Consultation outcome

Enforcing Operation Brock in 2021: government response to consultation on proposed legislative amendments

Updated 22 October 2020

Ministerial foreword

On 31 December 2020, the European Union (EU) transition period will end and there will be a range of changes and opportunities for which business and the government are already preparing. Some of these changes will be required regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU on our future trading relationship.

One key area of change relates to the new controls that will be placed on the movement of goods between Great Britain (GB) and the EU from 1 January 2021. Our goal is to enable trade in goods to continue to flow as smoothly as possible. But, for an initial period, there’s a risk of some additional friction at the border if goods are not accompanied by the correct customs and associated documentation.

We’re therefore activating plans both to minimise the risk of disruption and to mitigate its impact should it occur. These plans have a particular focus on the Short Straits given the volume of traffic that moves via the Port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel.

To this end, we’ve proposed to renew and update relevant secondary legislation to ensure that our traffic management plans can be effectively enforced, and to incentivise hauliers to ensure they are ‘border ready’ before setting off for Kent. In August we consulted on these proposals and I’m pleased to share with you our response. There was overall support for our proposals, with responses from a broad range of interested parties. I would like to express my gratitude to those individuals and organisations who took the time to respond and help ensure our plans are as robust as possible.

We continue to work closely with the Border and Protocol Delivery Group (BPDG), the Kent Resilience Forum (KRF), Highways England, Kent Police and Kent County Council, to put these plans in place. Following the consultation, we’re now finalising the statutory instruments for presentation to Parliament in October.

Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps MP

Secretary of State for Transport

Introduction

Note on terminology

In previous public communications, the government has referred to the Smart Freight Service (SFS) as a working title. In this document and all future government communications it will be referred to as the ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border’ service (or ‘Check an HGV’ service in abbreviated form).

Further details of the ‘Check an HGV’ service can be found below. This change has not altered the development, functionality, or intended use of the service.

For the purposes of this document heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) both refer to any goods vehicle which has an operating weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes. HCV is often the preferred term in this document because that’s is the one used in the statutory instruments.

What we consulted on

In August 2020, the Department for Transport (DfT) sought the views of stakeholders and residents on the proposed updating and amendment of statutory instruments (SIs) underpinning the enforcement of contingency plans for the management of traffic disruption in Kent.

Such legislation was first put in place in 2019 in advance of a potential no-deal departure from the EU. The 3 SIs enabled the activation of provisions requiring HCVs heading for Dover and Eurotunnel to proceed only by designated routes and enabled penalties to be applied to any vehicles breaching those requirements ^{[footnote 1]}.

Given the specific focus of the 2019 legislation on the possibility of disruption following a no-deal withdrawal from the EU, the SIs included ‘sunset’ clauses meaning that they cease to have effect on 31 December 2020. The government, therefore, intends to bring forward amending SIs to ensure that similar powers are available in the event of traffic disruption in Kent following the end of the transition period at the end of 2020. We’ve been working with the Kent Resilience Forum to develop these plans and will ensure that their implementation takes account where necessary of COVID-19 measures.

Views were sought on the detail of the policy approach to the refreshed legislation and on the proposed enforcement arrangements for the end of the EU transition period. Views were also sought on further proposals to include within the legislative powers enabling the prioritisation of a strictly limited range of goods past queues should significant disruption occur.

What we proposed

The consultation comprised 2 sections:

The first section explained the reasons behind amending the 2019 SIs as a measure for managing HCV congestion in Kent. We outlined what the proposed amendments would be, including extending the sunset clause from 31 December 2020 to 31 October 2021, then asked respondents if they agreed with amending the SIs.

The second section outlined proposals to use technology effectively to upstream ‘border readiness checking’, making use of the ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border’ service. We outlined what the service was, and how HCV drivers would interact with it. We discussed how compliance with the service would be enforced, including at the various phases of Operation Brock, and the proposed contingency plans in case of technological failure. We asked for views on:

• our enforcement proposals
• the possible implementation of manual border readiness checks
• proposed local haulier permits to avoid perverse impacts on international hauliers based in Kent
• our proposed approach concerning prioritised commodities

Responses received

Overall, consultation respondents supported our proposals to amend the Operation Brock SIs. We’ll therefore continue as proposed with amending legislation via the 3 SIs to manage any HCV congestion in Kent from 1 January 2021.

A wide range of organisations and individuals responded to questions concerning the government’s proposals:

Total number of responses	134
Responses from individuals	80
Responses from industry / organisations	47
False responses [footnote 2] (and therefore discounted)	7

Of those organisations who responded:

Type of organisation	Number of respondents
Exporters and their intermediaries (traders, customs agents and so on)	4
Fishing industry	1
Freelance consultant supply chain	1
Fresh Food Manufacturing and Distribution	1
Governing and regulatory body on behalf of British racing industry business that transport thoroughbred racehorses to Europe	1
Local authorities and other public-sector bodies	2
Local bus service providers	1
Manufacturing and delivery of goods	1
Other	2
Ports and cross-Channel freight carriers	3
Technology	1
The road haulage sector (haulage firms/hauliers, warehouses, freight forwarders etc plus HCV drivers)	16
Trade and marketing organisation	1
Trade association for the animal health sector	1
Trade association for the UK fresh produce industry	1
Trade Association representing the poultry meat sector	2
Other Trade Associations	8
Total	47

Further detail

The remainder of this document sets out the government’s response to the consultation and the rationale for the government’s decisions.

