Draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2014
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Barclay, Stephen (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
† Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD)
† Brazier, Mr Julian (Canterbury) (Con)
† Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con)
† Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)
† Gyimah, Mr Sam (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Hamilton, Mr David (Midlothian) (Lab)
Jowell, Dame Tessa (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
† Kirby, Simon (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
† Lavery, Ian (Wansbeck) (Lab)
† Norman, Jesse (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
† Roy, Mr Frank (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
† Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
† Thornton, Mike (Eastleigh) (LD)
† Williamson, Chris (Derby North) (Lab)
Rebecca Short, Danielle Nash, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 5 February 2014
[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]
Draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2014
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Between October 2012 and January 2013, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), took the HGV Road User Levy Bill through the House; it became an Act in February 2013. We are now introducing orders, along with other secondary legislation, to allow effective enforcement against foreign vehicles that have not paid the new heavy goods vehicle road user levy, which comes into force from 1 April this year and is required by the 2013 Act. I was delighted to take over responsibility for the introduction of the levy, as a long-time supporter of the policy; I spent time, as a Member of the European Parliament, trying constructively to engage in the development and implementation of a scheme to remedy some of the long-standing imbalances in the European road haulage industry, and was told by the previous Government, when I was in opposition, that such a scheme was not possible under EU rules.
The levy is intended to ensure fairer arrangements for UK HGV operators. Those in the UK haulage industry face road charges or tolls in most European countries when travelling to the continent; I have paid such tolls when driving trucks abroad. That is not the case, however, for foreign-registered HGVs coming to the UK. They currently pay no charges to use UK roads. Indeed, some do not even pay for fuel on their journeys, having fuelled up with cheaper diesel before crossing the border. Some of that imbalance will be corrected by the introduction of the levy. It will ensure that all HGVs weighing 12 tonnes or more, no matter where they come from, that use UK roads make some contribution to the upkeep of our roads.
The levy must be paid before using a UK road. Foreign vehicles may pay daily, weekly, monthly or annually, with daily rates ranging from £1.70 to £10, depending on the nature of the vehicle. Most foreign vehicles visiting the UK are sufficiently large to pay £10 a day, but they can opt to pay £1,000 a year. A critical objective of the levy has been that, as far as is possible, UK vehicles should pay no more in a combined vehicle excise duty and levy payment than they currently pay in vehicle excise duty. Her Majesty’s Treasury will reduce VED, so that more than nine out of 10 users will pay no more than they do now when the levy is introduced in April.
To summarise how the enforcement process will work, it is an offence to use or keep an HGV on a public road in the UK without paying the appropriate levy. Enforcement will be carried out by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency—the new name for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency—the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland, and the police. Information on foreign vehicles in the country will be sourced from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and since we will know which vehicles have paid the levy, we can combine the two information sources to target those that have not. In addition to DVSA’s routine enforcement inspections, it can determine which vehicles to stop by linking the information on non-compliant foreign vehicles to its automatic number plate recognition cameras.
Non-compliant vehicles will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Drivers of non-compliant foreign vehicles who cannot provide a satisfactory UK address may be required to pay a fixed penalty deposit of £300 before they are allowed to continue on their journey. Failure to do so will lead to the immobilisation of their vehicle and a fine of up to £5,000. Financial penalty deposits amount to an on-the-spot fine, which must be paid before a vehicle can proceed. The ability to require financial penalty deposits at the roadside enables enforcement against persons using vehicles registered outside the UK, who are difficult to pursue if they return to their country and leave the UK’s jurisdiction. The enforcement strategy is designed to overcome that problem and to ensure that compliance levels for foreign vehicles are sufficiently high. The collection of fines for non-compliance is an important deterrent that will mitigate levy avoidance. Fixed penalty deposits have the additional advantage of avoiding adding to the burden on the courts of taking a prosecution forward. There is a publicly available website that drivers can check before entering the UK to see whether the levy has been paid for the vehicle they are driving. The driver enters the vehicle registration number, and the website shows what levy has been paid.
