Stonehenge Tunnel

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the scheme is part of a long-term strategy to better link the M3 and the south-east to the M5 and the south-west. Upgrading to a continuous dual carriageway standard will transform it into a high-quality route. Of course, the local residents will benefit from that. I am afraid I do not have specific information for the noble Baroness on compensation, but I will write to her. But, as I say, there will be benefits, both from the improved connectivity and the removal of rat-running through villages.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain how long the tunnel underneath Stonehenge is? This issue has been around for 20 or 30 years and the tunnel gets longer and longer because the archaeologists keep digging up further remains at each end of it. Is this the end of the tunnelling, or are they going to find more remains to make it even longer?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, this is a key heritage site and we are being very careful when making our plans for this. The heritage site suffers significant congestion because the single carriageway carries significantly more traffic than it was designed for, and that is why the tunnel is important. The proposed scheme includes a free-flowing dual carriageway and a tunnel of at least 1.8 miles in length.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Lords Chamber

I welcome these amendments and thank the Minister again for her help.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I also welcome these amendments. I share the noble Baroness’s concern about the method of allocation of permits, but I think that we have gone as far as we are going to get on that one. I was particularly interested in the Minister’s comments about Amendments 5 and 6, which she said did not apply to Northern Ireland. I thought the whole point of trailer registration, in Part 2 of the Bill, was that it was a necessity to have trailers registered in case there was a need for any trailer to go outside the UK on to the continent, or into the EU, following Brexit, which of course would also apply to the Republic of Ireland. My logical mind therefore thinks that, if a trailer cannot be registered in Northern Ireland, it cannot leave Northern Ireland—or the UK—for the European Union, which means it cannot go across the border to the Republic.

Notwithstanding that, in Amendment 11, if a driver does take a trailer into the Republic that is registered in Northern Ireland—which apparently it cannot be—they can still be fined. This seems slightly illogical because, if I were a trailer owner in Northern Ireland and not able to register it and therefore go into the Republic, that would not seem quite right to me. Can the Minister explain where I have got it wrong or whether there is something more that needs to happen?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, but also that we have gone as far as we can in those areas. On government Amendments 5, 6, 7 and, I think 8, my research assistant, Catherine Johnson, who drafted the original amendment passed in your Lordships’ House, assured me that the Minister has accepted your Lordships’ amendment but put it in her own words. Accordingly, we support the government amendments and thank the Minister for her efforts.

Railways: Wales

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we are committed to electrification where it delivers passenger benefits, but we must also ensure that it is good value for money. Where possible, we will also take advantage of new technologies to improve journeys without carrying out disruptive electrification works. I have not seen the details of the system mentioned by the noble Lord but we continually assess the investment decisions in our programme of railway upgrades to deliver passenger benefits in the best way possible so as to give passengers and taxpayers maximum value for money.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, while accepting that the Government have made progress in the devolution of railway issues, is it not time for much greater devolution of the infrastructure and train operation to the Welsh Government? The noble Baroness has talked about bimodal trains. The only reason we have those trains is that Network Rail has failed to electrify the track. Bimodal trains are slower, more expensive and more polluting. Surely the answer is to give the Welsh Government total control without the micromanagement that seems to come from her department.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the Government made a commitment to devolve powers for the Wales and Borders franchise following recommendations from the Commission on Devolution in Wales, which I am very pleased that we have delivered. It is a good example of effective co-operation between the Welsh Government and the UK Government. On the devolution of infrastructure funding, we do not believe that it is desirable generally to reopen discussion on the Silk recommendations, around which there was no consensus. We do not intend therefore to revisit the question of devolving Network Rail funding, given the discussions on the issue during the St David’s Day process. Of course, we continue to work closely with the Welsh Government on the specification and funding of Network Rail’s operations.

Road Maintenance

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the funding they provide to Highways England and local authorities to ensure that roads are maintained in a safe condition.

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

My Lords, over £12 billion has been provided to Highways England and local authorities to maintain and renew the road network in England outside London in the six years up to 2020-21. This is a significant increase on previous years. It is of course for each authority to assess which of its roads need repair, based on local knowledge and circumstances, but the Government believe that the sums allocated are ensuring that roads are maintained safely.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but many organisations will think that even that increase is nothing like enough. The RAC reckons that potholes cost drivers £100 million a year in damage to their cars. Cycling UK notes that in 2016, 64 cyclists were killed or seriously injured because of potholes. I nearly joined that rank when I fell into a pothole, which was under water, outside your Lordships’ House. The repair consisted of a white line painted round the pothole—and it is still there, three months later. On 13 June the Government issued a British road safety statement, which included measures to improve the safety and reduce the deaths of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. Will the Government put that into practice, with more commitment? One idea would be to put an extra 3p per litre on the price of petrol, ring-fenced for potholes on local roads.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, we must certainly do all we can to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. According to Cycling UK, over half of people say that they would cycle more if they were not so worried about the state of our roads. Potholes and poorly maintained roads are a menace for all road users—including noble Lords—which is why we are taking action to improve the condition of the local road network. In particular, the Department for Transport has allocated £296 million to the Pothole Action Fund, on top of existing funding. Noble Lords will know that fuel duty is most definitely a matter for the Chancellor, but I will certainly pass on the noble Lord’s suggestion.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction of these amendments. They are very helpful; they clarify the position and make the Bill much more useful. In Committee we debated the fact that this is a very narrow power being taken in relation to the infrastructure necessary to facilitate a greater uptake of electric and zero-emission vehicles. It is important that we look carefully at what more can be done to encourage everybody, at all levels of government—whether national, metro mayor or indeed at borough level—to take stock and introduce an effective network of chargers, which can help people to be confident that they will be able to use electric vehicles in a way that matches their current vehicle use.

I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in asking: can we hear a little more from the Government, specifically about car parks but about destination charging in general? I feel that it is a little too laissez-faire to think that this will all happen through market forces. There are going to be times when we will need to take a strategic look at this in a specific geographical region. We need to have sufficient powers to enable us to make this infrastructure happen; we will otherwise not see the uptake that we need to hit our air-quality and climate-change targets.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, at the risk of causing a bit of trouble at this stage of the Bill, I cannot see why it matters particularly where the charging points are in a motorway service station. If you are going to park your car and go off to have a drink, you might as well plug it in while having it. If you do not want to do that but have a high-powered, high-speed charger you can probably do that as if you are filling up with petrol. The general principle in the Bill is all right but I suspect that the commercial pressures on the operators will persuade them to put the charging points where they are most convenient.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments, which seem to have produced a consensus on all the issues which were brought up on Report. I must agree with other speakers that the Bill is narrow and, to be fair, it is generally our role to scrutinise Bills. While we have done that, there has to be much wider consideration given by government to this whole area. That consideration has to work with other parts of government and local government, so that we do not trip into the area of sovereignty conflict. Fortunately, that seems to have been effectively solved by the amendments and the consultation. It is an important area to get straight if we are to achieve the spread of charging points that will be necessary, particularly to achieve our air-quality targets.

Railways: East Coast Main Line

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

I am afraid that yet again I will have to disagree with my noble friend on HS2. Our railways are at capacity; we have seen the doubling of passenger numbers since privatisation, and HS2 is much needed to relieve that capacity and provide a better service for people across the country.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the trains which she pleasingly told the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would be going to Lincoln will have enough seats for everybody in this House, and that they are not just two-car trains? More seriously, can she confirm that there is enough capacity on the branch line, and on the main line provided by Network Rail, so that these trains can be operated without any disadvantage to other services?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the exact size of the trains on the new local railway. On capacity, moving towards the east coast partnership, as we are planning to do in 2020, will enable both Network Rail and the train operator to work closely together to ensure that we have enough capacity on all lines.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I should first make an unusual declaration of interest: namely, an investment that does not exist at this moment but which will almost certainly be made in the next few days. I will have an equity interest in the Penso group of companies and become its chairman. Penso is a manufacturer of very high-tech carbon fibre parts for the automotive, aerospace and rail industries, and produces the Vito London taxi for Mercedes in Coventry. The investment is likely to complete in the next few days, making the interest declarable as its product is very relevant to the lightweight future of electric cars. I should explain that none of my amendments seeks to confer exclusive benefits on the company and that I am moving them because I believe them all to be in the public interest.

Unfortunately, the grouping of the amendments in today’s debate is slightly unusual and many groups contain amendments that do not naturally fall together. Some of my later amendments overlap with, and propose different ways of achieving the same ends as, the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I apologise if the Minister has to repeat the same points in different sections.