Several policy options have been considered including a ‘do nothing’ scenario. This analysis was conducted to explore whether the proposed SI amendments will have a detrimental impact on GB businesses, congestion, the economy and journey times. The ‘light touch’ impact assessment can be found at Annex A.

The government response should be read in conjunction with the corresponding consultation document, available on the GOV.UK website.

Consultation response and government decision

The Short Straits route for exporting goods from GB to mainland Europe and beyond is particularly sensitive to disruptions, due to the volume of HCVs that make the journey. Disruption at the cross-Channel ports at the end of the transition period is not inevitable, but it’s clearly a possibility for which a responsible government needs to prepare.

As such we consulted on our proposals to amend the current SIs which will enforce Operation Brock from 1 January 2021.

We received responses from several stakeholders, whose interests focused on the different elements of the consultation. Some notable respondents were: Kent Police, Kent County Council, Dover District Council, Port of Dover, Eurotunnel, the Road Haulage Association, Logistics UK, and various private sector enterprises. We’re grateful to all those who responded.

We’ve included information from those who responded to the consultation in the format requested, and, as such, offered a definitive ‘yes, no, don’t know’ answer to each question.

However, we also applied a framework to sift further responses which, while they did not respond in the requested format, offered a clear positive, negative or uncertain response and so were then allocated to the respective ‘yes, no or don’t know’ answer. Where the respondent did not indicate a response to a particular question, they were excluded from these summary results.

Responses received by the same agency or department have been grouped together. There was no difference in their ‘yes, no or don’t know’ answer, but, where there were additional comments, we’ve grouped these together. Any nil responses to the question have been excluded.

The following section summarises what we proposed in the consultation, and outlines what measures the government will be taking forward as a result.

Question 1: do you agree with these proposals to amend the SIs that underpin Operation Brock so that they can be implemented in 2021?

We received overall positive support from respondents to the consultation to amend the SIs that underpin Operation Brock:

Answer	Response proportion of 113 respondees (%)
Yes	55
No	39
Don’t know	6

What we proposed

In advance of the potential no-deal withdrawal in October 2019, DfT laid 3 SIs to underpin Operation Brock and border readiness checks (BRCs), using powers in the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988:

• The Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019
  • the No. 1 order enables traffic officers to direct vehicles that are not compliant with the traffic restrictions imposed by the No. 2 and No. 3 orders: it also allows traffic officers to request documentation relating to origin, destination and goods and raises the financial penalty deposit for failing to comply with a traffic officer exercising the new powers conferred by this order or for breaching the traffic restrictions imposed by the No. 2 and No. 3 orders to £300
• The Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019 (PDF, 212KB)
  • prohibits HCVs (above 7.5 tonnes) leaving the UK via the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone or the Port of Dover from using local roads other than those on approved Operation Fennel routes
• The Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Order 2019
  • prohibits such vehicles from accessing the coastbound carriageway of the M20 motorway between Junction 9 and Junction 13 (the primary route to the Kent ports), unless the driver has complied with checks of border documents and is displaying a permit issued after using an approved route: it also sets at £300 the amount of the fixed penalty notice [FPN] for failing to comply with a traffic officer exercising the new powers conferred by the No. 1 order or for breaching the traffic restrictions imposed by the No. 2 and No. 3 orders

The 3 SIs came into force on 31 October 2019. However, Operation Brock (in its 2019 incarnation) was only intended to function for a year. As such, the SIs contained a sunset clause and they will cease to have effect on 31 December 2020.

We, therefore, proposed to amend the current SIs to extend the sunset clause to 31 October 2021, to allow Operation Brock to continue to be enforceable in 2021. If there’s significant congestion at the border following the end of the transition period, it’s likely the situation will improve substantially over the first half of 2021.

Government response: updating the SIs

Our assessment is that significant levels of disruption to outbound traffic if they occur, are unlikely to extend beyond the middle of 2021. With the support of the majority of consultation respondents, we, therefore, intend to seek Parliament’s approval to extend the validity of the SIs to 31 October 2021.

Any delays are likely to be due in part to low levels of border readiness among traders and the haulage industry, leading to significant numbers of lorries being stopped by the French authorities. We expect that if this scenario does occur then the experience of delays at the Short Straits and the risk of incurring a fine should act as a meaningful incentive for those who were not border ready to ensure they’re ready next time.

The transition period has provided opportunities to improve the plans for Operation Brock and, where necessary, reflect COVID-19 measures. We’ve bought a new site in Ashford (the Sevington Inland Border Facility) which will both provide off-road holding capacity for HCVs in the event of delays and facilities for inland border control checks by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra). Construction at the site has started, and it will provide approximately 2,000 HCVs holding spaces. We’re in the process of working with KRF to integrate the new Ashford site into updated traffic management plans for the end of the transition period.

The amended SIs will include any changes to the permitted routes for HCVs heading to Dover and Eurotunnel made necessary by the availability of the Sevington site. The amendments will also take account of the enhancements to border readiness checking and the use of the ‘Check an HGV’ service. These aspects are discussed in more detail below.

We’ll of course undertake significant further communications activity to ensure hauliers are informed of any revised phasing of the traffic management plan in advance of the end of the transition period.

Question 2: do you agree with the principle of making use of the ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border’ service mandatory, including the £300 fine, for HCVs travelling through Kent and the Short Straits?