The order builds on existing legislation. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 enables the use of fixed penalty notices by police officers and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency officers where a person given a fixed penalty notice is unable to provide a satisfactory address. The monetary amount of such deposits is set out in the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) Order 2009. The order before the House adds a new financial penalty deposit of £300 to the 2009 order for the offence under section 11(1) of the HGV Road User Levy Act 2013, which is
“Using or keeping a heavy goods vehicle on a road in the UK without paying the HGV road user levy”.
During the passage of the 2013 Act, the Secretary of State for Transport informed the House that the financial penalty deposit would be £200. Since then, the Department for Transport has conducted a general review of the levels of fixed penalty notices and financial penalty deposits, which resulted in a general increase. As a result of those increases, we have decided on a fixed penalty notice and associated financial penalty deposit of £300 to ensure that the penalty for the offence is broadly consistent with penalties for similar offences. The Department consulted on its plans for financial penalty deposits in 2013 and received favourable responses. I commend the order to the Committee.
2.37 pm
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order, and the preamble, in which he talked about his background as a campaigner for an HGV road user levy. I was pleased to hear about that, and knew something of it. The downside is that if the Minister is asked difficult questions, he cannot say, “I don’t know the answer.” Hopefully, I will not tax him too much. Labour supports the HGV user levy, which will enable British lorry drivers to compete on a level playing field with their foreign competitors. I want to ask questions on how it will work in practice, and on the other areas covered by the order.
When the order was discussed in the other place the other week, Lord Rosser expressed a number of concerns, most of which focused on how the levy would be implemented practically. I have noted the response that he received, but there are still outstanding concerns that I hope the Minister will address. The first is a process issue to do with the financial penalty. Lord Popat, the Minister in the other place, said that the financial penalty had risen from the £200 initially proposed to £300—the Minister has reinforced that point today—because the Department has generally increased the level of fixed penalty notices. Both Lord Popat and the Minister have said that there was a general review and that all groups affected were consulted on the increase. The explanatory memorandum states that
“individuals, trade associations, and other motoring and freight organisations”
were consulted, but it does not mention the trade unions. Were they consulted? If not, why not?
We have a number of concerns about the practicality of enforcing the levy. It is being implemented at a time of serious concerns about the ability and capacity of VOSA, even as things stand, effectively to enforce HGV and public service vehicle standards and safety. The Government have cut VOSA’s budget, and that is having a significant impact on its enforcement activities. Parliamentary questions have revealed that the number of HGV vehicle maintenance investigations undertaken by VOSA halved from 5,358 in 2010 to 2,515 in 2013, but the proportion of unsatisfactory investigations rose from 58.1% to 79.8%. Those worrying trends are similar for PSVs. It is not that fewer checks are needed because safety is improving, but rather that we have many reasons to be worried.
Recent police enforcement activity in London revealed shocking levels of non-compliance. During the first two months of a clampdown, over two thirds of the 821 HGVs checked were found to be defective or illegal. The move to privatised authorised testing facilities is also having big impact on VOSA’s work and its ability to carry out its full range of tasks. Not enough resources have been dedicated to supporting the process of transferring core testing services to the ATFs. Industry bodies are highly concerned about the length of time it is taking VOSA to process applications for individual vehicle approvals. I also understand that VOSA staff are actually being pulled away from roadside enforcement to resource the ATFs, shifting focus away from vital roadside checks. Many doubt the agency’s ability, both before and after the merger with the Driving Standards
Agency, to enforce the levy. The Government must listen to those concerns. Does the Minister recognise the need for additional support to ensure that the DVSA can enforce the HGV levy effectively? What practical steps does he intend to take?There are additional reasons to be concerned about how the levy will be enforced in practice. Ministers did not sign a new EU agreement that will help the 25 member states who did sign it to share data about HGVs by establishing a register to record payments made for HGVs, as well as their registration numbers. What impact will the Government’s decision to opt out of that EU cross-border directive have on enforcing the levy? Additionally, the Government will have axed 15,000 police officers by 2015, with 7,000 cut from the front line already. What assessment has the Minister made of the police’s capacity to enforce another road traffic management offence?
