Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 8: 8: Clause 115, page 88, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ““( ) Section 263 of the TA 2000 (addition of specified vehicles to operator’s licence) is amended as follows. ( ) In the subsection (6) that is to be substituted for section 5(6) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c.23)— (a) in the opening words, after ““is not authorised to be used under that licence by virtue of subsection (1)”” insert ““on or after the relevant day””; (b) in paragraph (b), for ““a prescribed fee”” substitute ““the prescribed fee (if any)””. ( ) After that subsection add— ““(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) ““the relevant day”” is the latest of the following days— (a) the day on which the vehicle was first in the lawful possession of the licence holder, (b) the day on which the licence came into force, (c) if a day not more than one month after the later of those days is prescribed for the purpose, the day so prescribed.””.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has to be considered with Amendment No. 10, so I shall speak to them both. I explained on Report that we were considering tabling a further amendment to the as yet uncommenced Section 263 of the Transport Act 2000, which currently abolishes the ““margin concession”” for goods vehicle operators. I am sure that that section of the Act is widely understood. Section 5(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 currently requires the registration number of every vehicle used by a goods vehicle operator to be specified on the operator’s licence. This is primarily to aid roadside vehicle enforcement by VOSA and the police. However, when a goods vehicle operator adds a new vehicle to its fleet, it has a one-month grace period—a sort of window—before the registration number must be specified on the operator’s licence to aid operational flexibility. That is called the margin concession. I am aware that, understandably, concerns have been raised by the haulage industry that commencing Section 263 to abolish the margin could impose a disproportionate administrative burden, particularly in situations where goods vehicles are hired out to operators on very short-term contracts. VOSA is also concerned about the considerable additional costs that could be imposed on it, which would be passed on to the industry through the fees it charges. Therefore, following a commitment made in the 2004 White Paper, The Future of Transport, the Department for Transport announced in November 2006 that, as part of a package of reforms to streamline the operator licensing system for buses and goods vehicles, it would consider options for minimising the burden of immediate notification. That work is continuing. However, we think that it would be sensible to further amend Section 263 of the Transport Act 2000 now to allow further flexibility, should the move to immediate notification not prove to be the best solution. Therefore, the amendment is helpful. It would still allow for immediate notification—either when the vehicle first came under the lawful possession of the operator or when the operator’s licence was first granted by the Traffic Commissioner—but it would also provide additional flexibility for the Secretary of State to specify in regulations a grace period of up to one month. This would allow the margin to be reduced in the event that we need to balance improving enforcement against minimising additional administrative burdens. Any changes to the existing margin—either to abolish it or to use the regulation-making power—would of course be subject to full consultation with the traffic commissioners and the goods vehicle industry. I should add that the amendment would maintain the flexibility introduced in the Report stage amendment on fees to allow the levying of a fee for specifying a new vehicle on the licence to be optional, rather than mandatory as at present. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 121 [Extent]: