Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) Link to this
That the Road User Charges Bill be now read a second time. I thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their hard work on this bill. I acknowledge the chair, David Bennett, and his team.
Road-user charges are paid by users of diesel vehicles as their contribution to the development and maintenance of New Zealand’s road network. This bill brings about the most significant reform of the road-user charges system since it was introduced in 1978. The bill aims to simplify and modernise the system, provide the opportunity for lower compliance costs, and reduce the level of road-user charge evasion.
The bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in February. The committee considered 41 submissions and heard 20 submitters, and has recommended a number of technical changes to the bill. I believe that the bill is better for these changes. A focus for submitters was the provisions of the bill that move the road-user charges system from one based on a vehicle’s actual gross weight, as nominated by a vehicle’s operator, to one based on a vehicle’s maximum permissible on-road weight. Operators will now be charged according to the capacity of their vehicle rather than an estimate of its total weight. The costs being recovered will effectively be averaged across similarly sized vehicles. I do appreciate that some submitters are concerned about what this means for the road-user charge that they pay. Overall the change will be revenue-neutral, but invariably there will be some winners and losers.
Road-user charge rates will be set in regulations issued under the new legislation, and the Ministry of Transport will consult with those affected on the content of these regulations.
Assigning each vehicle a fixed road-user charge weight will make purchasing road-user charge licences easier and reduce operating compliance costs. It will also eliminate weight-based error and fraud in the purchase of road-user charge licences. The committee has recommended a change to clause 12 of the bill, to provide greater flexibility for individuals operating vehicles at weights above their normal maximum limit to pay their additional road-user charge. A redrafted clause 12 provides two options for purchasing a road-user charge for vehicles operating overweight. This flexibility reflects the variation in circumstances under which vehicles may operate with overweight or high-productivity permits.
The committee also recommended changes to the record-keeping requirements in the bill, to ensure a balance is struck between retaining records that are needed to make an assessment of a person’s road-user charge obligations and the cost of holding those records. The committee has limited the scope of records to be kept and the duration for which they must be retained, ensuring that the bill creates no unreasonable compliance costs.
A number of submitters interpreted provisions in the bill as making electronic distance recorders mandatory for heavy vehicles. This is not the case. The bill provides an improved regulatory framework that will enable—not mandate—the use of technology. Operators will continue to have the choice of using an electronic system or continuing with the paper road-user charge licences and hubodometers.
The reformed road-user charge system will be supported by new regulations made under the bill. As I mentioned previously, the Ministry of Transport intends to consult with those affected on the content of the regulations.
Finally, I would like to ask the House to consider at the appropriate time a Supplementary Order Paper that will make minor improvements and correct a number of minor errors and omissions.
In conclusion, I say this bill will simplify and modernise the road-user charge system. It will reduce compliance costs for operators, eliminate the scope for error and fraud in the purchase of road-user charge licences, and simplify enforcement and administration requirements. I commend this bill to the House.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
It is a privilege to take a call in the second reading of the Road User Charges Bill. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with others. I say in opening that Labour supports this bill, but we still have some major concerns over the shift from nominated weights to gross weights as the basis for charging road-user charges, and over the determination of rates set by regulation. At select committee, we actually voted against those particular clauses.
However, we do support lots of things about this bill. We think the purpose is sound. We want to make sure we continue the road-user charges system by imposing charges on heavy vehicles and certain other vehicles for the use of the roads in proportion to the cost that those vehicles generate. We think it is good that we modernise and simplify the road-user charges system, and that we improve compliance with, and recovery of, road-user charges.
The bill also establishes a framework for the electronic management of road-user charges, which is welcome and is welcomed by Labour, and it gives effect to the Government’s decisions arising from the recommendations of the independent review of the New Zealand road-user charging system. Just going back to where that review came from, it came about prior to the last election, when there was a lot of concern—and, in fact, action—from truckies about a change that was being proposed. In actual fact, Annette King set up the independent review and this is the outcome of that review.
As I said, in the select committee we had two major concerns about the bill. They are still not really resolved and I think we will find that they are not resolved in the industry either. Although some parts of the industry may have settled down, I think we will find in the next little while that there are others who are concerned about a couple of proposals in the bill. Most in the industry welcome the upgrading of the road-user charges regime—you know, it is very sensible and we need to do it—and also a move to an electronic road-user charges system. After all, we are in the 21st century and we should be using whatever technology is available to us. But the move from nominated weights to gross weights for the setting of road-user charges is still causing quite a lot of concern. In fact, the Associate Minister of Transport said in his second reading speech just a moment ago that there were winners and losers.
I will give an example from one submitter who talked about the difference this move would pose for his firm. This is not a large firm. It is a firm in Avondale that is, I think, known to the Hon Tau Henare. Submitters from the firm made a submission. They felt they had a fair hearing, so they are feeling quite disappointed that they are still in the situation where they will face quite substantial increases in charges. There is an additional cost for this firm of $137,000 a year. That is significant for a firm of that size, in particular when we are still in a recession and this firm is trying to keep on its feet and keep doing business. So there is a lot of concern around that. As I say, I think that concern will be highlighted.
I do not think this has settled down in the industry by any means, although it is fair to acknowledge that there are differences in the industry. The Road Transport Forum is still harking back to the good old days, thinking we should have road-user charges based on diesel—that it should be a diesel charge. Anybody who was on the select committee and listened to where the industry is going and what is happening overseas will know that any sort of road-user charges based on a charge through diesel is not where the world is going. New Zealand actually leads the world. We have had road-user charges for some time, based on the system we have at the moment. When we look at what is happening overseas, we see that people are now starting to realise that funding road-user charges based on diesel is not viable. As trucks get more and more efficient, as they move to different systems—maybe electric systems and others—obviously the income from road-user charges is declining.
One of the things that was really interesting about the select committee process and meeting with some of the groups that are doing very, very innovative and leading-edge work in this industry was understanding that we have a great product in New Zealand with our road-user charges system, and with the move to electronic hubodometers and charging through electronic systems. We have a product that is now starting to be sold throughout the world. We had a couple of examples from companies that came to see us. EROAD was one. I have been to see some others, and there is another one called International Telematics.
They are moving out well beyond New Zealand—well beyond Australia, for that matter—and into Europe. Europe is now saying that New Zealand actually has a good system, and it has had it since 1974. It thinks it is a viable system and wants to look at it. It wants to look at how New Zealand is moving in this direction and how it is using new technology to charge for road use. That was pretty interesting for the select committee, and I think we need to be encouraging that. It was a bit disappointing to see some of our more leading companies treated, I thought, fairly abysmally by the National members on the select committee, who are very suspicious of their motives. I think we need to be encouraging that sort of innovation and possible export revenue that is developing in the industry.
The other part of the bill we are not happy about—that is, the industry is not happy about—is the process by which the regulations that will set up the rates for the road-user charges will be written by the Ministry of Transport and then signed off by the Minister, thereby breaking the very important democratic principle that there should be no taxation without representation. We heard again and again that there has been a lack of consultation with the industry. One of the things the industry was asking for was that we write into the bill a requirement that there be consultation before the regulations are set for the new rates for road-user charges. That request was rejected by the Government, which is very unfortunate.
It is a very interesting turn of events, which we see if we look back at our history. I started my contribution by referring to 2008, when we saw the truckies out on the roads protesting against the then Labour Government.
They were protesting against the Labour Government, and I am happy to own up to that, but the Hon Tau Henare should go around and see his mate from A One Movers and see where he is coming from and how happy he is with this Government. In fact, we may well see the truckies on the roads before the next election, because they are not happy with this bill. Labour is on the side of the truckies and is sticking up for them.
As I said, there are good things about this bill, but on those two things the Government has failed to listen to the industry. I think their concerns are fair enough. Why should there be increases to charges without proper representation? Why should there be taxation without representation? Setting increases through regulation—
Mr Bennett can scoff, but I hope that the truckies come visiting him before the election; I am sure they will. In fact, an awful lot more action is coming your way. You may think—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERSorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. He may think that the Road Transport Forum is the be-all and end-all, but it is not, and it does not speak for the new industry—the modern part of the industry. The progressive part wants to see this industry move forward, use new electronic systems, and be responsible. They do not want to hark back to the 1970s and claim that they want a system based on diesel tax.