Although I support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 1, we may yet hear from the Bill team that Amendment 2 is just not the way in which they wish to go with this definition. I must say that I believe that that is a mistake, because, although the Society of Automotive Engineers standards may change and the Government normally like to be in complete control of the definition, the choice here is between a vague definition that could be interpreted in different ways by different lawyers and an international standard developed by the SAE and adopted worldwide. Chinese vehicle producers will adopt the SAE regulations, as will producers all over the world. There seems therefore to be a great deal of merit in sticking to the worldwide standard rather than inventing our own because we believe that our choice of English will be so elegant that we can achieve it.

There are other ways of achieving the definition from those used in the Bill, and I will come to them in my later amendments. However, were the Government to change their mind and support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 2, I would immediately support it as well.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is important that we keep the scope of the Bill as wide as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, mentioned manufacturing in China. I suspect that by the time many of these cars and technologies have come on to the market, a very large proportion of the equipment will come from China anyway. There has to be some world standard—I am not sure which; we will come to that later—otherwise we will be in dead trouble. I also share the noble Lord’s concern about Amendment 2.

I was interested in the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about turning railways into roads. We heard this before, about 30 years ago.

[Lord Lucas]

It was not about turning railways into roads; it ends up with turning roads into railways. It is just a different method of moving people on railways.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s explanation. It depends on whether the road is as defined in Clause 1(1)(a),

“roads or in other public places”,

on whether or not it will be a railway.

I want to point out that autonomous railways are happening at the moment. The centre section of the Thameslink railway is effectively driverless. It does not go very far—from Kings Cross St Pancras to Blackfriars—but it does not need a driver. Of course, a driver is there, but that is the state of technology on the mainline railways, and the underground railways and metros have done it for a long time. Whether the same number of passengers could be taken by these autonomous pods up a railway, road or whatever, compared with a 12-car train every two minutes with people standing is a debate we can have. But I am not sure that I would support widening this Bill to get that far.

I have also been studying a few issues related to the content of the Bill, and recently met the author Christian Wolmar who has written a book, Driverless Cars: On A Road To Nowhere. I recommend that the Minister and other speakers to read it; I am not going to give it away today. Without necessarily supporting what he says, there are issues relating to the human reaction to automation that are quite useful to study, including how close a vehicle can get to the one in front, and all the things we spoke about on Second Reading, which I shall not repeat today. It may take rather longer than some noble Lords think for all this to come about. We are certainly right to debate it now and to concentrate on common standards.

I certainly support my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. I think he was speaking to Amendment 8, which I did not know was in this group, but he made a good speech and I certainly support it.

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

My Lords, at the outset of this debate today on automated vehicles, I think it is helpful to set out what this Bill is trying to achieve. The provisions within the automated part of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill extend compulsory motor vehicle insurance to cover the use of automated vehicles when operating in automated mode, so that victims of an accident caused by an automated vehicle while driving itself will be covered by the compulsory insurance in place on the vehicle. The insurer would be initially liable to pay compensation to any victim, including to the driver who had legitimately handed control to the vehicle. The insurer then would have the right to recover costs from any liable parties under existing UK common law and product liability law.

The Bill therefore requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of automated vehicles which are,

“designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”.

The purpose of this power is to allow manufacturers, owners of vehicles and insurers to know if the extension to compulsory motor insurance in this legislation applies to their vehicle. This will provide certainty to the automotive and insurance industries, as well as clarity to the public. The scope of the Bill applies to highly and fully automated vehicles only—that is, vehicles for which, when driving themselves, there is no monitoring or controlling role required of the driver.

This is broadly equivalent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, to levels 4 and 5, as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers—the SAE—and does not apply to vehicles with lower levels of automated technology or utilising advanced driver assistance systems, no matter how sophisticated. It does not apply to level 3 vehicles, and the Tesla vehicle the noble Baroness mentioned would not be covered. We will come to this point later, but level 3 cars still require monitoring by a driver, so they are not fully automatic and are not covered by the Bill. It also only applies to automated vehicles that are or might lawfully be used on roads or in other public places in Great Britain.

I acknowledge the point made by many noble Lords on the narrow scope of this Bill. It was designed with a specific purpose in mind, and I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords from across the House on the amendment from my noble friend Lord Borwick introducing more powers for the Government.

Regarding the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the inclusion of vehicles manufactured and purchased outside Great Britain, there is already a long-established process, along with guidance on the GOV.UK website, which covers the permanent use of foreign-registered vehicles in the UK. As part of this process, any vehicle which drives on UK roads must already be type-approved. For temporary use of vehicles on our roads, through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau we operate a Green Card scheme—an international certificate of insurance to make sure that victims of accidents involving foreign-registered vehicles are covered. We think this process would be the same for automated vehicles and, therefore, do not think the amendment is necessary at this stage because all vehicles manufactured and/or purchased outside Great Britain will be covered by the existing text.

The Bill does not define automated vehicles by SAE levels, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Amendment 2. This is because the SAE levels are generalised industry categories describing a broad capability, which could change over time. The type approval of an automated vehicle, the criteria of which have not yet been agreed, will not be carried out according to SAE levels of automation. Noble Lords may find it helpful to note that the UNECE working parties that set the international standards by which vehicles will be type-approved and used have rejected the SAE definitions because they do not meet the level of precision needed for regulation. Instead, they simply set out broad definitions.

The categories set out by the SAE are under continual revision. A direct link to the levels creates problems if the definitions move away from what is needed for the proper functioning of the Bill. I want to be clear: we are not rejecting the SAE levels. They are helpful, but they do not—the UNECE agrees with us here—meet the level of precision needed for type approval and regulation.

[Lord Berkeley]

Could the noble Baroness explain what she means by “manufactured in Great Britain”? She is aware of all the Brexit debates about certificates of origin, and that bits and pieces and components go right across the world and back again. What exactly do we mean by “manufactured in Great Britain”? Is it just the name on the front?

[Baroness Sugg]

Happily, the Bill covers vehicles manufactured in Great Britain and abroad: it covers any vehicle. I am afraid I do not have an exact definition, but I imagine that it is when the majority is manufactured in the UK. As I say, the Bill will cover all vehicles, wherever they are manufactured.

On Amendment 33, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we must ensure that all new automated vehicles are safe and secure for use in Great Britain. We have many amendments to come on that. We are working at the United Nations level to develop international requirements for vehicle manufacturers on both vehicle safety and cybersecurity. These standards, which are still being developed, will then form the basis of the type approval process which automated vehicles, like conventional vehicles today, must pass before they can be sold for safe use on British roads or in other public places, or get on to the Secretary of State’s list for insurance.

Based on the international UNECE standards, which the UK is actively contributing to, and our evolving domestic regulatory programme, we expect it to be very clear which vehicles, including their software, can safely operate in automated mode. We do not think it appropriate at this early stage to set too precise criteria.

--- Later in debate ---

We believe, as do a number of stakeholders, that the Government should introduce an accreditation scheme for technicians to work on future vehicles. If they are not proactive, the UK will not be able to support growth in these new technologies. So will the Minister look at bringing in such a scheme, not only to address the skill shortage but as a wider set of protections for insurers against unauthorised repair and maintenance of such vehicles, as set out in the new clause?

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I support Amendment 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. He is right about the need for such an authorised inspection regime, and in his worry about unauthorised repairs. The Committee may or may not be aware that a lot of trucks, and probably many modern trains and other big pieces of plant and equipment, are already remotely monitored. Where I live in Cornwall, outside the front door of the house is a 200-tonne gantry crane that operates on rubber tyres. It was manufactured in Italy and erected in Cornwall, and if the driver does the wrong thing, or the wrong person drives it, the people in Italy know exactly what is happening and they will stop it: they will prevent it operating. If it tries to lift 300 tonnes when it is capable of lifting only 250 tonnes it will be stopped, so that the equipment does not get severely damaged. That is very common, so my noble friend’s amendment is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will see the need for some kind of scheme to cover at least the specialist equipment that will be in the vehicles.

I worry about Amendment 3 and the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the word “adapted”. She said that adapting a vehicle would probably be done in a back yard somewhere, by somebody who probably would not know what they were doing, and could therefore be dangerous. That is certainly a worry. But the word “adapted” would also cover current vehicles adapted for people with certain disabilities—for example, if someone cannot use a brake pedal so there has to be a brake behind the steering wheel. I know we are talking about a different technology, but the word “adapted” will be difficult. I suggest to the noble Baroness that, if Amendment 29 were accepted, all vehicles, whether specialist, adapted or not, would have to be covered by the authorised “inspection, repair or maintenance”, so it would be better to go down that route rather than inserting the word “adapted”, as she suggests in Amendment 3.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too have some difficulty with the word “adapted”. I understand that modern technology is more difficult to handle than when the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I were pulling our Austin 7, or whatever it was, apart. Nevertheless, you cannot totally slam the door on any form of cottage or other industry which was set up in order to help individuals to produce an adaptation of a particular vehicle. I do not support this amendment in the way in which it is drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I accept that my Amendment 3 is a very simple and straightforward device. It was an attempt to approach one aspect of the safety issue. Amendment 29 is a much more complex and comprehensive approach. If Amendment 29 or something like it were adopted, there would be no need for Amendment 3.