The senior traffic commissioner has also voiced traffic commissioners’ grave concerns about VOSA’s failure to target serially and seriously non-compliant hauliers, which has big implications for the enforcement levy. The question of how to deal with repeat offenders was raised numerous times in the other place, particularly in regard to foreign hauliers. Under current plans, cases only go to court when the deposit is not paid. Does the Minister not agree that serial offenders who have received numerous fixed penalty notices for non-payment of the levy should be prosecuted and face a larger fine than the £300 mentioned today, rather than just being given yet another fixed penalty notice? Would that not be a better way of deterring non-payment?
I turn now to UK-based hauliers. There was much pre-election talk of acting urgently to impose a charge on foreign lorries using our roads, and the coalition agreement contained a pledge to so, but it took two years for the Government to work out how to ensure that British hauliers were not unfairly hit by the scheme, because it must apply to both UK and overseas hauliers. The problem is that Ministers have still failed to create the level playing field that they said they would, because EU rules mean that vehicle excise duty cannot be set low enough to compensate all of Britain’s HGV drivers for the extra cost of paying the levy. The Government plan for UK hauliers to start paying the levy in April 2014, which I think the Minister reaffirmed today. Can he confirm that the provisional start date for foreign hauliers is not April but September 2014? I understand that there might be further delays, and UK hauliers could be paying for up to a year before non-UK hauliers do. Will he confirm when foreign hauliers will start being charged for using our roads?
Finally, how will the levy be paid? UK hauliers will be asked to pay the levy on a six-monthly or annual basis. Perhaps the Minister can explain how that will happen in practice. Will they be sent a bill, will they be notified of the need to pay the levy when they renew their vehicle excise duty, or will it be done in some other way?
Once we know the answer for UK hauliers, the question of how we will ask overseas hauliers to pay the levy arises. We are told that they will be charged different amounts and can pay daily, weekly, monthly or annually. How will the charge be collected from them in practice? Will there be a kiosk at every port, or will there be another method? We have heard about a website, but
what happens if the foreign hauliers do not visit the website? How will we know, when they come to the UK, whether they have paid the levy? However that is done—I hope the Minister will clarify that—what happens if the haulier pays for a week or a month but stays and uses the road for longer? What will the checking process be? Without doing the checks that are being run down, how will VOSA, or the DVSA, as it will be, know that the lorry that paid for a week is driving on our roads without having paid?To conclude, we want the levy to be properly and effectively enforced, to give UK hauliers the fair deal that they deserve and to ensure that the administration costs involved in setting it up are worth while. Whether it is VOSA or the DVSA—I understand that it will not be called the DVSA until 2015—there are serious concerns about the agency’s ability to enforce the current range of regulations and rules, as well as its safety responsibilities, so the Government have to be clear on how the agency is expected to carry out enforcement in practice when the levy comes into place. We know that until the DVSA has real teeth, levels of non-compliance will continue to be high. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those points.
2.49 pm
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone? Seeing you in such a powerful establishment position is quite an experience.
I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall, from the time we served together on the Opposition Front Bench, that I strongly supported the campaign he fought for some time for this kind of measure. Those of us who represent constituencies in Kent are particularly affected by this issue. We see huge numbers of foreign lorries on the roads paying nothing. As my hon. Friend said, in most cases they have extra fuel tanks, so they do not pay even fuel duty. This measure for ensuring that those who use our roads pay their share is extremely welcome and long overdue.