A majority of respondents supported the ‘Check an HGV’ service being mandatory for HCVs travelling through Kent and the Short Straits, including the use of the £300 fine as an enforcement mechanism:

Answer	Response proportion of 113 respondees (%)
Yes	62
No	29
Don’t know	9

What we proposed

We proposed that correct use of the ‘Check an HGV’ service would lead to a vehicle heading for Dover or Eurotunnel being provided with a Kent Access Permit (KAP). Any HCV heading for the Short Straits would be required to have a KAP before entering the Kent traffic management system, and drivers of HCVs heading for Dover and Eurotunnel without a valid KAP would be subject to a £300 FPN. It was proposed that an HCV driver could be liable for multiple fines if they had contravened multiple requirements (for example, by not having a valid KAP and also by evading the Brock queues).

Government response

Following consultation, we intend to implement these proposals. The SIs will make it a legal requirement for an HCV travelling through Kent to the Short Straits to have a valid KAP, which would be obtained through the use of the ‘Check an HGV’ service. Any hauliers not meeting the requirement will risk the proposed £300 fine.

As with other fines issued for failure to comply with the traffic restrictions enabled by the SIs or for failure to follow an instruction from a traffic officer, fines for not having a valid KAP would be levied using FPNs for UK HCV drivers, and financial penalty deposit notices for foreign drivers. Fines would normally be expected to be paid on the spot, although UK drivers would have up to 28 days to pay if required. Foreign drivers are unable to delay payment. If a driver refuses to pay, whether they are a UK or EU driver, their HCV could be immobilised.

Enforcement will be against the driver, rather than the haulier or freight forwarder who has formal responsibility for completing the customs paperwork. This is because the offence of driving while not having a valid KAP, ignoring the Operation Brock contraflow, or driving without a valid Brock permit would be committed by the driver of the vehicle. Under the relevant legislation, police and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), enforcement officers are only able to fine those that are not following the road traffic legislation. This would remain the case even if somebody else had completed the ‘Check an HGV’ service declaration on the driver’s behalf.

We intend to set the fines for not having a valid KAP at £300, as with the 2019 Operation Brock fines. We believe that a £300 fine will act as a suitable punishment and deterrent. Setting a higher fine would break precedent with what has been done previously under the relevant primary legislation (the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988).

Question 3: do you agree that, in the event of service failure, we should conduct manual border readiness checks, to reduce the impact of potential delays on the Short Straits, instead?

Over 60 % of respondents agreed that if the ‘Check an HGV’ service were for any reason not to be available then manual border readiness checks should take place:

Answer	Response proportion of 113 respondees (%)
Yes	61
No	27
Don’t know	12

What we proposed

If traffic disruption occurs, a viable border readiness regime is critical to maintaining the flow of traffic at the border after the end of the transition period. While upstream declarations using the ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border’ service is our preferred option, we’ve developed contingency plans in case the ‘Check an HGV’ service is unavailable (for example, due to post-deployment IT failure).

Government response

The amended SIs have been drafted in such a way as to allow the Secretary of State to dispense with the requirement for HCVs to have a Kent Access Permit if the ‘Check an HGV’ service is unavailable for any reason. In such circumstances, the change would be clearly communicated to HCV drivers and the wider border industry.

In these circumstances, and following this consultation, we intend that manual border readiness checks would be conducted at holding facilities if lorries are held there. If the KRF considers it to be safe and essential to do so, there also remains an option to revert to manual border readiness checks in static queues within the Operation Brock queuing system.

We consider that this would be proportionate risk mitigation should the service be unavailable:

• it will prevent HCV drivers from being unfairly penalised for not having a KAP when they have no way to get one

• the additional cost will be minimal as the ‘Check an HGV’ service compliance checking staff and the manual border readiness check developed for spot checks could be used

• most importantly, it would provide an alternative means of reducing the number of unready HCVs reaching the ports

Question 4: if possible, do you think that automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) should be used with the ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border’ service?

The majority of respondents thought that ANPR should be used to assist enforcement of the requirement to use the ‘Check an HGV’ service:

Answer	Response proportion of 113 respondees (%)
Yes	79
No	19
Don’t know	2

What we proposed

We explained how the use of ANPR cameras could aid enforcement by spotting vehicles without a valid KAP.

Government response

With the support of consultation respondents, we intend that when Operation Brock is in a state of fluid flow ANPR cameras will be used to spot non-compliant vehicles and aid enforcement.

The ANPR camera (in conjunction with weigh-in-motion sensors) will capture the vehicle registration number (VRN) of a passing truck, and check it against a ‘vehicle of interest’ list held by the ‘Check an HGV’ service. If the service determines that a Kent Access Permit is not present, it will send a message to enforcement officers downstream of the camera who could choose to intercept the HCV and impose penalties and redirect the haulier.

The ‘Check an HGV’ service will be connected to the DVSA’s network of ANPR cameras in Kent. The real-time communication between the ANPR system and the service will provide a significant enhancement of the overall enforcement approach.

Question 5: do you think this overall approach regarding permits for hauliers based in East Kent is the right one?

Respondents agreed that hauliers based in East Kent should be able to continue to use local roads to move goods around the county without risking enforcement action, but should nevertheless be required to have a Kent Access Permit (KAP) if they are making cross-Channel journeys via the Short Straits:

Answer	Response proportion of 114 respondees (%)
Yes	63
No	23
Don’t know	14

What we proposed

Under our proposals, HCV drivers working for hauliers based in East Kent will be able to continue to use local roads to move goods around the county without risking enforcement action.

However, if these East Kent HCV drivers are travelling to the Short Straits ports, they’ll still be required to use the ‘Check an HGV’ service and to obtain a KAP before commencing their journeys. The risk of unready HCVs leading to substantial delays at the border applies to all operators, regardless of where they’re based.