I was trying to begin to talk about safety and to raise the issue that if you allow adaptations, the Secretary of State will have to devise a way to apply a wide and rigorous range of safety tests. Currently, if you build your own car in a garage you can test it pretty straightforwardly and take it on the road. You could be stopped by a policeman and you could take it to a garage and it would or would not get its MoT on a series of straightforward yes or no tests with no doubt about it. But, if we are talking about adaptations to autonomous vehicles, the danger in these adaptations will almost certainly be in the software, which it is very much more difficult to test. We have only to look back at the Volkswagen scandal. Volkswagen installed the so-called defeat device in the software of its diesel cars that kicked in only when it detected that it was being tested. It was therefore able to mask the true extent of emissions. That is a very complex operation. To test software we would have to go through very lengthy, all-situations style testing to make sure that a vehicle is truly safe. It is not just a case of putting your foot on the brake and saying that it stops quite quickly and it is fine.

[Lord Berkeley]

Would the noble Baroness be tempted to press the Minister to have a meeting on these issues before Report and come back with a much shorter text than Amendment 29 with the intention of covering these issues? I think that would give many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate quite a lot of comfort.

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, puts forward a very good idea. I know that the Minister is always very generous in providing opportunities to discuss issues. We already have two issues that we need further information on. I am sure that there will be other amendments later where we will need a meeting or, at the very least, a fairly lengthy letter—but it would be better to discuss it.

I readily acknowledge that the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is a more thorough approach to the issue of safety. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Another complication concerns the word “individual”. If driverless cars are to be able to cope with driving on ordinary roads, such as country roads where things are changing all the time, then in order that they should not use a computer more powerful than their engine, they are going to have to communicate with other driverless cars and build up enough data and information in that way: they are not individuals, they are communicating with a cluster of other cars. I make these points because they are technically relevant and indicate the subjectivity of trying to decide whether there is a need for monitoring.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to Amendment 35. Having a definition of “road”, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is essential. I know there are lots of different definitions of roads within the various road traffic Acts, but I happened to come across a case a few years ago where somebody who was driving a 4x4 on a road which did not appear to be a road within the definition of the road traffic Acts was arrested and charged with drink-driving. He was convicted in the end and it is quite clear, which I did not understand before, that that offence can occur anywhere—in a field, a factory, or anywhere else—because it is not particularly a road traffic offence: it is being drunk in charge of a vehicle. I do not know whether that will be reflected when we get to who is in charge of these vehicles, but it demonstrates the importance of having a definition of “road” where such legislation will apply.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I think there is a difficulty with what my noble friend’s Amendment 4 proposes. There is no reason to suppose that we will not have vehicles that are dual-capable—capable of being driven by people and driven autonomously—maybe as part of the evolution to a fully autonomous system. I do not suspect that a farmer will want their Land Rover to be autonomous for a long time in the future, except when it is on a roadway and switching between two modes may become quite important. Therefore, a vehicle that is capable of switching between the two modes, and is therefore not always autonomous, will be an important part of the evolution to autonomous vehicles.

I also suspect that once a vehicle is autonomous, it will not ever be truly not in someone’s charge. If you have a set of vehicles which are essentially public vehicles—small buses, which are just picked up on the street and you take one to wherever you are going—some kind of alarm system will be necessary. There will probably be some oversight in case of a known problem: you will want to say, “Right, all vehicles within a particular radius shall slow down or stop because there appears to be some problem developing here”. Defining who is in charge of a vehicle where those capabilities exist will be quite problematic. This comes back to my wanting the Government to give themselves the flexibility to adapt the regulations as circumstances change, our knowledge improves and systems move.

The picture the Government paint of a Bill every year is just not feasible: government does not work that way. This sort of backwater gets a Bill every four years if we are lucky. We absolutely have to reckon that this Bill has to last the rest of this Parliament and probably the first year or two of the next. There is not the space in a Government’s life for off-centre Bills on a regular basis. The Bill is underpowered for the mission it sets out to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

The advantage of Amendment 9 changing “must” to “may” is that it gives the Government the opportunity to be flexible that my noble friend suggested earlier that they needed. “Must” is a red rag to a lawyer; it suggests that, because the Government have not done something, there is some liability knocking around that they can attach a claim to. I am therefore worried about this requirement that the Secretary of State “must” produce a list and that it “must” include this or that. It would be much better for the Government just to take the power and decide in the future to what extent they want to produce this list. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, about “must” and “may”. It is interesting that the Government like to put “must” on its own. I am sure the Minister will have a view on that.

I have a short comment on Amendment 12, which is in this group. I support it. The Minister may say it is too early but, if you are going to have a written notice under proposed new subsection (2), surely the documentation, certificates or anything relating to not only the vehicle but the software, control system and everything else should be included.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend on further regulatory powers in the Bill. As I said, I would be interested to hear views from noble Lords from across the House on further regulatory powers later but, at this stage, we are just not ready to make further regulation. That is why we have not asked for the powers.

The purpose of the list in Clause 1 is to allow manufacturers, owners of vehicles and insurers to know if the extension of the compulsory motor insurance in this legislation applies to their vehicle. The aim is to provide certainty to the automotive and insurance industries, as well as clarity to the public. As I have said, the list itself is not a mechanism to approve which vehicles are safe to use. This will be determined by future regulation, most likely based on international standards. The list in Clause 1 is simply to inform the insurance industry which vehicles require automated vehicle insurance.

My noble friend Lord Borwick’s Amendment 9, which replaces “must” with “may”, would imply that preparing, updating or publishing this list might be at the Secretary of State’s discretion. We believe it is right that the Bill imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, who “must” ensure that the list, comprising any vehicle that may lawfully be used when driving itself on roads or other public places in Great Britain, is published and kept up to date. If the list is not updated, people may obtain the wrong type of insurance, leading to difficulties for victims in securing compensation quickly and easily. As I said, this aims to provide certainty.

In order for the Bill to deliver the insurance framework that it is intended to—this is after consultation with the insurance industry—it is important to maintain the list as a duty on the Secretary of State. Perhaps this is something we can discuss further before Report.

Amendment 12 concerns the duty of a manufacturer to notify the Secretary of State. I understand my noble friend’s intention but, at this stage, it is not appropriate to legislate in this regard. There are already existing processes in place when registering a vehicle or notifying changes regarding a status of the vehicle, and we are working with the DVLA on how to replicate these processes for automated vehicles. We have yet to complete that work, so we do not feel it is the right time to legislate in this regard. I hope that, given this explanation, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 21 in this group. The Bill as currently drafted means that the insurer or owner of an automated vehicle is not liable where the event was caused by a person allowing the vehicle to drive itself where it was not appropriate to do so. However, it does not define when it is or is not appropriate to do so. This amendment requires the Government to provide regulatory guidance for when it is and is not appropriate for a person to allow an automated vehicle to drive itself.

It would clearly not be appropriate in some circumstances for vehicles to drive themselves: for example, early automated vehicles might be deemed safe to use only on motorways and not on some urban roads. Another example would be that a software issue might arise so that using the automated function at that point would be inappropriate. Clause 3(2) is not clear enough in its intentions. Does it even apply to fully automated vehicles or bimodal vehicles? We need more clarity on this.

