated to only the most modern vehicles—Euro 6—the number increases to a maximum of 1,224 permits a year. Currently, approximately 300,000 UK registered powered vehicles travel from the UK to the continent, and that is without adding in those travelling to the Republic of Ireland, so reliance on ECMT permits alone would cripple our haulage sector and is simply untenable. It would be a bit like tickets for Glastonbury: you just about get online and they are all sold out in seconds. The permits will be gone. Even with rationing, some sectors would be given first refusal—and who would want to decide between essential medicines and fresh foods for supermarkets? These are decisions we should not have to make.

The second part of the Bill introduces a trailer registration scheme, which will be required following the UK’s ratification of the 1968 Vienna convention. This makes sense even though ratification triggers the need for a registration scheme. A failure to put one in place would mean that unregistered trailers could be turned away at the borders of countries that have ratified the convention.

As the Minister recognised, the road haulage sector is vital to the UK’s economy. It contributes £11.2 billion to it and enabled the UK to import and export 8.9 million tonnes of goods in 2014 alone. Additionally, foreign-registered HGVs carry 34.2 million tonnes of goods as part of the current Community licence scheme. It keeps supply chains working for our vital food and agriculture sector. The Community licence arrangements secure our industrial base, facilitate economic growth in EU trade and keep the construction industry and high-tech sectors moving forward. Without it, business here in the UK would grind to a halt and we would cease to be a major trading nation.

Eighty per cent of goods go by road, 47% of goods we exported in 2015 went to the EU and 54% of goods imported came from that same source. The impact of a failure to put in place either an agreement following a Brexit deal or a scheme, if there is no agreement, can be judged by the scope of the current Community licence. It is issued free of charge to the UK hauliers who sign a standard international operators’ licence. Community licences are issued to operators. Office copies must be retained and certified copies held on each vehicle on each international journey. Certified copies are not specific to each vehicle. At the end of 2016, 9,745 UK hauliers possessed a licence and more than 35,000 certified copies had been issued. This scheme is extensive and essential to our nation’s economic health and success.

The most effective option, so that we do not have to rely on the Bill, will be to negotiate and agree a bilateral road transport agreement with the EU, which in turn could be part of a wider trade agreement or a stand-alone agreement separate from a customs union. This should be done as a matter of priority and be in place before Brexit, or before the end of a transition period, if one is agreed. Frankly, anything short of an agreement replicating existing arrangements with no quantitative restrictions will greatly disrupt and constrain cross-channel trade.

We need arrangements that place no additional administrative or financial burdens on hauliers. It is only by achieving this that people avoid damaging the road haulage sector and the economy as a whole. It is difficult to see how a Brexit that does not include, as a minimum, membership of a customs union could be compatible with preserving the current ease of transit of goods. In that context, can the Minister say something about costs when she sums up? I ought to add that I made the mistake yesterday of taking a look at the DfT’s memorandum accompanying the Bill and the two impact assessments of costs to government and business. It is worth reminding ourselves that at present, the Community licence comes at no cost to hauliers. The memorandum makes it clear that there will be full cost recovery. Those costs will cover the issuing of permits for both road haulage and trailers, and the enforcement of the scheme, including compliance inspection.

Will the Minister tell the House how much each permit will cost, how long the application process is expected to take, whether it will be an online system, what it will cost the Government to establish the scheme, how much the trailer registration scheme will cost and how much registering each trailer will cost? Given that this Government are supposed to be concerned about the cost of regulatory burdens on businesses, have they done any cost modelling of the impact on the businesses affected?

If the haulage sector is looking for sympathy from the Government it will not find much in the impact assessments, which simply say that larger businesses will require more permits and incur higher costs. They say that 99.6% of the haulage sector is made up of SMEs, which account for 45% of road freight turnover. The Government say that,

“smaller businesses may find it harder to absorb the additional costs of a permit scheme. Operators typically have tight profit margins and smaller scale businesses may have more difficulty in absorbing the new costs”.