Government response

Most consultation respondents supported this approach. Accordingly, we intend that before proceeding to Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover, East Kent based hauliers will need to have used the ‘Check an HGV’ service and secured a KAP, and if they’ve not they’ll risk enforcement action.

They’ll however also have access to Local Haulier Permits (LHP) to demonstrate that they’ve the right to use only the prescribed routes to reach the Port of Dover or Eurotunnel. This will be delivered under the 2019 plan through a physical LHP as issued by Kent County Council. The LHPs are planned to be made available to those hauliers based in East Kent.

Question 6: do you think implementing prioritisation of certain goods as part of Operation Brock as a contingency is the right approach?

Over half of the respondents agreed that HCVs carrying a very small range of goods identified by the Government (single loads of day-old chicks (DOCs) and live and fresh seafood products for human consumption) should be able to access a priority route:

Answer	Response proportion of 113 respondees (%)
Yes	58
No	33
Don’t know	10

What we proposed

We outlined that there may be a need for a contingency plan which would provide certain commodities the opportunity to bypass part of the Operation Brock system if queues build up.

We set out the government’s view that prioritisation of goods would be justifiable if 2 or more of the following criteria were met:

• the goods are highly perishable and will lose most of, or all their value, within 5 days or less (for example, without additional refrigeration, freezing or other intervention, which would not be possible)
• the ‘perishable’ goods concerned are live animals and would give rise to animal welfare concerns if not moved in a timely manner
• delays to the goods would give rise to a disproportionate economic impact on a geographical area of the UK

Based upon the criteria above, the government identified 2 sectors where a contingency to prioritise goods would be justifiable. These were single loads of live or fresh seafood products for human consumption, or of day-old chicks. These products are highly perishable and are highly dependent upon being exported through the Short Straits (as the most efficient route to the EU market, or as transit for onward movement to third countries) in a timely and financially viable fashion. DOCs are live animals and must arrive at their destination within 72 hours of hatching, to ensure compliance with animal health legislation. They cannot be fed in their vehicle and delays risk dehydration and mortality.

Government response

The overall response to the proposed contingency arrangements for prioritising these goods was positive, so we’ll be taking forward our proposals.

Defra estimates that on average about 70 HCVs a day would be carrying live or fresh seafood products or DOCs. In the context of the overall volumes of vehicles using the Short Straits, we consider that this is a small enough number to accommodate such arrangements. A specific route for the prioritised vehicles has been agreed with the KRF, with use of the contraflow past the Operation Brock queues by outbound HCVs conditional on having a ‘priority goods permit’. Using the contraflow without the requisite permit could see the HCV driver stopped and fined.

In summary, implementation of a prioritisation approach will work as follows:

• a driver of a prioritised HCV would need to obtain a valid KAP from the ‘Check an HGV’ service

• they would then be instructed to travel to a Prioritisation Control Site (PCS) where the presence of a valid KAP would be confirmed. If they do not have a valid KAP, they’d be liable to be issued with an FPN and fine. Further guidance on the location of the PCS and the instructions on when the site is in use will be confirmed shortly

• if the ‘Check an HGV’ service were unavailable, a manual border readiness check would also be conducted at the PCS

• an HCV carrying prioritised exports that was deemed to be border ready and with a valid KAP, will be issued with a physical Priority Goods Permit and 2 retro-reflective stickers (one to be displayed at the front and back of the vehicle), and would be allowed to proceed down the priority route to the border, using the contraflow to bypass the Operation Brock queues

To reduce the risk of abuse, document checks and some spot checks (that is, physical inspections of the cargo of the HCV) would be conducted at the PCS to ensure the load is as stated, and qualifies for prioritisation.

Those found to be abusing the system, that is, not carrying only priority goods, would be issued a £300 fine and instructed, if in possession of a valid KAP, to proceed via the normal, prescribed route, joining any queues that have formed

No further commodities have been deemed to meet the criteria for prioritisation for the purpose of this contingency plan

Next steps

The amendments to the SIs are planned to be laid in Parliament in October 2020, enabling the enforcement of Operation Brock to be operational on 1 January 2021.

We’ll continue to engage with stakeholders to help hauliers understand what will be required at the end of the transition period. Among other measures, DfT will open ‘Information and Advice Sites’ across the UK at strategic locations on the UK road network. Enhanced for 2020, the Information and Advice Sites will supplement the information provided on GOV.UK and provide hauliers and haulage managers with the opportunity to discuss the changes and what they mean for them directly with our teams.

Support will also be available to hauliers in their own language. An updated Haulier Handbook will be available in printed and digital formats in multiple languages. These sites will also provide advisory readiness checks from 1 January 2021 to assist hauliers wishing to check whether they have the correct paperwork before heading towards a port.

We’ll ensure we have a presence at a broad range of industry events and will use advertising and sponsorship both physically and digitally to disseminate this information to hauliers and the haulage industry in the UK, EU and elsewhere.

We’ll also continue to work with the KRF in order to operationalise Operation Brock and related plans, to mitigate against any disruption at the end of the transition period.

Other common themes raised in responses to the consultation

Suggestions and issues raised

The consultation sought views from both individuals and organisations on the proposed amendments to the SIs. While most stakeholders agreed with our proposals, there were some common themes, issues and suggestions.

This section addresses the more recurring issues and comments regarding the consultation proposals, seeking to answer or clarify statements or queries.

The ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border’ service

The ‘Check an HGV’ service is an online service for the Roll-on-Roll-off (RoRo) freight industry being developed by the government. The service will help to simplify and ‘upstream’ the process of establishing the border-readiness of an HCV, to help mitigate the risk of delays.