I wish to throw in two small points in response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, for whom I have considerable respect. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to them in full. First, in this country we are extremely weak on enforcing road sanctions of all sorts against foreign lorry owners. I know of plenty of constituents against whom foreign lorry drivers have committed offences, and in practice the foreign drivers have simply escaped. However, enforcement is not simply confined to that.
Secondly, the narrow question of how we administer the scheme seems pretty straightforward. The Swiss arrangement is to have an overseas tax disc—I have forgotten what it is called; it is a little thing to put in one’s window.
Mr Brazier: A vignette; indeed. It simply says the date on which it expires, and the driver puts it in their window. If the Swiss police stop someone who does not have an up-to-date one in their window, they are in trouble. I image that is what my hon. Friend the Minister will say in a moment.
I want to put on the record that the order is very good and long overdue. Our roads in Kent are getting worn out, and it appropriate that everyone pays a fair share. I welcome the fact that it will have a tax-neutral effect on British haulage drivers and owners.
2.52 pm
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I do not know whether I still need to declare that my association received a donation from a haulage firm ahead of the 2010 general election, but I do so in the interests of transparency and to avoid any doubt. I join my hon. Friend in commending the Minister on the measure.
As the Minister is aware, I represent a rural constituency in which a large number of jobs depend on haulage. I wrote to him and his Department about that issue some time ago. There is a debate today in the main Chamber on jobs and wider economic issues, and the order is the sort of practical measure that will make a huge difference on the ground for businesses such as those that I represent in North East Cambridgeshire.
I want to use this opportunity to flag up a further enforcement issue, about which I have corresponded with the Minister’s officials. When foreign vehicles—not hauliers—are licensed, there is a six-month grace period within which they do not need to be insured or MOT-ed, and when that period elapses they should be MOT-ed and insured. It is a cause of frustration for many of my constituents that they see unroadworthy and unsafe vehicles that have not been MOT-ed or insured continuing to be driven after the six-month period without enforcement. I hope that we can draw lessons from the measures being taken in the order so that similar practical steps can be taken to address some of my other concerns.
2.53 pm
Mr Goodwill: I am grateful to the Committee for the useful discussion and for its continued support for the introduction of a levy for HGVs using UK roads, not least from Her Majesty’s official Opposition.
I was asked about the consultation on increasing the fine. There was a wide consultation that included a number of industry bodies. One freight organisation suggested that the levy should be £1,000, rather than £300. We did not specifically consult the trade unions, although the fact that we were embarking on this process was widely known. It was not only publicised in our manifesto but widely covered in many newspapers.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield raised the issue of the DVSA. I assure him that the name is currently the DVSA; the change was made some weeks ago. He talked about the number of checks that the DVSA—or VOSA, as it was known—made at the roadside. I understand his concerns, but that is in the main due to the DVSA’s better targeting. The DVSA does not pull in vehicles at random at the roadside. Indeed, operators that have a bad track record of compliance, not only in roadside checks but when they present their vehicles for tests, can find themselves on a list that means they are more likely to be targeted. Also, the physical appearance of a truck or lorry is often a good reason why the DVSA may pull it in for checking.
In London, we have a particular problem, partly prompted by some of the sad fatalities among cyclists. A number of vehicles of certain classes—scaffolding
wagons, some construction wagons and cement mixer wagons—have been pulled over, particularly the batch-mix wagons, which currently are not covered by legislation of this type. Those vehicles have been shown to be a concern. I hope that the checks that have been carried out not only in London but elsewhere have resulted in much better compliance by drivers of those vehicles.The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the privatisation of testing. I do not believe that that would have an effect on the standard of vehicles, as the inspectors who carry out the testing are DVSA inspectors who visit private testing facilities. Although I understand the real concerns that exist about the waiting lists at some test centres—for example, the Scarborough test centre, where I present my vehicle—the extension of testing to those private centres has ensured that we can bear down on waiting lists.
Richard Burden: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. However, if the number of roadside tests has gone down—it has more than halved in number—and the proportion of failures has gone up, does that not indicate a problem?