That is a pretty sobering assessment, and my worry is that Ministers have yet to realise the seriousness of the position.

Rightly there has been concern in the aviation sector about the failure to agree a deal, leading to a cliff edge for the European aviation market. As yet, freight has not achieved that degree of realisation. The Freight Transport Association has estimated that the logistics sector contributes over £121 billion GVA to the UK economy. We need the Government to safeguard that return. We also need to ensure the mutual recognition of driver qualifications. This needs to be agreed early on in negotiations to secure cross-border operations for drivers and operators. Currently drivers and transport managers need to hold certificates of professional competence to operate a heavy duty vehicle in the EU. The haulage sector will require legal certainty post Brexit, as the Minister acknowledged, to guarantee mutual recognition. Can the Minister provide a timetable for resolving this and say what progress has so far been made?

The Government are keen to present this Bill as a last resort, but the lack of progress in the Brexit negotiations make it increasingly unlikely that the DfT’s preferred outcome will be achieved. I worry that insufficient thought has been given to the unintended consequences of Brexit on freight haulage. The Government have not reassured me by publishing this Bill, which is a panic measure. They have published no-cost assessments for the sector, nor have they given any detailed assessment of the impact of added bureaucracy on businesses or the on-costs.

As a result, I intend to table amendments asking the Government specifically to negotiate a deal which replicates the benefits of the current Community licence and brings the UK within its purview. I shall also be asking the Government to report on the impact of the international road transport permits regime on the efficiency of haulage between the UK and the EU. If we cannot have an agreement that allows business as usual for haulage, we could end up with one of Mr David Davis’s dystopian fantasies—only it would not be a fantasy, but a fact.

The Bill should, and no doubt will, be supported by Parliament in an attempt to prevent chaos on day zero for Brexit, but it is a far from satisfying way of dealing with a problem almost entirely of the Government’s making—for example, the shoddy way they have dealt with negotiations. I worry about this Bill, and this House should too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, as always, the experience and knowledge in this Chamber has been extremely insightful, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Many noble Lords have pointed out the importance of the Bill to ensuring that there is no disruption to the haulage industry when we leave the EU, and of course I entirely agree. This is responsible planning to ensure that we are ready to deliver the outcome of the negotiations, whatever that may be. I think we all agree on our aim to retain the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. I welcome that agreement; it may be one of the few that we have during the progress of the Bill.

I apologise that the Bill was not announced in the Queen’s Speech, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The gracious Speech outlined that alongside the EU (Withdrawal) Bill there would be complementary legislation and that is what this is, but I apologise that it was not explicitly pointed out then.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Teverson, asked about costs and fees for both haulage permits and trailer registration. As I said in my opening words, the Bill provides powers for the Government to set and charge the administration fee. We are consulting on the details of the fees and charges for haulage permitting later this year. Again, as I said, we are doing this in order to minimise any additional burdens and costs for business. We are fully aware that this is going to be a cost for large and smaller haulage firms. The fees will be in line with the current international permit schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked for some examples. An ECMT permit for one year currently costs around £133 and a bilateral permit for one journey costs around £8, so that is the kind of ballpark figure that we are looking at. However, the exact nature and costs of the permit scheme will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, so we will be setting that out.

On the question of trailer registration, the Bill again provides the powers to set the fees to cover the administration. Again, we are aiming to minimise those as far as possible in order to reduce any burden or cost to businesses. There will be no ongoing annual fees associated with trailer registration. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about numbers; we expect around 80,000 or so will be registered. Once the trailer is registered, the only further fees would be for any subsequent reissue. The system for that is still in development and the cost is still to be determined. We have been doing quite a lot of exploratory work on this and are confident that the registration fee will be significantly below that of the current vehicle registration fee, which is £55.

On caravans, a subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the scheme will apply only to commercial trailers over 750 kilogrammes. We are speaking to the caravan society, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to further clarify that.