The service will ask questions relating to the expected EU customs and import controls at the border to ensure the HCV driver has the necessary documents before they travel. Questions on the ‘Check an HGV’ service will include:

• VRN number
• whether the driver has the correct documentation for the commodities being transported
• when the HCV is expected to arrive at the Port of Dover or Eurotunnel

Based on the answers to these questions and what documents the HCV driver has obtained, the ‘Check an HGV’ service would inform the HCV driver if they’re border ready or not. The service would give advice to the HCV driver on a ‘traffic light system’ basis:

• Green: all relevant documentation has been declared present, and goods may be taken to the port
• Amber: documentation has been declared present, but goods can only be taken to the port after the HCV driver has gone to an HMRC office of departure or a 3rd-party authorised consignor to complete customs processes and obtain an MRN barcode
• Red: some or all documentation is missing, and goods should not be taken to port

HCV drivers who get a ‘red’ result would be advised not to take goods to the port as they may not be able to complete their journey, and could cause a delay to other traffic.

The ‘Check an HGV’ service will be able to tell the HCV driver why they got a ‘red’ result, and provide links to guidance on GOV.UK and other sources of advice and support.

This will help the HCV driver, or a person acting on their behalf, to engage with the trader to rectify the situation, obtain missing documents and recheck if they’re border-ready before starting their journey. This could help avoid delays and, as some documentation cannot be provided electronically, prevent costly round trips to obtain missing documentation.

As discussed earlier, following this consultation the government will amend the Brock SIs to make the use of the ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border’ service mandatory for HCVs travelling through Kent to the Short Straits. The digital delivery of the ‘Check an HGV’ service will have 2 elements:

• a web-based service which enables the HCV driver, or someone acting on their behalf, to self-declare if they have all the documentation they need to take goods across the Short Straits
• an operator application which enables enforcement officials to confirm that a vehicle is registered on the ‘Check an HGV’ service, and to see the outcome of their self-declaration in terms of whether they have a valid KAP

Supporting other British ports

Our analysis suggests that, if disruption occurs at the end of the transition period, traffic heading towards Port of Dover and Eurotunnel is clearly at greatest risk of significant disruption. Comparatively, other British ports that support RoRo services to the EU have much smaller volumes of traffic, and the impacts on their road networks even in the reasonable worst-case scenario are anticipated to be very considerably smaller.

Nevertheless, we’ll continue to work closely with the Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) or their equivalents across Great Britain to ensure that:

• there’s adequate consideration of potential traffic impacts resulting from the imposition of new checks at EU ports
• where necessary, LRFs implement appropriate local traffic management plans

The ‘Check an HGV’ service will be deployed nationally, outside Kent on an advisory basis. This will help all HCV drivers taking goods from GB to the EU, not just those using the Short Straits, to be more confident that they are carrying the right documents to get through EU ports. We’re working with LRFs outside Kent to see how their post-transition traffic management plans can take account of the service.

For goods going to/from Northern Ireland from/to the Republic of Ireland, or to/from GB from/to Northern Ireland, please see The UK’s approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol for more details.

Domestic journeys

If an HCV is making a domestic journey to or within Kent and will not be travelling across the Short Straits to the EU, there will be no requirement for the driver to use the ‘Check an HGV’ service to gain a KAP.

However, it’s advisable that all drivers who are transporting goods domestically carry paperwork detailing their journey so any possible delays can be minimised. Proportionate enforcement will be used whereby enforcement officers will use discretion to avoid unnecessary delays to HCV drivers who are making domestic journeys.

Enforcement during different phases of Operation Brock

If Operation Brock is in a state of fluid flow, HCVs not in possession of a KAP will be identified on the basis of vehicle registration numbers, either by enforcement officials or ANPR cameras. These vehicles could then be intercepted further down the road network by police or other enforcement officers and issued with a penalty.

A decision to intercept would of course always be based on operational and safety factors. If it was safe to do so and did not risk causing more congestion, the HCV will be pulled over and, if appropriate, a fine could be issued. An HCV without a valid KAP could also be instructed to leave Kent and not return without completion of the necessary paperwork.

If Operation Brock enters a period of static queues due to congestion on the Brock routes reaching high levels, HCVs may be directed to the holding locations within the Brock system.

In such circumstances, when traffic is static for a sufficient time, compliance checkers could additionally conduct vehicle-to-vehicle checks to ascertain whether drivers are in possession of a valid KAP and if they are they would be issued with a Brock permit. This process is better suited to off-road sites, but we’ll keep all options open for the KRF to provide maximum operational freedom. In these circumstances, this compliance check would effectively replace the manual border readiness check planned for 2019 and would be quicker and easier because of the ‘Check an HGV’ service. This process will only be used if it is safe to do so and helps to improve traffic flows.

In these circumstances, compliance checkers will additionally select a percentage of HCV drivers with a KAP to undergo a manual border readiness check to see if it’s a valid KAP. This ‘spot check’ will help ensure that fraudulent or careless declarations were not being made (for example, where a driver self-declared that they had all documentation to get a ‘Green’ or ‘Amber’ result when in fact they did not). Spot checks may also be conducted in free flow, where a select number of vehicles could be directed to a nearby site.

Where a valid KAP is not present, because they had made a fraudulent or careless declaration, had travelled in contravention of an instruction not to (due to a ‘Red’ result), or had failed to use the ‘Check an HGV’ service, the HCV driver will be subject to a fine.

As with such vehicles intercepted when the system is in ‘free flow’, they could also be instructed to leave Kent to return to their base or trader and only return once ‘border ready’.