Mr Goodwill: I can see the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but it would also indicate that we are becoming much better at targeting those roadside stops. Indeed, operators who run good fleets of wagons and have high levels of compliance, including some of the well-known names that we see on vehicles on our roads, do not present a problem. They have very professional fleet managers and very good compliance.
Stephen Barclay: Does the Minister agree that it is far better that we are targeting the most unsafe vehicles rather than slowing down vehicles from law-abiding haulage firms, which are sensible, roadworthy and not unsafe but which are subject to delays and cost from unnecessary inspections?
Mr Goodwill: That is precisely the strategy that the DVSA is adopting in targeting operators that have been shown to be non-compliant in the past. That includes those that present vehicles that fail their test, for a number of reasons, which is an indication of an operator that does not keep its maintenance up to standard. Also, the age of the vehicle can have quite an effect. There is not much point pulling over a brand-new vehicle for a roadside test when there are a number of older vehicles on the road.
With regard to how the DVSA will target enforcement, in addition to its routine enforcement inspections it has automatic number plate recognition cameras to spot vehicles. Those cameras will be linked with information on non-compliant foreign vehicles, to enable DVSA officers to determine which vehicles to stop.
The information on non-compliant vehicles in the UK will be produced in the following way. First, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will provide data on vehicles entering and exiting the UK, allowing us to know which vehicles are in the country. Secondly, the levy payment system for foreign vehicles records which vehicles have paid the levy. By merging those two data sources, it is possible to determine the vehicles that are in the country but have not paid the levy. When DVSA
officials see a vehicle they wish to stop, a stopper vehicle will direct it off the road and to a DVSA inspection site. The Department for Transport has committed additional costs for enforcement staff resources for 2014-15, and it will then monitor compliance levels and assess future levels accordingly.Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): Has the Minister made an assessment of how much money is likely to be raised by these fixed penalties?
Mr Goodwill: I do not have that figure to hand; perhaps one of my officials will pass it to me. We have worked out where we are likely to be.
Additional funding has been made available for additional ANPR capacity; I understand that we have three more facilities. Also, funds have been made available to allow the data from HMRC on vehicles in the country to be used by the enforcement system. DVSA road enforcement staff are receiving additional training on enforcing the levy. It will not be possible for a vehicle to pay for one day and then travel for a week or more; that, too, will be flagged up.
On how payment will be made, foreign vehicles will pay on the website, which has been widely publicised. There will also be a physical point of sale—for example, on a ferry—and payment can be made by phone. If a vehicle is pulled up, it will be possible to pay with a credit card, or the operator can pay by phone from the country where the vehicle set off. UK operators will receive a reminder on the amount to be paid.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby North, the levy is a tax that is expected to raise about £20 million for the Consolidated Fund. On how checks will be made regarding longer stays, the system recognises entry and exit border information, puts that against payment made, and then sends a list of offenders to DVSA and the ANPR system. When the HGV goes past a camera, it flags to the enforcement officer that that vehicle should be stopped.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury mentioned Switzerland and the sticker in the window. There will be no sticker in the UK, and enforcement will be done using the database of who has not paid. Hon. and right hon. Members know that we are phasing out the vehicle excise duty tax disc in this country, so there will be no difference between a vehicle that has paid the levy and a vehicle that has paid the normal excise duty and charge.
Richard Burden: Can the Minister tell us what happens when a foreign haulier leaves the UK? Let us say for the sake of argument that a lorry from overseas comes in, perhaps pays for a week and overstays, or perhaps does not pay at all. What if that, for whatever reason, is not picked up on a camera or in a roadside check, and the lorry eventually leaves the UK? What happens?
Mr Goodwill: Obviously, all vehicles entering and leaving the country will be monitored by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. As I have said, the information will be shared, and information on non-compliant vehicles will be available. I am not entirely sure whether we will pull up vehicles at the point of exit. I am happy to let him have that information later.