One of the primary purposes of Part 1 is to provide a framework to give insurers, manufacturers and potential users greater clarity, providing confidence and encouraging progress on automated vehicles. However, it is still not clear from the Bill what the Government have in mind about when their use would be appropriate. We are asking for regulations to be brought forward to better define those circumstances, because we cannot afford to have confusion here. People must be clear about where their obligations lie. If we are to see the growth in the industry we all wish for, we do not want to leave this issue hanging over it.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I will make what I hope is a helpful suggestion to my noble friend in connection with Amendment 21. The most appropriate authority to make these regulations would be the Office of Rail and Road. It is responsible for safety on the railway; it should be responsible for road safety, but we have not got there yet. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would support me on that one. However, I hope that is a helpful suggestion.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, given Network Rail’s safety record over the last 10 years, I would absolutely support that recommendation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think I said when I was speaking to the amendments that at the moment the powers we have are sufficient. We can use existing powers in the Road Traffic Act 1988 to revise existing, or create new, road vehicle construction and use regulations to transpose or reinforce new iterations of the global regulations as they appear. However, as has been the case with other regulations we have debated, on safety and other issues the Government will bring forward the appropriate legislative framework in due course if we do not already have powers under existing primary legislation.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the Law Commission report several times. Can he give any timetable for when the Law Commission will report on various issues? I am not just thinking about this one. One report on railway level crossings was completed about five years ago. I know that you are supposed to wait two years after a report has been produced before it is introduced into legislation. However, if one waits three, four or five years, the report’s conclusions may get out of date. I remember threatening the last coalition Government with putting the whole Law Commission report on level crossings down as amendments to a suitable Bill—it would have been about 50 pages long, but that was not the problem—in order to get the coalition Government to do something. My impression is that, because of all the Brexit legislation, everything has come to a grinding halt. I am not necessarily suggesting that the Minister will be able to answer my detailed question, but if he or a colleague could write to me on that, I think it would be a useful subject for discussion later.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand that the Law Commission work on the issue that we are debating now is a three-year programme. I am not sighted on the level crossing review, but either I shall write to the noble Lord or, perhaps later on, during one of our debates, we can update the exact timescale of the Law Commission review of the existing legal framework for automated vehicles. Obviously, automated control is not in operation.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, these are interesting amendments. When my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe was speaking to Amendment 25 and mentioned the word “victim”, I began to think, “Well, who is a victim? Can a car be a victim, or only a person?” I think it is too late tonight to start a long debate on that, but perhaps the Minister could think about that some time.

I turn to Amendments 23 and 28. My worry about Amendment 23 is: what happens if the manufacturer has gone bust? In other words, the manufacturer does not actually have to be the person who supplies updates; it can be anyone. My gut feeling is that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s Amendment 28 is better because it just says that the vehicle may not be operated unless the application software relating to the vehicle’s automated function is up to date. I think that would cover what Amendment 23 covers but in a better way.

What nobody has mentioned tonight, which the noble Baroness touched on, is what happens if the software does not work and you are stuck on a motorway or in a one-way street and cannot move the car? Again, I think that is a debate for another day, but I hope the Minister will have some response to the points made by many noble Lords, particularly about who updates the software.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Borwick that software updates should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. They are capable of updating it, and of making it automatic that it is updated. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that systems need to be better than they are at the moment. I note that my iPhone issued by this House is automatically updated with software. About two weeks ago it deleted all my telephone contacts and it resists all efforts by all our excellent people in this House to restore it to normality, because Apple takes no responsibility for this, of course. It just produces the update and there is no recourse to make the thing work properly.

In the case of automated vehicles we absolutely need to have recourse to the manufacturers, and they need to know that that is where liability for these things rests. It is their responsibility to make sure that their fleet of vehicles on the roads is up to date and functioning as expected. This reflects back into other aspects of the Bill that we have already discussed, as to who should be allowed to make modifications and how the whole fleet of autonomous vehicles should communicate with each other.

I am also happy with Amendment 25; it is an excellent thing. I would only point out in the drafting of Amendment 28 that it refers to “public roads” whereas the Bill refers to “public spaces”. With reference to a conversation I had earlier with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that presumably includes the airspace above public spaces, so the Bill includes your future Amazon drone wandering along six feet above the pavement to drop your parcel over your gate. I see nothing in the Bill that excludes airborne vehicles—or indeed waterborne vehicles—so I presume that both are included in that definition of public spaces. I do not know which definition of public spaces is being referred to. The ones I can find in legislation are pretty vague and not really related to this subject, but I would assume that at the same time as thinking we are dealing with road vehicles, we are also dealing with ones that could be airborne—at least within reasonable reach of the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that there are now reasonably big drones delivering goods? They trundle along pavements and across level crossings and so on, appearing to behave a bit like pedestrians. I have been thinking about what the noble Lord is saying, and he is raising a good point. What is the difference between a drone delivering an Amazon parcel and a driverless van delivering an Amazon parcel? The only difference is probably the size, so there will have to be some definition of a cut-off point—unless we are going to insist that drones are insured, in the same way as vehicles.

[Lord Berkeley]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she really thinks that drones trundle along pavements?

[Baroness Randerson]

I have indeed seen them. There are experimental systems that are wheeling along pavements.

[Lord Berkeley]

On wheels?

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to three amendments in this group. I have added my name to Amendment 1, which is a retabling of an amendment put down in Committee by the Labour Party that would put on the face of the Bill that it is the Government’s objective to secure continued participation in the EU’s Community licence arrangements. This is another example of where a perfectly good arrangement currently exists in the EU but we will be leaving that arrangement and undoubtedly, I fear, moving to a less satisfactory situation. These amendments, as a group, are intended to encourage the Government to make the best possible arrangement with the EU for the future and to move to the best possible set of arrangements in the circumstances.

The amendments tabled by the Labour Party will almost certainly also ensure that the powers granted under this legislation will not be applicable if we stay in the EU’s Community licence regime, and that is very similar in principle to the sunset clause that I tabled in Committee. My Amendment 2 carries on this theme, because our argument is that the Bill should be applicable only with its original intended purpose, which is to make provisions for after we leave the EU, and that it should not be used as an opportunity to tidy up existing law. We often hear the phrase “skeletal Bill” but this is a “coat-hanger Bill”. It is possible to put any garment you can think of on this coat-hanger because it is drawn so broadly, and it is very difficult to see where the Government might go with it. Therefore, I believe that it is in everyone’s interests to keep the Bill to its original purpose.

Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, refers to the new permits regime and attempts to ensure that there is agreement in the future between the Government and the EU.

Finally, our Amendment 7 would make it a negotiating objective of the UK Government that there must be reciprocity regarding the number of UK-registered hauliers travelling to the EU and vice versa. This is a key issue. The view of haulage industry leaders is that we have to do all we can to ensure that there is an agreement, because, in their eyes, it is certain that the system proposed here will not work. The Freight Transport Association says that last year 300,000 journeys to the EU were made by British trucks and that 103 permits were issued, as those were all that were needed. If the Government are to adopt the permit system, a massive scaling up will be required to cope with that volume of traffic, but I think it is unrealistic for the Government to believe that they can scale up quickly and satisfactorily to that extent.

There are other issues which the transport associations are very concerned about and which these clauses do not deal with. After Brexit, WTO rules will require a significant increase in the number of checks. However frictionless a system the Government manage to create, ensuring that there are a limited number of checks to be made, WTO rules will kick in and will require checks to be made on a much bigger scale than now.

Simple precautionary measures are bound to be required to deter people intent on cheating the new system. There is also the unlikelihood, in the eyes of those who engage with the system at the moment, that the new computer-based system that will have to be devised by HMRC will be fully functional in the less than three years that we have left before the end of the transition period.

Then, of course, there is the issue of bringing 85,000 businesses up to scratch—that figure is from the NAO report. Currently, those businesses export only to the EU. Therefore, although they are exporting frequently—on a daily basis in many cases—they have never made a customs declaration. These businesses have no processes in place and no departments dedicated to that. If you add to that increased border delays caused by non-tariff aspects of the Bill, such as the end of mutual recognition of standards, there must be every incentive to reach an agreement, because there will be huge impediments to trade.

This Bill deals only with part of these issues. It makes no reference to the mutual recognition of lorry driver qualifications or to a shortage of skilled workers—13% of trucks on British roads are driven by EU drivers. Therefore, we are keen, through these amendments, to encourage the Government in every possible way to ensure that they make an agreement. I fear that we are not in a strong position on this, but the Government have to make every effort. Unless they do so, there is a huge chance that our major haulage companies will move abroad. There is already talk of companies seeking to register abroad in order to trade more easily. None of us wants that to happen.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 7 in this group, Amendment 3 being in my name. Before I do so, I note the comments from the Chief Whip a few minutes ago on what noble Lords are supposed to do during Report stage. I question the second point, which says,

“a member to explain himself in some material point of speech”.

I do not imagine that the Minister will be able to answer that, but I hope that we all explain ourselves.

I support all the points made by my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The noble Baroness said that this is a coat-hanger Bill, and she is probably right, but I suggest that it is a great deal better than nothing. There are many other sectors being debated in the context of Brexit for which there is nothing. We should give the Government a bit of credit for this, albeit that the Bill as it stands is pretty defective in many of the solutions that it comes up with. My conclusion, along with that of the noble Baroness, is that the system will not work anyway.

