I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of these regulations. I take the same view as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, does about the error. I thought I heard the Minister say that a wider review of the SI process is taking place. The only comment I would make is that this is not the first time we have had an error in a Department for Transport SI. I am sure that is much to the Minister’s frustration. Perhaps it is understandable that a wider review of the process is going on. I do not wish to say any more about that subject than that.
I noticed that the Explanatory Memorandum says, under the heading “Purpose of the instrument”:
“The UK is obliged to implement these changes following commitments included in the … Trade and Cooperation Agreement”.
I suppose that is an effort by the Government to make it clear that they are not really doing it willingly; it is because they have to. But some of us thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the trade and co-operation agreement had been freely entered into—in the way that the Northern Ireland protocol was freely entered into—and that the Government thought it was a good agreement. Judging by the Prime Minister’s comments at the time, he thought that was a pretty good deal. I only make the comment—I think this is something the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, alluded to—that whenever we come across anything to do with the EU there is always wording that makes it fairly clear that if the Government had their way they would not be doing anything along the lines of that particular instrument, which is perhaps unfortunate.
As I understand it, the Government are not introducing environmental requirements for HGV operators that stem from UK law. In the Commons, the Minister said that these
“are not required by the TCA.”
Is that now the test when it comes to environmental requirements: it is not whether they are desirable or needed, but simply whether they are “required”? Should environmental issues not be looked at on the basis of whether they are desirable or needed, rather than whether you are required to do it in some agreement or another? Perhaps I misunderstood the point that appears to have been made.
As has been said, these requirements apply only to LGVs on international trips, primarily to the EU. They do not apply domestically in the UK market. It is clear that the UK Government have no plans to regulate further, yet I think I am right in saying that the Minister in the Commons said that the operator licensing system
“continues to be vital to properly manage the use of large vehicles within the UK market.”—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/2/22; col. 4.]
I am just interested to hear the response. Why do the Government think that the licensing system would not be needed for LGVs in the UK market? Which parts that are needed for LGVs for international trips are deemed unnecessary and bureaucratic to apply within the UK markets? I presume that that is the Government’s argument for them not wanting to apply in the UK markets, because the Government consider them bureaucratic but are obliged to apply them because of the trade and co-operation agreement, which the Government freely entered into.
5.30 pm
I believe the Government have also indicated that these regulations will not impose any particular burden on business. I simply ask how the Government came to that conclusion when, if I have understood the Explanatory Memorandum properly, 12 organisations responding to the consultation that currently operate light goods vehicles said it was likely that they would have to cease or reduce operations due to these regulations. I do not particularly square that statement—unless, again, I have misunderstood it—with a view that these regulations do not impose any particular burden on business. Could the Minister clarify what the financial cost will be each year to operators coming into scope of these regulations for the first time?
The regulations come into force on the day after the day on which they are made, which, as I understand it, is a date that has passed. From that date, there will be some three months to apply for new licences to become compliant, which on the face of it seems quite tight. Can the Minister say—if I am right in saying that the regulations are already in force, in that sense—how many have applied so far, and what percentage of the estimated total of those who need to apply that represents?
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum says that 18 respondents to the consultation
“approved of the measures, arguing that the sector required better regulation”,
and that “several of these”—that is, of the 18—
“also felt that these changes should be extended more widely to apply to national operations.”
The EM then goes on to say:
“However, to do so would go beyond the scope of the TCA requirements.”
So once again, we are back to this idea that the only thing that matters in looking at it is not the merits of it but whether or not it is required within the scope of the TCA requirements. Is that the only argument that the Government can produce to answer those consultees who thought that the changes should be extended more widely to apply to national operations in the UK?