Our proposed approach to compliance and enforcement will vary depending on which phase Operation Brock is in, including which HCV holding locations are mobilised and take advantage of the ‘Check an HGV’ operator application.

COVID-19

We’ve been working with the KRF to develop the Kent traffic management plans and will ensure that operational plans, including compliance and enforcement, take account, where necessary, of any COVID-19 measures in force. These measures will protect both the staff involved in the traffic management plans and also the drivers who are stopped within the system.

Vans

Some respondents queried what would be required of vans or light goods vehicles (LGVs) weighing 7.5 tonnes or under, and how they’d be checked for border readiness.

The amended SIs for Operation Brock in 2021 (like the 2019 SIs) only cover vehicles above 7.5 tonnes and as such our upstream border readiness checks will not apply to vans.

There will therefore be no requirement for vans to use the ‘Check an HGV’ service, although they can use it if desired to confirm whether they have the relevant documentation before travelling.

Vans or other vehicles transporting goods will of course still be required to have the relevant customs and export documentation to travel from GB to the EU and could face significant difficulties on arrival at the French border if they’re not in place.

Safety during manual enforcement checks

There was concern amongst some respondents about the safety of manual enforcement checks.

Manual enforcement checks will be conducted by trained enforcement officers, and will not be conducted if the safety of the driver, officer or other road users is compromised.

Ensuring the ‘Check an HGV’ service is accessible to all

Some respondents requested clarification on whether the ‘Check an HGV’ service will be usable by those with accessibility needs.

The government has actively considered the needs of blind and partially-sighted people in accessing this service. The text will be made available in full on the department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats.

The government is taking further measures to ensure that the ‘Check an HGV’ service is as accessible as possible. These measures include:

• the service being made available in languages besides English and Welsh, based on those most commonly spoken by HCV drivers regularly using the Short Straits from GB to the EU
• the service will be in line with GOV.UK accessibility standards
• to gain a KAP, the ‘Check an HGV’ service does not need to be completed by the driver and can instead be completed on behalf of the driver by the haulier, freight forwarder or trader

Fraudulent declarations

Some respondents asked for clarification on what will happen if fraudulent or careless declarations are made on the ‘Check an HGV’ service.

Where there are Operation Brock queues, compliance checkers will select a percentage of HCV drivers with a KAP to undergo a manual border readiness check to see if it is a valid KAP. This ‘spot check’ will help ensure that fraudulent or careless declarations were not being made (for example, where a driver self-declared that they had all documentation to get a ‘Green’ or ‘Amber’ result when in fact they did not).

If an HCV driver is found to have made a fraudulent or careless declaration on the ‘Check an HGV’ service, they’ll be subject to the £300 fine and their vehicle could be immobilised if they do not pay.

Alongside this, HCVs will still need to be ‘border ready’ to cross the Short Straits regardless of whether they have been provided with a KAP and risk being stopped at the EU border if they do not have the correct paperwork.

Kent Access Permit

Some stakeholders sought clarification on what would happen if HCV drivers were stuck in Operation Brock queues, which might mean their KAP expires. There was also a suggestion to offer an annual KAP for HCV drivers that make regular journeys across the Short Straits.

The KAP will be valid for a 24-hour period. When completing the ‘Check an HGV’ service, the driver - or whoever is filling it in on their behalf - will be able to select the date and time at which they would like the KAP. The government believes that 24 hours will offer a sufficient window for the HCV driver, should they arrive earlier than expected or be delayed in Operation Brock queues. In the event of long delays, operational decisions will be made of the validity of the KAPs.

It would not be practical to offer annual KAPs, because:

• HCV drivers may use different vehicles which would have different VRNs: the ‘Check an HGV’ service requires the VRN so that ANPR can work in conjunction with compliance and enforcement
• the service requires HCV drivers to declare what they’re transporting and whether they have the correct documentation, which could change over different journeys

Raising awareness of the ‘Check an HGV’ service

We’re working on several fronts to make haulage companies and HCV drivers aware of what will be required of them, to minimise non-compliance with the ‘Check an HGV’ service through lack of knowledge.

These initiatives include:

• information and advice sites at locations frequently used by HCV drivers around Great Britain
• the government’s “Check, Change, Go” campaign
• social media
• DfT and partner mailing lists and bulletins
• the government’s Border Operating Model

Driver welfare

The KRF’s Operation Perch plans form part of the Operation Fennel suite dealing with potential disruption at the end of the transition period. It’s focused on passenger (that is, non-freight) traffic management, including tourist, local and coach traffic.

Closely related is the KRF’s Driver Welfare plan, which is a multi-agency arrangement to provide ‘reasonable and proportionate’ welfare to both passenger and freight traffic during significant congestion. It covers the deployment of food, water, medicine, warmth and sanitation.

This work is led by Kent County Council (KCC) on behalf of the KRF. DfT is working with KCC to develop plans for the end of the transition period taking account of potential COVID-19 measures.

Speed limits and safety of Operation Brock

Several residents expressed concern over the safety of Operation Brock, including the speed limits of HCVs. The new moveable barrier between J8-9 of the M20 will represent a real improvement in comparison to the previous metal barrier, as once a specialist vehicle is in place it can be deployed simply, safely, and quickly.

Additionally, it’s been designed to enable the M20 to be kept open at times of disruption, as well as allowing the motorway to retain 3 lanes, a hard shoulder and 70 mph speed limits in both directions when the barrier is not deployed. This will benefit the residents and communities of Kent by keeping heavy goods traffic off local roads.