It is worth mentioning that, although this applies to road haulage, the border checks that we are all concerned about cover a very large number of different issues. Previous speakers have mentioned some of them. The easy one, actually, is customs. If that is done well and the IT system works—there is a big question about that—much of the work can be done in advance and, in theory, there would be no delays at frontiers, provided that it all goes smoothly. We discussed the drivers in Committee and their need for permits for vehicles and trailers and then we get into the interesting bits, which are the responsibility of Defra—plant and animal health and welfare, foot-and-mouth and rabies. You cannot check for those away from the frontier; it has to be done at the frontier. I do not know how many trucks per year would come under that, but they probably all need inspecting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am not going to get involved in a debate about which of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, or my noble friend Lord Whitty was the better Transport Minister or Roads Minister: I think they were both good.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I was only a government spokesman. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was a policy-determining Minister; I was not.

[Lord Berkeley]

Well, maybe that will change someday.

To speak briefly to Amendment 4, I think the noble Baroness has tried hard to interpret the long debate we had in Committee about the method of allocation and we will have to see how it goes: I think we cannot go much further on it. However, I support my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 5 on these criteria, which Unite has quite rightly been proposing for the operators. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned, though, it is going to get even more unfair if foreign lorries coming here do not have to comply with the same criteria. We risk losing more traffic to foreign lorries: it is massively out of balance at the moment and will get worse. I am not sure how we do it, because the Minister said about a previous part of the Bill that we cannot legislate about anything to do with foreign lorries coming here. I hope she will reflect on the need not only to take into account my noble friend’s amendment but how to apply that to lorries that come to this country so that there is a fair balance.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I too welcome the movement that the Minister has shown in the redrafting of Amendment 4. The essence seems to me that there will be a series of criteria to determine who should get permits and that the use, particularly, of random selection will emerge only where the differentiation by the criteria shows candidates to be equal. In other words, the objective will be to have objective criteria that can do the differentiation process, and only when bids of equal merit are placed in front of the selection would we stoop, sadly, to random selection. Let us hope we never get there—let us hope that there are enough permits anyway.

The Minister met many of the aspirations of Amendment 5 and I hope she will repeat them in her summing up. I hope she will give some warmth to repute as a concept for selection. There is the idea of a single criterion—safe, environmentally okay, et cetera—but it is crucial to recognise that it is more complex than that. We need to look at an operator’s track record: do they consistently work to a high standard? Are they consistently a good representative of that industry?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

6: Clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) In negotiating arrangements for permits with the European Union or European Union member States, the Secretary of State must seek reciprocity in terms of the quantity of permits and the fees charged.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 I will speak also to Amendment 8. This is to do with the quantity of permits and the fees, which we have already discussed in relation to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Amendment 6 seeks to put in the Bill a proposal that when the Government are negotiating the number of permits, either with the European Union or each member state individually—if that is the way it is to be done, because clearly we do not know which way it will go—there should be reciprocity in terms of the number of permits and the fees charged. I would like to see this objective in the Bill.

I am sure the Minister will want to do this for the sake of the UK haulage industry, but it is something which sometimes gets forgotten and it is very important if we are to have a modern, thriving haulage sector here, both in terms of the quality, which we have discussed, and the fees charged. One would hope that the fees would be reasonable in comparison with the fees charged by many other member states. I include some of the newer member states in eastern Europe, where the fees may be very low, and that is one of the reasons that we get so many trucks from eastern Europe here because it is a lot cheaper for them to operate. I hope the Minister will take all that into account. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

Can the Minister confirm whether the cost of the permits that she mentioned will include just the operation of the system or will there be a requirement for hauliers to fund the setting up of some IT system that might, or might not, last several years or go wrong or anything else? I hope her answer will be that it is just the operation.

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord has read my mind. I was about to come to the fact that I can confirm today that these fees will cover only the day-to-day running costs. The Government will cover the set-up costs of the scheme, which is being funded by part of the £75.8 million we have received from the Treasury as part of our planning for exiting the EU. I hope noble Lords and the haulage industry are reassured by that. I fully agree with noble Lords that we want the greatest possible access for road hauliers, coupled with the lowest possible costs to hauliers, but we do not believe that we should be asking the taxpayer to pay indefinitely for permits.

Before I turn to the specific amendments, it may be helpful to set out some detail on current fees. Fees are already charged in relation to some of our permit agreements with non-EU countries. They are reasonably consistent. For example, there is an £8 fee for a single-journey permit to any country with which we have a permit agreement, such as Ukraine. In our agreement with Morocco, we charge £50 for a 15-trip permit. The ECMT permit—referred to in the regulations as an ECMT licence—which allows unlimited journeys for a year, costs £133. All those fees have been set on a cost-recovery basis and give a good indication.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised reciprocity. First, on the number of permits, many international agreements, such as our agreements with Ukraine and Belarus, are permit-based and agreed under the principles of reciprocity. In circumstances where the agreed number of permits is used up, additional permits can be provided. We do that on a reciprocal basis because no country wants to limit the amount of haulage carried out. Under a future permits scheme, we would absolutely seek reciprocity in the number of permits so that neither side is limited and we are confident that that can be achieved. In the first group, we discussed amendments relating to negotiation objectives being in the Bill, and the Government remain of the view that they should not be included in the Bill.

Secondly, on fees, the arrangements for issuing and charging for permits are handled at a national level and the UK has no agreements with other countries that address the cost of their permits. We are not aware of any international road haulage as said, but? arrangements that has such an agreement. We set our own fees for UK hauliers and other countries set their own fees, including for permits for travel to the UK. To give some examples, in Ireland there is a separate fee for Community licences that we do not have. The Netherlands charges fees for both applying for and issuing ECMT permits, whereas we currently charge only for the issue of a licence. Other countries’ fees can be higher or lower than the fees charged in the UK, depending what the fees choose to cover.

Looking at equivalent charges in other countries, I mentioned the single-journey permit. The equivalent permit in the Netherlands costs around £4, slightly less than in the UK, but in Finland it costs £35, which is more than in the UK. In Norway there is no charge for permits, but it charges around £98 to issue a Community licence. While we charge £133 for an annual ECMT permit, it costs around £219 in Serbia, and in the Netherlands there is a fee of around £302 for applying and a further fee of around £121 for issuing the permit. I am afraid I have no details of some of the new EU members which the noble Lord mentioned. It is proving quite difficult to get hold of the details, but we will get them and consider them when setting fees.

If we have permits and seek an agreement on fees, other countries may wish to charge more. I think the examples I have given show that there is quite a lot of disparity between the charges. We do not want to seek reciprocity on fees because it could be unnecessarily complicated and it has never been done before, which may delay our reaching an agreement. As noble Lords are aware, we are keen to get an agreement in place as quickly as possible.

If we end up with a permit scheme, we may have to introduce fees, and we expect that other countries would do the same. They could be higher or lower than the fee charged in the UK depending on what the fees cover. While we will look at the international comparisons, the best we can do is to make sure the costs are as low as possible for hauliers.

As to exactly what the fees will amount to, I regret that I am not able to provide exact figures because that will depend on the negotiations and the cost of administering any permit scheme as required. However, I repeat my assurances that if permits are needed, we want to keep the fees as low as possible—in the region of the existing permit fees that I have referred to.

Noble Lords are right to highlight the impact of these fees on the haulage industry. We intend to have one set of regulations and permits that will include fees, and I am pleased that the later government amendment on affirmative regulations means that noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss those fees. Prior to the fee being set, we will of course consult fully with industry, including small and medium-sized businesses. I absolutely acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point that it has more effect on them than it does on the bigger hauliers. That is something that we will consider. The government amendment on consultation that we will come to later will make that consultation a statutory requirement.

I sympathise with the aims of the amendments but I hope noble Lords will agree that the costs are best met by charging fees for permits on a cost-recovery basis. If the permits are needed, the Government are committed to covering the set-up costs of the scheme and will do all we can to keep those day-to-day running costs as low as possible. The fees, if needed, will be discussed carefully in the consultation and will be subject to further scrutiny from noble Lords should our later amendment on the affirmative resolution be accepted. However, I confirm that we aim to keep the costs as low as possible. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. I had understood from our debates in Committee that there might have been one opportunity for us to negotiate the amount of charges with the EU as a whole. That is clearly not the case and the examples that she has given indicate that my amendment is not a good idea at all, which I now accept. All I can say before withdrawing it is that her department will have to negotiate with not just 26 member states but quite a few other countries around the outside. I hope she has enough staff with the right expertise to do that so that we do not have the cliff edge we were talking about earlier. However, I am very grateful for the information that she has given us, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, in Committee, a number of noble Lords brought forward amendments to require the Government to analyse and report on the impacts on the efficiency of the UK haulage industry of any permit scheme that might be introduced, and to report on the Government’s intentions, expectations and achievements with regard to future arrangements with the EU. While we have been clear that we are seeking continued liberalised access to the EU, I recognise the concern about any impact of a limited scheme on the haulage industry. I gave an undertaking to the Committee that we would publish details of any permit scheme as soon as they were available. I also undertook to consider how best to review the impacts of any permit scheme, should one be required.