As we move towards the next election, members opposite may well see quite a lot of opposition coming their way. When companies like Fonterra, which is New Zealand’s largest company, and Toll New Zealand are opposing this bill, I have to say we have to be very, very worried that this Government is not listening.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
The Road User Charges Bill is very important legislation and reflects the work of the Minister of Transport and the Ministry of Transport in providing the best process and opportunity for making decisions in this area. We do not accept at all the Labour Party’s comment that the Government is not listening to, and engaging with, businesses in order to make this measure worthwhile and successful for them. This is a good bill. It will achieve its purposes, and it is in the best interests of the transport sector. Thank you.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call on the Road User Charges Bill. The purpose of the bill is to continue the road-user charges system by imposing charges on heavy vehicles and certain other vehicles for their use of the roads that are in proportion to the cost that those vehicles generate. We know that obviously trucks cause disproportionately more damage to our roads than ordinary cars. Several thousand car trips equal one or two truck trips in terms of creating damage to our roads, so it is only right that we look at where the costs of the repair and maintenance of our roads come from, and that those users pay their fair share.
As my colleague Darien Fenton was just saying, Labour is supporting this bill, but there are a number of aspects we are not happy with. One of them, as Ms Fenton pointed out, is the degree of consultation that has taken place. A number of major users are opposed to this bill. Toll New Zealand, which is a large company and actually a very responsible company—it uses both road and rail, and is moving goods right across New Zealand on a variety of modes of transport—is unhappy with the bill. Toll NZ is prepared to embrace electronic monitoring of its transport fleet and its road-user charges. It has adopted an electronic system called EROAD, which is from a company based on the North Shore. That company, although we do not herald it as much as we could, has sold its product into the European markets, particularly into the Scandinavian markets.
The system works simply on the basis of having an electronic sensor on the windscreen rather than a hubodometer on the hub of the vehicle. It uses a Global Positioning System (GPS) to measure where the truck is moving to and from. The ingenious part of this piece of technology is that even if the GPS is not working, the revs of the engine and the vibration of the vehicle are monitored and measured. Even if the GPS is not functioning, the computer can still measure approximately how far the vehicle has moved along the road. It transmits that information back both to the company and to the billing authority for the road-user charge, and the charge is able to be calculated and a bill sent to the company concerned. No longer does one have to go and check hubodometers; one can do that from the windscreen of the truck itself. The other ingenious part of this technology is that if anyone tries to take it off the windscreen, it immediately sends a signal to say the device has been tampered with, and the appropriate intervention can be made.
Interestingly, many companies in New Zealand are opposed to this device. Toll NZ is one of the few companies that has adopted it. It is using the device, as are a number of the Scandinavian countries where EROAD has been able to market this product. It is now a fantastic piece of New Zealand intellectual property being marketed and sold offshore. It is a shame that we cannot bring the device into New Zealand in a more widespread fashion, because if we did, we would be able to demonstrate to other potential markets across the world that we have confidence in this device for electronic tracking of vehicles to calculate their road-user charges. By demonstrating that confidence, we would help to promote that product further overseas. That has not yet happened.
I mention that product because it is related to this legislation. If we are to have legislation like this, and to make some changes as Darien Fenton outlined, then we should also have the most up-to-date electronic capacity in order to use this legislation much more effectively. As I said, EROAD is one of a couple of companies able to do that.
Coming back more specifically to the bill—and I stress again that many of the people who will be affected by this bill were upset because they did not think they were being consulted sufficiently—it basically moves from nominated weights to gross weights for the setting of road-user charges. At the moment road-user charges are based on the distance travelled and the weight carried. An operator currently has to estimate the actual gross weight to be carried; he nominates it in advance. Under the changes proposed in this bill, the usual maximum allowable weight of the vehicle will be decided in advance, and the road-user charge will be charged on that gross figure, supposedly to simplify the process a bit. That is what Nathan Guy said will happen.
The problems, and there are a number of problems, stem from the fact the existing truck fleet has been purchased to work within an existing system. We have a real problem in relation to the impact of reclassifying and changing the trucking fleet. The costs and the difficulties of changing midstream are largely unknown. There definitely will be some unseen costs that have not yet been recognised.