I raised the issue around horses and whether, if a horse was travelling to race abroad on a commercial basis, that would count. I was reassured that horses in that case would be in an all-in-one vehicle; I do not quite know what to call the vehicles, but they would not be in a trailer horsebox. My colleagues tell me that a horsebox is an all-in-one vehicle, rather than a horse trailer, so they would be covered. However, I am going to go back and clarify that further.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the permit application process and how it will work, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned HMRC. We are working with an existing organisation, the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, on the system to allocate haulage permits. That will be building on existing IT systems to create an online permit application system. Obviously hauliers are already familiar with applying to the DVSA for paperwork related to domestic and international travel, so we hope that they will welcome this. Again, we are committed to trying to minimise any additional requirements, and we are working closely with industry to develop those plans. The aim is absolutely that we will be able to take applications and issue permits in advance of exit day, and we are on track to be able to issue permits in late 2018.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, are the Government so well advanced in their thinking on the permit scheme that they have scoped out an IT system with one of the providers? Are they in negotiation with companies that do outsourcing on data and so on to try to work out exactly what sort of system they might want to put in place and think about what sort of contract they might want to set?

[Baroness Sugg]

We are working with the existing IT system at DVSA, so there would be no additional contract. I can certainly provide the noble Lord with further details on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the implementation period. Obviously, this is being discussed. The Government have been clear that the implementation period will be based on existing rules and regulations. I hope that we will reach agreement on that soon, which should provide some reassurance to industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the recognition of driver qualifications. The treatment of drivers’ certificate of professional competence will—again—depend on the outcome of negotiations with the EU, but our objective is absolutely to ensure that following our exit from the EU, CPCs will continue to be recognised.

The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Berkeley, asked about access for foreign hauliers, including cabotage. These, again, are important issues for negotiations that we are considering carefully for any future arrangement. In any scenario, there is existing domestic legislation to provide appropriate access for foreign hauliers coming to the UK, so the Bill does not address that specifically. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, it is an important part of the negotiations, and it will obviously be part of the discussions.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and others mentioned ECMT permits. The permitting system operated by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport is an international agreement entirely separate from the EU and will not be part of our negotiations. The ECMT permits currently allocated to the UK are little used and we have absolutely no intention of allowing them after we leave the EU.

As much as I would love to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a timeline for our transport negotiations, I am unable to do so. We are working closely with industry to understand its requirements and priorities, and have been doing so since the result of the referendum. We represent those views to the Department for Exiting the European Union. That department and the Department for Transport stand ready to move forward with the transport negotiations as soon as they begin.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, spoke about optimism. I agree with him that we do not want to return to rationing. We are optimistic in these negotiations and am pleased that at least my noble friend Lord Attlee shares that optimism. It is absolutely to the mutual benefit of us and the European Union that we maintain liberal access; 84% of the freight transported between the UK and continental Europe is operated by EU hauliers, and it is in both our interests that we have a successful outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

If we can track them down, we will certainly get them in. I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Perhaps I can take the noble Baroness back to an earlier point about trailer registration. I do not know whether she has looked at the department’s impact assessment, but it says that one of the indirect benefits will be improvements for road safety, and trailer registration is part of that. It strikes me that this is an opportunity, if the department wants to look at it that way, to secure some long-term benefits from trailer registration, and the Government might want to focus on it in their post-Brexit evaluation of road safety issues.

[Baroness Sugg]

I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion and will go back and study exactly where the safety requirements fall, and whether there is an opportunity within the Bill to further improve safety. I know that there is quite a lot of work on trailer safety going on in the department at the moment.

Localism Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, it is now 3.09 pm, the House is arranged to close at 7 pm today, it being a Thursday—

[Noble Lords]

Wednesday.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Sorry, I apologise, but it is the last day before the recess. It is Wednesday, although it feels like Thursday. We have 36 groups of amendments on the agenda this afternoon and I think it unlikely that we will get through them. I did a calculation earlier and I thought that worked out at less than 10 minutes per group; it is now even less. I wonder how the Government intend to proceed. We have been very co-operative on this Bill. Both our Front Bench and Back-Benchers have been extraordinarily disciplined in their speaking, as have colleagues around the House. The Bill has attracted a great deal of interest.