The new clause proposed by the Government requires the Secretary of State to lay an annual report assessing the effects of any restrictions on the haulage industry. We already issue permits to UK hauliers to travel to some non-EU countries where we have agreements that require permits. This amendment would be triggered only where the UK has struck an agreement with at least one country that is a member of the EU that requires a permit scheme, and where there is a limit on the number of permits available for hauliers travelling to EU member states.

The amendment also sets out the length of the reporting interval. If an assessment of the effect of a permit scheme is to be of value to Parliament and to the industry, sufficient time must pass to enable the effect to be assessed and evidence to be gathered to inform that assessment. Setting the timing of the obligation to report for the first time as one year on from any regulations coming into force will ensure that the actual effect of the regulations is properly assessed. The Government believe that the amendment they have laid imposes a proportionate obligation to assess and report, while addressing the concerns that were raised in Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment, as far as it goes. Again, we debated this in Committee. The noble Baroness has tabled the amendment after Clause 8 and explained very clearly its purpose. However, when I read it, I said to myself, “What are ‘relevant restrictions’?” It is not included in the definitions and, although she has explained it, in the cool light of day when the Bill becomes an Act, I would read it and say, “Whatever is that?” Could she look again at that and either clarify it or come back with a definition at some stage?

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 12, I will speak also to Amendments 13 and 14 in my name. In the real world, you have to realise when you are not going to get any further. The noble Baroness has, in effect, accepted the thrust of our concern that there should be proper reporting. I think our amendments are much better but I know that she will not agree with me, and so I will settle for what I have got.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have realised to my horror that I have not repeated the declaration of interest that I made at the earlier proceedings: I own or operate two very large trailers, one of which weighs 27,000 kilograms and the other 17,000 kilograms empty.

I am very concerned about light trailer safety, about which I spoke at greater length in Committee. I had discussions on the matter with my noble friend the Minister in private and was able to go a lot further than I went in public in frightening her a bit—I hope. It is a remaining weakness in our road safety regime and the condition of our vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, alluded to. It is not necessary to have a universal light trailer registration scheme to achieve testing of trailers, but the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke about theft of trailers. She is absolutely on the money: this is a big problem. I suspect that it would be alleviated by general registration of trailers, because, to sell a stolen trailer, one needs an identity. Due to changes made to the write-off provisions for cars, for instance, it is much more difficult to acquire an identity of a written-off vehicle—for reasons with which I shall not bore the House. There may therefore be an argument for registering small trailers for reasons of deterring theft, but it would not be necessary if one wanted a testing regime.

I mentioned that I have had a private discussion with my noble friend the Minister. I have also secured a meeting, planned for 2 May, with my honourable friend the Minister for Transport, Jesse Norman. Other noble Lords are welcome to join me for this meeting: I think a meeting with the Minister, with the benefit of having the officials in front of us, where we can put these points and look at this in detail, has much to commend it in the short term. I think we would have a greater chance of convincing the Minister that we need to make some changes by that procedure than by agreeing an amendment to the Bill now that we know perfectly well will be overturned in the House of Commons. That will still not get us the objective we desire, whereas I suggest that at a meeting with the Minister, with officials, we will be able to drill down and ask rather more searching questions. I can be rather more frightening to the Minister on the issue in private than I can be in public.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but I was really rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, say that he was in favour of registering trailers against the risk of theft. I rather got the impression that he was not concerned about safety: after all, cars have MOT tests largely to ensure that they operate safely. Given the examples that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness have given of things that have gone wrong with trailers, with some pretty disastrous results, it seems to me there is a very strong argument for having registration to cover safety as well. Whether that covers the same things as the MOT, we can debate, but it seems important. Not all trailers weigh 27 tonnes—I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on being able to pull 27 tonnes with something that goes down the road legally—but I think there is a very strong argument from a road safety point of view for having a registration scheme.

[Earl Attlee]

I think it was really good that we had the benefit of a pep talk from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is on the Woolsack as we speak, because I can correct the noble Lord on a material point: my point was that it is not essential to have a registration scheme if you want to have a testing scheme, even for light freight. Even now we have a testing scheme for HGV trailers but we do not have a registration scheme. It does not mean that I do not think it is important; it is just that it is not necessary to have a registration scheme.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

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

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in their amendment. Noble Lords will have to forgive me if I sound even less coherent than usual today. I am suffering from what everybody else would call a cold, but, being a man, I believe it is something far more serious. Nevertheless, I am still here.

I would have thought, as my noble friend implied, that the Government would be in favour of the proposed new clause. As the noble Baroness said, this is rather last-minute legislation. In a way, it is understandable, because we still do not know how far negotiations have gone where these matters are concerned. I promised myself not to make a Second Reading speech and will not, but I found it surprising during the Brexit discussion to find so many road hauliers in favour of Brexit because they were not happy with the status quo as it then was. Now, of course, they are a lot less happy at the prospect of a status quo no longer existing. The main concern, at least of those whom I spoke to, was about cabotage; there is little mention—in fact, I do not think there is any—of cabotage in the Bill, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether any discussions which have taken place with the rest of the EU have concentrated on this aspect of the road haulage industry.

My noble friend and the noble Baroness mentioned the number of lorry movements from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EU; there are a hell of a lot coming the other way—I understand about three times as many. We have expressed concern about the likelihood of Kent being a lorry park if no arrangements are made in light of this amendment, but if three times as many lorries are coming into the United Kingdom as leaving, it would be possible to imagine northern France also becoming a lorry park. That is not to say that I share the optimism of those who say that there will be an agreement because these matters cause even more dislocation to our European partners than they do the United Kingdom. Again, it is difficult to tease from the Government where exactly we are in the negotiations. We await the Minister’s response to this amendment. My view is that it might be something that the Government are happy to support. If she says that, at least we will have started the Committee off on a happy note, even if it is not repeated—although I hope it will be—during our deliberations. I support my noble friend and the noble Baroness and hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support all the amendments in the group, and am grateful for the kind words said about me by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton and our debate last night.

The noble Baroness may be right that there are many things wrong with this Bill, but it is a great deal better than nothing. It affects only drivers’ permits and trailers. Last night in the discussion on Amendment 104, we discussed many other issues relating to cross-channel and cross-frontier freight and all the customs issues that went with them. As I think I said last night, it would be good if we had had a separate Bill for that so that we might have gone into the detail, but here we are. We had a very good Second Reading debate. My worry, which is contained in Amendment 7 in my name, is that when we discussed at Second Reading Clause 2, which is to do with the number and allocation of permits, it seemed to become quite confusing. One noble Lord—I cannot remember who—warned against the “random selection” in Clause 2(2) because it was greatly open to abuse. Perhaps that should be removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, regarding Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not think we should tie the hands of government. If we set something in stone in primary legislation, it will be to our disadvantage and our opponents’ advantage. However, I very much hope that the negotiations will result in the absolute minimum of friction, for the reasons so well explained by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, observed that there are no draft regulations in sight and that this is a framework Bill. That is not surprising, because we do not know what the negotiated agreement will look like. However, the Committee will be aware that if the Bill is passed, it will strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises an important point in his Amendment 7. I would like to see no restrictions on permits—more or less free issue—with one exception, which I am sure he will agree with. Is there any scope for denying permits to non-compliant operators if they are in trouble with the traffic commissioners or the Vehicle Inspectorate? I do not expect an answer from my noble friend the Minister this afternoon but perhaps she could write to me in due course. As I say, I am for no quantity restrictions but I do not think we should put this into the Bill because it would tie the hands of Ministers when they are negotiating Brexit.

[Lord Berkeley]

I understand the noble Earl’s comment in suggesting that Amendment 7 may not be a good thing to put into the Bill. But he will remember that when this was debated at Second Reading, there was much discussion of the allocation of permits. Does he not agree that there needs to be some wording to ensure that the allocation, if it has to happen—I share his views that it should not and that there should be enough for everyone—should be seen to be fair? Perhaps he has some other ideas to replace my proposed new clause in Amendment 7.

[Earl Attlee]

I assure the Committee that I will not be tabling amendments but I was alarmed by some of the history of permits that we looked at during Second Reading. That is something I do not want to see because it constrains the market and competition. I would much rather see permits issued more or less freely, with that one exception: that we could see it as an opportunity to make things more difficult for non-compliant operators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. Sadly, I cannot speak for what will happen in the EU until we have concluded the negotiations. Within the UK, that is absolutely the idea: there would be a system to check on these permits. The noble Lord makes a very good point: we will seek to minimise corruption in future, but that will be subject to negotiations.