Under the present system, the first tonne of weight is charged at a rate much lower than that of the last tonne. The last tonne is charged at a higher rate because it is the weight at the top end of the scale—the reverse of the marginal cost—that is doing the most damage to the road. If a tonne is added to a 39-tonne truck, that makes it a 40-tonne truck, and that extra tonne does a lot more damage than the first tonne carried by the truck.
Under the new system, charges will have to be set for an average weight in each class. If the Government still wants to collect the same amount of road-user charges in each class—and I am sure it does—then operators with trucks within that average weight band will have to pay more to cover lost revenue than operators of heavier trucks at the top end of the scale. Effectively, it looks like the operators of heavier trucks, the trucks doing more damage, will actually pay less, and the operators of lighter and medium-sized trucks will actually be paying more.
There is a lot more to this bill than just that issue, and that is the reason Labour is supporting it. But I highlight these points because it seems, certainly from what we have heard from some of the submitters, that submitters did not feel they were consulted sufficiently. I believe them when they say that, and they can take the matter into their own hands as they did in 2008.
It seems to me that when looking at who should pay what, and the fairness of the system, the operators of heavier trucks, which are in fact doing more damage, may actually end up paying less. That does not seem quite right to me. Personally, I have some reservations around that part of the bill. However, as we have said before, we will be supporting this bill for other reasons, although we have spoken about our opposition to some of those parts I mentioned. Thank you.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
Established in 1978, the road-user charges system has done us proud. But this is the 21st century, and so what our Minister of Transport and our Government want to do is reduce compliance costs, make the system easier to understand, and change the definition of licence weights. It is estimated that $30 million a year goes towards road-user charges evasion. What we want to make happen is that the system is easier to understand for the worker, for the driver, and also for the Government. I commend the Road User Charges Bill to the House.
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) Link to this
I take a call on the second reading of the Road User Charges Bill. I would first of all like to do something a bit strange and agree with a few of the things that Tau Henare said, and say we support a lot of the substance of this bill. But, as is our job in Opposition, we would like to highlight a number of things that we do not agree with. One of these has already been pointed out by my colleagues David Shearer and Darien Fenton: the changes around the calculation of road-user charges. The change from nominated weights to gross weights is one thing within this bill that we do have serious concerns about.
For the benefit of those who may be listening at home at quarter to 10, sitting up to listen to the debate on the bill, and who are not quite aware of the current regime for road-user charges, I think it might be useful to set out, as David Shearer did during his contribution, how the current system works, in order to put into context the inequity of some of the changes within this bill. Currently, road-user charges are based on the distance that is travelled by a vehicle and also on the weight that is carried by it. An operator currently has to estimate the actual gross weight to be carried—and that is what the Minister referred to earlier as the nominated weight—in advance. Under that system, as David Shearer pointed out, the first tonne is not as expensive as the last tonne. So if someone has two trucks of similar configuration, and one truck has 10 tonnes and the other truck has 30 tonnes, the one that carries 30 tonnes will proportionately pay much more than the one that carries 10 tonnes.
But under this legislation that situation will be no more. Under the changes in this legislation the calculation of road-user charges will be based on the usual maximum allowable weight of a vehicle. Regardless of what the vehicle is carrying, it will be given an average, or nominated, weight, and that is how the road-user charge will be ascertained for that vehicle. According to the Government, this has supposedly been done to simplify the process, but in essence it will make life tougher for many operators. Unfortunately, in this case, in terms of the winners and the losers, the winners will be the large firms that carry the heaviest loads and do the most damage to our roads by carrying the heavier loads, and the losers will be those operators that run trucks at under their capacity. They will also have to subsidise the heavier crawlers that are carrying the maximum weight. Again, this is another case of the many and not the few carrying the burden for those that are doing the most damage to our roads.
There are significant concerns about these changes within the transport industry. As Darien Fenton and David Shearer pointed out, these concerns were well traversed when the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was adjudicating on this bill. We agree with the tenor of a lot of the submissions. The first concern is roughly around the fact that, you know, if the system ain’t broke, why change it? There is no evidence that the current system of nominated weights is performing badly, so why do we need to make these changes? Again, rebutting a point that David Bennett made about his difference of opinion as to a lack of consultation, I say there has been a serious lack of consultation with the industry. Many sectors in the industry have been kept in the dark about the processes and the changes, and about the impacts that the changes in this bill will have. I guess it starts to get dangerous when the process is not as transparent as it should be, and that will have huge impacts on those people who really do not know what is going to happen.