We acceded to the House starting at 10 o'clock today, which is unusual. The House sat until well past 11 o'clock last night. We agreed also to have two days in succession on the Bill. I think it unreasonable to expect the House to sit endlessly on the Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be right and proper that we have the rest of the day on this Bill in Committee and that a further day be tabled for it in the autumn. I made a perfectly reasonable offer to the Government to shrink the minimum intervals so that the Committee can go reasonably seamlessly into Report later, because I appreciate that the Government want to make progress with their legislation—as they should, that is a principle that we on this side entirely support.

I hope that the noble Lord the Leader, in the absence of the Government Chief Whip, can furnish me with some answers. I am more than happy to have discussions off the Floor of the House. I gave the Chief Whip notice that I would raise this matter before your Lordships, but the House need some answers. Staff, Members on our Front and Back Bench, Back and Front-Benchers opposite, and those who have been intimately involved need to be given some guidance as to how the House will proceed. It is my very firm view that the House should stop at 7 pm. We usually managed our business so that we stopped mid-afternoon on the last day before a recess. It is not our fault that the Government have got themselves into something of a car crash with their legislative programme at this early stage—after all, we are some months away from this Session coming to an end. The House requires some answers.

[Lord Grocott]

In fully supporting what my noble friend said, my point may seem trivial, but I hope that the House will not think that. There is a pretty good tradition in this House that when there is a major Statement, a really significant Statement, 40 minutes, not 20 minutes, will be allowed for Back Bench contributions. I understand that a request was made on that basis but refused today.

It would be very difficult to think of a more significant Statement than the one we have had today. I cannot think of one. The Leader of the House has been around a lot longer than I have, and perhaps he can draw on one. It was a Statement by the Prime Minister for which he had specifically come back from his tour of Africa and, in the other place, it is being followed by a debate. They will have about six hours to discuss these major issues. We have had about 40 or 45 minutes.

It is no use saying that we had a debate last Friday. We did. I was not here, but I have read it, and it was an outstanding debate. There is no reason not to think that this House could make a substantial contribution to these hugely important issues. I should like an explanation from the Leader of the House why the tradition of major Statements having 40 minutes for Back Bench contributions has been ignored on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for sharing my concern. It is not just the staff of this House who will be affected, it is also our own staff. When the Order of Business has been well advertised and well known for some time, it is unreasonable to expect people to be here well past our normal finishing time. This is not wasting time; it is making a perfectly proper point. The House needs to be treated with the respect it deserves, and this Bill needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. It deserves good scrutiny. Driving us on to late hours at night on the last day I think is quite wrong.

I am sure the Minister has the votes in his pocket. That is why the Government are here and that is how they operate in this House, but it is quite wrong to do this. I urge him to at least encourage some reasonable discussions this afternoon about how we can draw this to a close. We are a co-operative Opposition, but it is our job also to act properly in opposition and do a proper job of scrutiny on Bills in the correct hours. I believe in that very strongly and I am sure the whole House does.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very happy to have further discussions off the Floor of the House, and I am very keen that the House should behave and continue in a proper way. However, to me, the noble Lord’s protestations sound a little hollow given that we are about to take six weeks off.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

That is just not true. The noble Lord has not answered the point. How does he expect us realistically to deal with 36 groups of amendments, some of them very long, in less than four hours? That just does not seem to me to be the right way to set about business.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Can I just press the noble Baroness the Chief Whip a little further? When we were in discussions a figure was mentioned. I think it might be helpful, and for the benefit of the House, if that figure was put on the record.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am most happy to do so. In the ordinary manner of things, we had planned for four days on Report, which is the usual length. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is shaking his head—we accepted that that would not be appropriate, and there will be five and a half days provided on Report.