Stephen Barclay: Will the Minister look at the effectiveness of automatic number plate recognition? Would it not, together with data matching, address the exact point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield? We would be able to assess when the vehicle came in and went out, because all ports have that technology, so we would know whether it had paid. It would be easy, and we would not incur the cost of having to pull vehicles over, as suggested earlier.
Mr Goodwill: I appreciate that question. The specific question was whether the vehicle would be pulled over at the point of exit. Of course, it would be entirely within DVSA’s power to put an ANPR camera on the road leading up to points of exit, and that seems a sensible place for that compliance activity to take place. If a vehicle manages to get on a ferry without paying for the entire time, we might not pick it up then. The obvious place for DVSA to do enforcement work would be on the roads leading to ports such as Dover.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire mentioned a period of grace, but there is no such thing. If a person comes to the UK to operate a vehicle—a goods vehicle or a car—they should register that vehicle in the UK and pay all necessary taxes and charges. However, when people come for short stays, they can continue to operate that vehicle with its foreign number plate and foreign documentation. The problem that arises is when, for example, a person working here in the UK makes regular visits back to Poland or wherever. That is when misunderstandings occur, and people think they can stay for six months. If they are coming to stay permanently, they should register the vehicle in the UK. We endeavour to identify any vehicles that are here illegally. Confusion arises if people return to their country of origin within six months.
Stephen Barclay: The Minister is being generous in giving way. He will know, from my parliamentary questions, that there has been not a single prosecution, as far as I am aware, for a vehicle staying beyond the EU’s six-month limit. He is right to say that there is a requirement to register if the intention is to stay permanently, but the difficulty is that when the police pull a vehicle over, they do not know when that period started, so it is easy to say, “I brought it over last week.” We do not apply the test used in Spain, under the same EU legislation, which puts the burden of proving that on the motorist. I understand that the Minister’s officials are looking at that. Perhaps he will take that matter away with him.
The Chair: Order. That is slightly related to this order, but not much. We should not proceed for too long along those lines.
Mr Goodwill: My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire has digressed, but one aspect of
what he says does apply to the order. Under cabotage rules, it is not possible to bring a heavy goods vehicle to operate in the UK for longer than a week, and it can make three journeys during that period. We occasionally extend that—recently, for example, car transporters were allowed certain flexibility—but it is not possible to operate a foreign-registered HGV in the UK, because of the cabotage rules.The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, mentioned levelling the playing field for UK hauliers. One reason why we have an unlevel playing field is the fuel duty escalator, pursued with such enthusiasm by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; that is something that the current Chancellor has addressed.
On when UK hauliers will pay the levy, it will be collected along with the vehicle excise duty. Most of them will not notice the difference, because the two will be collected together. Foreign hauliers will have to start paying this levy from the start of April. Indeed, I hope to travel to Dover to see the first vehicles coming in that have paid the levy. Everything is in place to do that. People can pay the levy online or over the telephone, and there will be physical opportunities to pay, for example, at ferry terminals. However, most companies that operate in various countries are used to paying such levies. For example, the German HGV levy, a scheme based on a road charge, can be paid online, as an alternative to fitting a box in the vehicle. Of course, a number of EU countries have various systems for charging trucks to use their roads, so most firms that operate internationally will be well aware of what we are doing and will be able to take that into account. We do not anticipate high levels of non-compliance, but we have all the measures in place to ensure that, if vehicles are breaking the rules, we can pick them up.
The order has already been discussed in another place. With the Committee’s agreement to the order, we will put in place an essential part of the legislative package, allowing effective enforcement against those who do not pay the levy. That will allow us to deliver the levy on schedule on 1 April. The British haulage industry will welcome that, because it will allow hauliers from the UK to compete on more equal terms for a share of the international road haulage market. I commend the order to the Committee.
That the Committee has considered the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2014.