To promote road safety, as well as speed camera enforcement on the M20, both UK and foreign-registered HCVs can be prosecuted for speeding offences, and routine police patrols can and do stop vehicles found to be breaking the law.

The government will work with the KRF to put measures in place when Operation Brock is active to ensure HCV drivers and other road users are aware of the arrangements in operation. These measures include:

• additional signing
• additional CCTV
• extra traffic-officer patrols
• enhanced incident management
• raised levels of free recovery to keep the carriageway moving and recover from incidents quickly

Annex A

Policy rationale

Policy background

In 2015, when Operation Stack ^{[footnote 3]} was deployed for an extended period due to industrial action, there were significant traffic management problems causing HGVs to be stacked up on the M20 for several days. There were low levels of compliance with the traffic management system then in place. A significant number of cross-Channel trucks avoided the queuing system by seeking alternative routes throughout the county of Kent.

This caused serious traffic problems on the local road network and brought gridlock to parts of the county, with consequential impacts on the local economy, tourism and the haulage industry. Kent police found it difficult to manage the ‘rat-running’ on local roads and did not have an enforceable method to deter drivers from taking these routes. The department and Kent stakeholders are keen to ensure that we should avoid a repeat of this experience in light of any disruption at the end of the EU transition period.

Operation Brock is a coordinated multi-agency response to situations of cross-Channel travel disruption, when capacity for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to leave the UK through the Port of Dover or the Channel Tunnel is significantly restricted. The KRF, with support from the DfT, developed this new approach, which has been deployable from March 2019.

It’s intended as a replacement for Operation Stack and has been specifically designed to keep the M20 motorway in Kent open in both directions, with access to junctions, even in periods of severe and protracted disruption. This is achieved through a contraflow system which enables all other traffic to travel in both directions on the London-bound carriageway when cross-Channel trucks are stored on the coastbound carriageway.

At the end EU Transition Period on 31 December 2020, whatever the outcome of the trade talks with the EU, full customs declarations will be required for all goods imports and exports shipped between Great Britain and the EU. With the new requirement to provide customs paperwork at the borders, this will inevitably cause delays at the border, slowing down the through-put of traffic and therefore causing congestion on the local networks. There are also concerns on the level of trader readiness before travel. The BPDG currently assume only 30% ^{[footnote 4]} trader readiness before travel. This could cause further delays at the ports as unready vehicles will need to be turned around.

The ‘Check an HGV is Ready to Cross the Border Service’ (also known as the ‘Check an HGV’ service) could allow part of the border readiness checking process to be moved away from Kent. A haulier (a HGV driver), or an entity acting on their behalf, would use the service web-portal to input their vehicle registration number, and answer a series of questions that then determines if they are border ready.

The ‘Check an HGV’ service web-portal would provide a clear go/no-go instruction to hauliers based on their answers and it can be supported by a suitable enforcement regime fining HGV drivers £300 for not using the service and complying with the service. This is intended to deter unready hauliers from travelling to Kent. The more effective the deterrent, the more hauliers will use service and comply with an instruction. The web-portal would be supplemented by an operator application, which would allow the user (for example, an enforcement agent) to scan a vehicle registration number and determine if an HGV is ready to cross the border.

In 2019 DfT developed an enforcement plan using secondary legislation with Kent traffic management plans to aid compliance with the Brock system which is a significant improvement on previous arrangements. The current SIs have a sunset clause which ends on 31 December 2020 and require amending to include the use of the ‘Check an HGV’ service and the proposed changes to the traffic management plans.

Problem under consideration

This regulatory provision aims to prevent disruption at the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel that will cause congestion on the lead up to those ports, resulting in significant delivery delays.

The expected problem is that HGVs will arrive at the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel without the correct documentation. Increased physical border readiness checks and having to turn around some HGVs would result in high levels of disruption.

We expect that once hauliers are familiar with the new processes and requirements to take goods across the EU, compliance will increase. Therefore, this regulatory provision will be sunset in 10 months.

Rationale for intervention

There’s a 2-part market failure justifying intervention here, an information problem and a negative externality.

Drivers and hauliers may be unaware of their border readiness obligations. Compelling them to use a service that asks them simple questions and then provides binding advice on whether they can travel and if not provides information on the missing documentation required for travel.

Secondly, even where drivers and hauliers are aware of their border readiness obligations, they will only consider the costs and benefits of their decisions to themselves. However, should a driver decide the personal benefits of proceeding without the correct documentation outweigh the personal costs, they are not factoring in the costs of congestion, increased journey times, pollution and the increased probability of accidents that will be borne by all other road users. This policy aims to address this gap by increasing the private cost (through fines for non-compliance) to the driver of proceeding without the correct documentation.

Policy objective

The specific aims of this policy are to minimise disruption at the Short Straits and on the Kent Strategic Road Network. This may not fully remove disruption as some drivers may not be deterred from travelling, however, it aims to minimise this as much as possible by addressing the 2 driving causes identified in the rationale for intervention.

Options considered

The options for the Kent traffic management statutory instruments (SIs) and their associated costs, benefits and risks include:

• Option 0 – do nothing: at the end of the transition period, we do not provide traffic management and border readiness checks in advance of meeting the border to minimise the disruption at the Short Straits and ensure compliance of the process – this option is not recommended as it could lead to severe congestion in Kent and cause significant disruption to goods travelling through the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel.

