Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 121: 121: Before Clause 112, insert the following new Clause— ““Vehicles authorised to be used under operator’s licence: fees (1) In section 5 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c.23) (vehicles authorised to be used under operator’s licence)— (a) in subsection (6), for ““a prescribed fee”” substitute ““the prescribed fee (if any)””; (b) in subsection (7), after ““the prescribed fee”” insert ““(if any)””. (2) In section 263 of the TA 2000 (addition of specified vehicles to operator’s licence), in the subsection (6) that is to be substituted for section 5(6) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c.23), for ““a prescribed fee”” substitute ““the prescribed fee (if any)””.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new amendment is to remove a legislative obstacle to delivering one of the Department for Transport’s key proposals to reduce the administrative burden of the operator licensing system on goods vehicle operators. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to a related issue where the Government are considering the case for a further amendment in response to concerns raised by the haulage industry. Section 5(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 currently requires the registration numbers of every vehicle used by a goods vehicle operator to be specified on their operator’s licence. This is primarily to aid roadside vehicle enforcement by VOSA and the police. Under current legislation, when the operator wishes to add a new vehicle to their licence they must pay a fee to the traffic commissioner—currently £9 or £12 per vehicle per quarter depending on how they have opted to pay. However, following a commitment made in the White Paper The Future of Transport, published in July 2004, the Department for Transport announced in November 2006 a package of reforms to streamline the operator licensing system for buses and goods vehicles. One of the proposals is to reduce the number of fees that goods and bus operators must pay to the traffic commissioner to maintain and update their operator’s licence. For goods vehicle operators, this will involve merging the fee charged for specifying a vehicle on an operator’s licence with that charged for the vehicle’s annual MOT test. However, Section 5(6) and (7) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 currently requires goods operators to pay a fee when they wish to specify a new vehicle on their licence. Therefore, in order to abolish the fee, we need to make changes to the 1995 Act to remove the requirement that a particular fee must be paid at a particular time. Amendment No. 121 therefore amends Section 5(6) and (7) of the 1995 Act to make the levying of a fee, to notify the traffic commissioner of a vehicle, optional rather than compulsory. The amendment also has a second subsection. Under Section 5(6) of the 1995 Act, a goods vehicle operator has a one-month grace period before a new vehicle must be specified on the operator’s licence. This is called the margin concession. However, another of the reforms announced in November 2006 was to explore the possibility of abolishing this concession. Although the detail of this proposal is still being determined by the Department for Transport, Section 263 of the Transport Act 2000 already contains an uncommenced power to abolish the margin concession. However, Section 263 also assumes that that operators will still be required to pay a fee when adding new vehicles to their licence, even if the margin concession were abolished. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the 2000 Act will also make the payment of a fee optional rather than compulsory, should Section 263 be commenced at a future date. I said that I would also mention a potential future amendment, which relates to the proposal to abolish this margin concession. I am aware that concerns have been raised by the haulage industry that outright abolition of the margin concession could impose a disproportionate administrative burden, particularly where goods vehicles are hired out to operators on very short-term contracts. The Government are therefore considering whether there is anything more we can do to Section 263 to ensure appropriate flexibility. This is an issue we may wish to return to at Third Reading. The Department for Transport estimates that the package of fee amalgamation will cut the number of individual fee transactions that goods and bus operators pay by over 190,000 per year, saving business an estimated £1.5 million per year in the costs of processing the payments. However, the details of the simplification proposals are not directly relevant to the debate on Amendment No. 121, which in itself makes no substantial changes to fees. It simply introduces flexibility, should the existing fee for goods vehicle notification be abolished in the future by regulations. That is entirely consistent with the existing legislative flexibility to charge or not charge all other operator licence fees for goods and passenger vehicles. I beg to move.