[Lord Berkeley]

On the issue of fraud, I have come across people involved in the delivery of trucks. There appears to be a way you can avoid being limited in your hours by the tachograph because it does not stay with the person, it stays with the truck. That has probably been the case for 20 or 30 years. What have we learned from that and how will we prevent the same thing happening in future with these licences that my noble friend has spoken about?

[Baroness Sugg]

Absolutely. I agree with the noble Lord that that has happened in the past. We are working with the DVSA on how to better enforce compliance, on both this and future licensing systems, and we will continue to do so.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned the tripartite agreement between the UK, France and Ireland. We have been looking at how best to ensure that the racing industry is not affected by this Bill and is protected. However, I will take away what he said and will look at it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

2: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, Amendments 2, 4 and 5 in my name come from a question I have about Clause 1: why do drivers transporting goods to Northern Ireland get singled out? We know that the Republic is going to remain in the single market and that Northern Ireland is not. I see no difference between the requirements for a permit, or anything else, for drivers going between Northern Ireland and the Republic, between Northern Ireland and the UK—I assume that there is no need for a special licence between Northern Ireland and the UK—and between Northern Ireland and continental Europe. There is an added complexity to the licensing system which is not justified. What is the difference between drivers in Northern Ireland and those in other parts of the UK going to other parts of the European Union? Finding that out is the purpose of these three amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name also deals with Northern Ireland. It is a probing amendment, seeking an explanation from the Minister. Following an “international agreement”, Clause 3 allows the creation of regulations prohibiting an operator of a goods vehicle using it in specified circumstances. This creates obvious problems for the Irish border. If an international agreement were able to prohibit the travel of goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, this could lead to a diminishing sense of the common identity that has developed in the years following the Good Friday agreement. It also presents a practical problem, as the avoidance of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would not be possible. We all know that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that she wishes to avoid a hard border, but you are going to have a problem delivering that if checks are needed on the border. Whether the operator can cross the border or not, it is the checks that are the issue.

The Bill suggests that there is a sensitivity about travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Our amendment simply strengthens that reference. We obviously do not want to imply that there should be checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK—quite the contrary. I therefore want to emphasise that the amendment is to investigate how this provision would work and in what circumstances the Government anticipate that they might have to use it. It would obviously be a lot easier for everyone if we kept to the current arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

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

[Lord Berkeley]

Does not the question of requiring the Government of Ireland to consent to the use of permits apply to the whole European Union? In other words, are we allowed to use these permits unless the EU accepts them as a valid document? Does that not apply equally to the rest of the EU, not just Ireland?

[Baroness Sugg]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

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

[Lord Berkeley]

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

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord is correct. We will move on to discuss cabotage, which is an incredibly important issue, whether it be for Republic of Ireland hauliers or UK hauliers. We continue to work with industry to understand its needs. We have spoken to those within the island of Ireland and to a certain extent those in the EU about the Bill. As I said, the exact arrangement on cabotage will be subject to negotiation, so I cannot provide a precise answer at this stage on exactly what that truck from the Republic of Ireland travelling to the UK and on to France will need, because it will depend on the outcome of the negotiations.

As I said, the clause is an attempt to provide clarity on the issue around the island of Ireland. I will take away noble Lords’ comments, consider them carefully and look again at the wording. The reason for this provision is to single out a potential issue and provide reassurance that there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may not agree that it does that, so I will take it away and look at it in detail. But for now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for some pretty long and detailed explanations. I can see the political need for something like this. On the other hand, when one sees what has been going on in the last six months, where the Irish Government have clearly allowed the European Commission—probably quite rightly—to do all their negotiations for it as just another member state, that gives cause for reflection. I shall reflect with colleagues and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The reason we put these two methods in the Bill and left other criteria and approaches for the regulations is based on legal advice. Perhaps the Committee would allow me to set it out.

Although there is no specific reference to the exercise of discretion in the Bill, all regulation-making powers and the regulations state that the Secretary of State “may make provision”, which obviously involves the exercise of discretion. Decisions on the allocation of permits will involve an element of discretion in both setting the criteria and applying them to determine which operator gets a permit. Discretion in the Secretary of State’s decision must be in accordance with public law principles, so it must be lawful, rational and procedurally fair, and decisions may be challenged by way of judicial review where they do not comply with those principles.

To be clear that the Secretary of State is able in certain circumstances to allow the use of first come, first served or random allocation, they have been included in the Bill. Where the criteria set out in regulations and guidance are not sufficient to allocate all the permits, the Secretary of State is able to use that discretion to allocate permits on a first come, first served basis. It is best included in the Bill in accordance with public law principles.

I understand the noble Lord’s point. We have had extensive discussion on this. It is based on very clear legal advice that if we were not to include it, we could not use it at any point. Although we do not want to use it for the allocation of permits, because I entirely agree that that would not be fair, I will take it back and discuss it further with the legal team to clarify. I understand why it standing alone in the Bill causes concern.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister. While she is doing that, could she come up with some precedents where the first come, first served principle has been used and, if it is buying tickets for sporting events, or whatever, whether it is appropriate for this?

[Baroness Sugg]

I certainly will. As I said, we currently use it in certain non-EU agreements, but this is obviously the first time we will be partially using it in an EU-UK agreement. Let us not forget that we are all hopeful that we will not need to include it, but if we do, it is incredibly important that we get it right in order that it is fair. I will take it away, discuss it further and see whether we can get across the same principle and ensure that we are not subject to legal challenge in a way that is more acceptable to noble Lords.

[Earl Attlee]

When my noble friend takes it away, can she also have a look at why we do not simply auction the permits? We auction all sorts of things: oil exploration rights, for instance. They are very valuable and they are auctioned. That seems a much more sensible way to allocate a scarce resource rather than first come, first served, which seems to have all sorts of difficulties alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, although he shakes his head vigorously.

[Lord Berkeley]

The noble Earl would prefer to see a lorry load of caviar coming in rather than basic food.

[Earl Attlee]

I made it quite clear that I do not think we should go anywhere close to being short on permits. We are talking about disaster if we are short on permits. As we know perfectly well, the Bill’s provision is just a long-stop measure, but I am glad that my noble friend will be taking it away.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

9: Clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Before exit day, the Secretary of State must publish a report outlining the content of any agreement with the EU over the allocation of permits for UK registered vehicles to operate in the EU.(3B) In subsection (3A), “exit day” has the same meaning as in section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”

[Lord Berkeley]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, these amendments set out requirements to report on a range of matters related to road haulage, from the allocation of permits to forecasting how a permits regime will affect the efficiency of road haulage, what our future arrangements will be for transporting goods, the cost to the road haulage industry and the permit arrangements for foreign hauliers. As noble Lords have made clear, road haulage is essential to our economy. It is an indispensable enabler of much of the wider economy, too. I appreciate that the Committee’s concerns here are how the permits system may affect the movement of haulage between the United Kingdom and the EU, and any impacts on UK hauliers and the wider economy—the direct financial impacts to industry and the wider economic effect.

The key impact for hauliers alongside the use of permits, as highlighted by many noble Lords, will be any restriction of trade and the possible friction at borders, which is why we are obviously doing what we can to reduce that. I am afraid I cannot give any further information on the wider negotiations currently taking place, and can only repeat that a future partnership is in the interests of both sides.

In implementing this legislation, we will bring forward a straightforward system that minimises any additional burdens or costs for business arising from the scheme. I previously set out that there will be no new transport checks required at borders. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes that we produce a report outlining the content of any agreement on the allocation of permits, if they are required. When our agreement with the EU is settled, we will of course ensure that the haulage industry is properly informed and educated. As he predicted, I can say that we will publish the details of that scheme as soon as it becomes available. I am not convinced of the need to enshrine in the Bill the requirement to lay such reports before Parliament, as the information will be in the public domain.

Within the other amendments, Amendment 12 proposes that one month after the Bill comes into effect, and thereafter on an annual basis,

“the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament containing a forecast of how the permits regime will affect the efficiency of haulage”,

while the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled an amendment about reporting within three months of the Bill coming into effect on the arrangement of the allocation of permits. I will address those together.

Although I cannot provide detailed forecasts of the impacts on the haulage industry while we are in negotiations as we do not know the final deal, as I have said, we are aiming to continue the existing liberalised access we have today. Again as predicted, this time by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not believe that a requirement in legislation to produce a report containing analysis of how the permits scheme has impacted haulage is appropriate, or indeed even possible, one month or three months after the Act is passed as suggested, as negotiations may still be concluding.