If these changes are justified, then there needs to be proper analysis and consultation, which has not happened. Again, this bill is not evidence-based, but the Government seems hell-bent on introducing these changes to the way that road-user charges are calculated. A small number of submissions to the select committee were in support of these changes. But again, they were from a few bodies, and unfortunately they were not representative of the broader transport fleet. As one could imagine, they were from those in the sector who carry much larger weights on their vehicles.
A number of submitters also argued that a very high percentage of operators will end up paying more under the changes to the road-user charge calculations, while a very small percentage will be paying less. Not only would there be an increase in road-user charges for them but also there would be a considerable charge for them to ensure that there was a refit, and certification costs to make sure that their fleets met the requirements of the new system. In essence, those operators say that although these changes are apparently being brought in to be fiscally neutral and to streamline the system—supposedly to make things much more streamlined—things will actually become much more difficult for them.
In the opening address by the Hon Nathan Guy, he mentioned the fact that this measure was meant to be fiscally neutral. But there was a submission to the select committee from one person who revealed that there would be an additional cost for his firm of $18,000 per vehicle, and that the total projected increase in costs for him would be somewhere in the region of $137,000 a year. I think that is hardly in line with the Government’s plan to make these changes fiscally neutral.
On drilling down into some of the detail in the select committee submissions, we find that Jonathan Thomson, chief executive of the New Zealand Heavy Haulage Association, stated in his submission that the bill was a real opportunity to make compliance easier and less onerous, but that the current proposals would make things more costly and more time-consuming. In terms of the lack of consultation, he said the new road-user charges framework provided in the bill relies on the detail in the regulations that are to follow it being acceptable, but it would be very difficult to provide support for those provisions in the bill without knowing the detail. I guess that harks back to the flaw in the process, and the lack of consultation with the industry.
As David Shearer pointed out in his contribution, Toll New Zealand also made a submission on the lack of consultation. In point 2.4 of its submission Toll stated: “The Bill introduces very significant changes to the manner in which Road User Charges are calculated and administered, but its real impact will only become clear in the process of subsequent regulation.” On this side of the Chamber we do not think that sort of uncertainty for the industry is good enough. We know what will happen: it will mean that a lot of smaller operators will be paying more. But the uncertainty within this legislation is not good enough, and that harks back to the lack of consultation.
Toll also talked about the impact that these changes would have on courier truck operators. In section 4 of its submission on the bill, it said “Another area of concern is the manner in which Road User Charge regulations introduced under the provisions of the Bill could address the operations of small courier trucks. These trucks are typically of a maximum permitted weight of 5-6 tonnes and are currently categorized in the Vehicle Type 2 Band which has a maximum permitted weight limit of 14 tonnes.” Toll went on to say that if the road-user charge was based on 14 tonnes as a maximum, it could ultimately render the 5 to 6 tonne courier-type truck uneconomic to operate. Basically, it said this legislation may force some operators to go from one truck to two vans, forcing more traffic on to the roads, and eventually creating a situation where more road-user charges have to be paid.
There was one good example of this, and that was North Canterbury Distributors, and a chap called Paul Johnstone. He said he runs five trucks for the purpose of distributing chilled and frozen food. He has a gross weight of 4 to 7 tonnes, but under the maximum weight regime, he would be somewhere in the range of 8 to 15 tonnes, and that would mean a significant increase in costs for his business under the new calculation of the road-user charges. I guess this means that the bigger operators and the larger firms win.
When we cast around for other examples of situations where this Minister has pandered to big business and shown a lack of consultation, we do not need to look much further than my own electorate and the Kapiti Expressway. On the road-user charges and the expressway there has been a lack of consultation. In both the road-user charges and the expressway the interests of big business have won out over the community or the industry. In the case of the road-user charges and the expressway the pleas of the industry and the communities have been ignored. In both cases not enough thought has been going into what the impact of these changes will be, other than to ignore the ability of those who cannot shout the loudest.