However, I absolutely agree that it is incredibly important that the impact of any EU permit scheme—if that is required, and we are obviously all keen that it will not be—is assessed at an appropriate stage to take into account the application of the agreement itself, the administration of the scheme and the effect it will have on industry. If we need any new permit scheme, it is unlikely to have gone live within the timescales suggested, and we would not be in a position to provide any evaluation of its impacts. As I have said, we will publish details of the scheme as soon as they are available, but I absolutely recognise that there is a need to review the impacts. I will consider how best to do this ahead of Report and come back to noble Lords on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a point about information. Where possible, we aim to use existing information provided as part of the operator’s licence, and of course we will consult on all additional information needed and will aim to minimise that. He helpfully highlighted previous requirements, which certainly seem excessive to me. If we can use the negotiations to simplify the information needed on permits, we should certainly do that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, this should be as simple and straightforward as possible.

I turn to the amendments on foreign hauliers. The Bill is not directly concerned with the operation of foreign hauliers in this country, except to the extent that Clauses 10 and 11 allow for derogations from a permitting scheme in emergencies. With the exception of Clauses 10 and 11, the Bill is solely concerned with requirements on UK hauliers operating internationally and provides powers only for the UK Government to issue permits to UK hauliers. But in light of the amendments, and because how EU hauliers are treated in the UK is incredibly important, it is probably helpful to outline the Government’s current thinking on international hauliers operating in the UK.

As noble Lords have pointed out, foreign hauliers play an essential part in freight movements between the UK and the EU. Foreign-registered HGVs carry more than five times as much freight as UK-registered HGVs, hauling 40 million tonnes between Great Britain and the other 27 EU member states. While the UK remains an EU member state, we participate in the Community licence scheme, an EU-wide scheme that permits a haulier licensed in one member state to operate across the Union, including some cross-border and within-border trade in other member states. The arrangements we make with the EU should, of course, be reciprocal. Whether we will require a permit scheme for foreign hauliers, and how it will work, will be subject to negotiations with the EU in the same way as whether UK hauliers will require a permit in the EU.

If future arrangements require permits for UK vehicles to travel to the EU, it follows that EU vehicles would require permits to travel to the UK. If we did require a permit scheme it would be for other member states, rather than the UK, to organise the issuing of their own permits. That would not be something the UK Government did. How they allocate these will be up to them, but we will discuss this with them in detail. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on first come first served and random allocation. That is why the Bill does not address this.

[Lord Berkeley]

I thank the Minister for her explanation. To be clear, if each member state is to be allocating permits, what about the quantity for each state? Will there be more permits in total than we want and will we be able to limit them? How is it going to work? Will the European Commission do it? I think that would be a pretty good disaster, but it is for it to decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord is quite right. We think it is best to negotiate this as an EU-wide agreement. Bilateral agreements remain an option should we need them, but we very much hope that we do not.

[Lord Berkeley]

Is there a precedent in the negotiations with Ukraine, or another country outside the EU? Does Ukraine negotiate bilaterally with every other member state or with the EU, and are the lorries allowed to roam freely within the EU once they have got in?

[Baroness Sugg]

Our current agreement with Ukraine is negotiated through the EU. I believe that Ukraine has an unlimited number of permits. I will go back and look at specific examples. Most of these negotiations are done with the EU as a bloc, as I say, not bilaterally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

This came up at Second Reading, and we have consulted extensively with the horseracing industry to ensure that it does not affect it. Our understanding is that all-in-one horseboxes—as I will call them again—are used rather than trailers, so they would not be affected by this legislation, but we are working with the industry to ensure that this will not affect it.

The reason why I set out how we deal with this in legislation is to make the point that there is a system there for us to do it through the withdrawal Bill and the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, which is why we have not addressed it in the Bill, which relates solely to UK hauliers. However, as I say, we are hopeful that we will not need to use it.

[Lord Berkeley]

Before we leave that, I think the Minister is arguing—obviously, I will have to read the record afterwards—that we do not need these amendments because it is already covered by existing legislation. However, I would be interested to know two things. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours talked about the difference between owned goods in a lorry and third-party ones. Is that condition still there, and do we have to take it into account? After the noble Baroness’s intervention earlier, would it be possible to have a total list of all the different permissions that are needed to carry goods out of and into the country? I could put it down as a Written Question, but it is easier to ask it now. It would be quite interesting to have such a list of what permissions one needs. I do not suggest that the Minister answers this now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. I will have to go back and look at that in detail and come back to the Committee in writing.

As was covered earlier when we were discussing the reporting requirements, I agree that we must consider the impacts of leaving the EU on the haulage sector. That should cover both UK and foreign hauliers. We need to come up with a form of reporting on this; I do not believe it needs to be in the Bill, but I will consider that and come back with a proposal ahead of Report. Once again, I welcome the discussion that this amendment has enabled, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister. She has been very patient with the questions from me and other noble Lords. Obviously I shall reflect on what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, yet again makes an interesting and important point about fuel dipping. It is a burden on the industry. I have to confess that I made a suggestion to do with the problem of foreign trucks coming into the UK with very large tanks of fuel, running around the UK and then leaving with tanks that are practically empty so that the Treasury gets none of the benefit of the fuel. I suggested that every HGV, UK or foreign, should leave the UK with a nearly full tank of fuel, but that suggestion did not find favour because it was thought to be contrary to EU rules. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises an important point.

The noble Baroness asked why we should charge. I come back to the point that we simply do not know what the negotiations are going to give us. We again hope for a simple system, but if we end up with a more complex system, naturally there will have to be charges—presumably cost recovery only, as it should not be seen as a profit centre. We need to remember that the cost of running a maximum-weight articulated vehicle is quite considerable—I do not know the current figures—so the cost of a permit in the overall cost of the operation will not be that significant. Whether it is an SME or a large operator, the cost per mile of an HGV is very high.

I have what might be a slightly tricky question for the Minister. We are cost recovering, but are we going to use the UK fees that we raise from our own hauliers to cover the cost of inspecting foreign trucks over here to make sure that they have a permit? If there is a 75%/25% split for contingency—where the 25% is the UK operators—25% of operators will be paying a small amount of money in but spending a lot of money on ensuring the compliance of foreign operators. Some people might have something to say about UK operators paying for the policing of foreign operators.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, the idea is that a lot of foreign trucks are going to be inspected. It does not happen at the moment very much, and if it is going to happen in future, there will have to be a very large increase in the number of inspectors and locations for inspection. The profit margin of most of these operators is very low, so the cost of a permit, which, as the noble Baroness said, may be only £50 to £85, may be quite a lot to some people. I am more concerned that it appears that EU lorries coming into our country will not have to pay anything because they already have a permit from their own country. Are we giving them an £85 advantage just to come here? I assumed that we would be able to charge them to give them a permit, but, as the noble Baroness said earlier, they already have a permit. There is something out of balance here. I do not know what the solution is, but I hope that the Minister can look at this. Perhaps we should have our own permit scheme, or else it should be free for everybody. It does not seem fair at the moment.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, this clause creates fee-charging powers for administering a permit scheme, which, understandably, is a key concern for the UK haulage industry. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the issue in detail.

The regulations under this Bill will apply to all the permit schemes that the UK has. Once we have introduced a robust legal framework for permit schemes it would be both necessary and sensible for the regulations to cover all schemes. They would therefore apply to potential permit arrangements for EU member states, existing and future permit arrangements with non-EU countries, and ECMT permits. This means that fees for permits for different countries can be consistent and consolidated in a single set of regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

If a truck has to be checked statically in a car park somewhere, that will be quite expensive. The DVLA no longer has the system of excise duty licences on cars; that is checked by number plates. Is there a way of adopting a similar system for trucks—even for foreign ones? I know they have different number plates, but it would be much easier and would give a much more comprehensive range of checks.

[Earl Attlee]

What about the HGV levy system and the technology behind it? It uses ANPR to enforce it, so I should have thought that it would work automatically.

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord and my noble friend make important points. Of course, we want to use IT systems whenever we can both to minimise the burden for hauliers and for Government to check on these things. The permit system may not be allocated to a specific truck; it could be allocated to a haulage company. That may be difficult, but we are exploring it. The current system is that the DVSA outside the port will pull over a truck and check it on the side of the road. That is one of the options that we are exploring. If there is a way to do it that is less expensive and more efficient, we will certainly do that.

[Lord Berkeley]

That is very interesting. I thought the permit would be allocated to a truck. If it is not, there seems to be more potential for fraud—by photocopying, for a start.

[Baroness Sugg]

The reason we do not think the permit will be allocated to a specific truck is to allow for flexibility, should there be a limit on the number of permits. It will enable hauliers to move them between trucks, so they are not restricted to only one truck going back and forth to Europe. On fraud, we are designing a system to try to ensure that it will be allocated to a specific company. It may give us the number of trucks that could use the permit. We could check the licence plates and other things. We are working through the issues on that. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.