It is not rubbish; it is the complete truth. Just drive down State Highway 1 at the moment, and see how the community feels about the expressway. These changes to the road-user charges are skewed towards the interests of big business, just as they have been in the case of the expressway.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I am pleased to speak in the second reading of the Road User Charges Bill, which basically is very straightforward. It modernises a very old Act, which was first devised in 1978. Certainly the submissions supported the need for modernisation and updating it. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) Link to this
I have been quite intrigued by this debate on the Road User Charges Bill. I am probably one of the few people in this House who has driven a heavy truck. I am licensed to drive one, and over the years I have grappled with the complexities of the law. Looking at this piece of legislation, I have—
Hon Christopher FinlaysonI will come back to that in a moment. One thing truckers do not like, like a lot of other groups, is paying tax. That is reasonable. Everybody would like to pay less tax rather than more. Truckers know they pay quite a lot of tax. But when I reflect upon that fact as a person who rides a motorbike, I know I pay quite a lot of tax, as well, for riding my bike.
The point I feel is important here is that the rates charged on trucks reflect the amount of damage they do to the road. The rates should be proportionate. If I reflect on the amount of tax I pay for riding my bike in relation to the excise duty on trucks, then I think as a motorcyclist I am worse off. A large 18-wheeler truck carrying a full load, I am advised by research I saw from the United States, is equivalent to 160,000 cars. Well, as one riding a motorbike, I would say that a car would cause the equivalent of four times the amount of damage done by a motorbike. But I cannot see that truck operators are paying something close to 700,000 times the amount of tax I pay for riding my bike. So on one side the argument is that truck operators are not paying enough.
Having put that aside, we then look at the change in the system here. My colleagues have picked up a very good point—that we are changing the system from nominated weights to maximum weights. I drove a truck at one time that had quite a large maximum weight, but it had a much lighter nominated weight because I was carrying full loads of polystyrene. The truck was capable of carrying many tonnes because it had a very long tray, but it was fully laden with polystyrene. Well, there is not much that is lighter than polystyrene. If that truck is going to be taxed at its maximum weight, then the operator will be paying substantially more under the new system than under the old system—
—and my colleague agrees. We can see that a truck driver who has a load of polystyrene will feel very much aggrieved, because the tax is on volume, not weight, whereas the same truck could be carrying steel of much less volume. Steel is very heavy, as is concrete.
The point made by previous speakers was that we have a trucking fleet that has been bought and paid for around the road-user charges system. People have bought trucks that are able to carry much heavier loads, but they have never intended that they carry much heavier loads. They have intended to carry light loads, and they have wanted to carry volume. That is efficient and economic, because they can therefore buy road-user charges equal to the weight they have nominated.
Every trucker knows they have to be careful about the weight they nominate, because the weight of the load can vary. A truck can be carrying pallets, and pallets of goods will have a certain weight, but truckers know they have to be careful to take into account the weight of the pallets when they are wet. The pallets are not always dry, and the weight of the loaded truck is lighter when the pallets are dry. So truckers are always careful to measure their trucks according to the weight they are likely to carry. Someone might have six tonnes on a truck that is capable of carrying 20 tonnes, but under the current regime the truck driver will be charged for 20 tonnes rather than—
Well, it is going to be much more expensive.
The issue I have heard my colleagues raise here is the lack of consultation about this legislation. The industry has raised the issue that these charges will not be set by statute; they will be set by officials making recommendations to the Minister, who will then simply promulgate them. The question here is what is the fairness or the democracy in that. The trucking industry is deeply suspicious about that process, and I think its members have a right to be deeply suspicious.
Of course, the Cabinet rules require that there is consultation, but consultation can be done poorly and it can be done well. The Government of the day—National—will most probably say that if it makes regulations, the regulations will then have to go to the Regulations Review Committee. But that referral could be quite some considerable time after the regulations have been put into force and people have had to pay. If the Regulations Review Committee decides that the regulations are unfair, the committee can then nominate that the regulations be struck down. But that decision has to come back to the House, and there will be a vote on it. The vote will be of the parties in this House. Who can imagine that the National Government and its support parties would vote down regulations that their own Ministers had put forward? That is being one’s own judge and jury of one’s own case, and I can well understand why the trucking industry is very concerned about this process. I have similar concerns.