• Option 1 – enforceable traffic management and border readiness checks in Kent. At the end of the transition period, we’ll have additional SI powers, traffic restrictions and border readiness checks in Kent to ensure compliance with ‘Operation Brock’. The measures would support an enforcement plan to aid compliance with the Operation Brock traffic management system, which will mitigate the risk of disruption at the Short Straits and ensure strategic roads in Kent continue to move. However, the border readiness checks, which could take up to six minutes per HGV, risk additional queues forming in Kent and disruption to HGV drivers if there are high levels of unready vehicles that continue to travel to the Short Straits. The powers would be available regardless of the cause of cross-Channel disruption. There’s a known risk of this occurring at the end of the transition period from 1 January 2021.

• Option 2 (preferred option) – enforceable traffic management and the use of electronic border readiness checking. Similar to option 1, we’ll have additional powers and traffic restrictions in Kent but the border readiness checks will be conducted using an electronic checking system, the ‘Check an HGV’ service, to ensure vehicles are ready before travelling to the Short Straits. This is the preferred approach as it reduces the numbers of unready HGVs travelling to the ports and moves the border readiness checks process away from Kent. This is the preferred approach as it reduces the numbers of unready HGVs travelling to the ports and moves the border readiness checks process away from Kent. Again, the powers would be available regardless of the cause of cross-Channel disruption. There’s a known risk of this occurring at the end of the transition period from 1 January 2021.

Costs and benefits

Baseline - the status acquis persists

The UK has left the EU and is now in a transition period. For the duration of the transition period, the UK has agreed to be bound by EU rules. There is a risk of cross-Channel disruption unrelated to the UK leaving the EU in which the traffic management powers in option 1 could still be used. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, a status acquis baseline is used, where we measure the impacts against the current arrangements. We have not monetised any impact for proportionality. However, we would expect the net impact on business to be minimal.

Option 0 – do nothing

Under option 0, no intervention would be made meaning HGV drivers would continue to travel to the Short Straits without any prior border readiness checks or under any specific statutory regulation. It’s assumed there would be no direct cost to HGV operators as they can continue to operate without any prior border readiness checks, as they do currently.

The number of HGVs travelling to the border is expected to be similar in comparison to the baseline option. Severe disruption to the flow of traffic would be expected as the UK would not be providing traffic management legislation in light of new customs rules so the negative impact on the economy is considered to be large.

The do-nothing option would not achieve the policy objective of minimising border disruption. As the UK emerges into economic recovery following the impact of COVID-19, there will still be a risk to traffic disruption which may lead to increased closure of major roads in Kent and have some knock-on effect on the UK economy. The negative costs associated with these issues will continue to occur with no regulatory scheme in place to try and limit the number of HGVs arriving at the border without the correct paperwork.

Option 1 – enforceable traffic management and border readiness checks in Kent

This option would involve additional powers to set up traffic management and border readiness checks in Kent to ensure compliance with Operation Brock. There will be some impact on compliant businesses who are required to provide documentation. However, this will be while vehicles are queuing, therefore we have assumed there’s no additional time cost to business for these checks.

The legislation will not introduce any additional costs as these compliance checks would only occur if there’s already a queue. It’s not the intention to worsen congestion by stopping HGVs for border readiness checks if they could otherwise flow freely. These checks will only be undertaken when there are delays at ports, they would not be conducted if the traffic was free-flowing. The cost of the fixed penalty to non-compliant hauliers is excluded from the business impact target in line with the better regulation framework.

There’s the potential for some knock-on-impacts, for example, non-compliant vehicles that are turned-back may cause additional congestion on the network, however, the net impact on traffic flow is expected to improve over time as more hauliers become border ready. Cost to businesses is expected to fall well below the threshold of £5m equivalent annual net direct cost to business (EANDCB).

There may be traffic flow improvements, should these powers be used for traffic flow management not related to operation brock and the end of the transition period. As these powers would only be used in exceptional circumstances for proportionality, these impacts have not been assessed.

Option 2 – enforceable traffic management and the use of electronic border readiness checking

Option 2 proposes to introduce the ‘Check an HGV’ service to allow road hauliers to conduct border readiness checks to ensure vehicles are ready before travelling to the border. It is assumed businesses would now have to bear the familiarisation costs of using ‘Check an HGV’ service for the first time and an ongoing admin cost for repeated trips to the Short Straits.

UK-registered HGVs as a proportion of total HGVs flows per year for the Short Straits (including Eurotunnel and Dover traffic) is around 11% with foreign HGVs representing around 87%. Table 1 shows HGV flows over the last 5 years:

Table 1: UK and foreign registered vehicles for the Short Straits ^{[footnote 5]}

Year	UK	%	Foreign	%	Total
2015	225,000	11	1,760,000	88	1,985,000
2016	215,000	11	1,770,000	89	1,985,000
2017	210,000	11	1,760,000	89	1,970,000
2018	210,000	11	1,720,000	89	1,930,000
2019	200,000	11	1,650,000	89	1,850,000
Average	210,000	11	1,730,000	89	1,940,000

Congestion is expected to be lower than the do-nothing option if HGVs confirm border readiness before travelling to Kent. The reduced disruption compared to the baseline is likely to cause minimal impact on goods travelling to Europe, and, the overall effect on the UK economy is expected to be positive. The following table shows the monetised impacts of option 2:

Monetised impact (Table 1)

Costs	Direct or indirect impact?	Explanation	Scenario costs (£ million) 2020 prices (low/central/high)
Familiarisation costs for UK and foreign HGV drivers	Direct (to business)	HGV drivers will need to familiarise themselves with the ‘Check an HGV’ service. This is assumed to be a one-off transition cost that will be incurred when the regulation is introduced on 1 January 2021.	£0.7 / £2.0 / £3.9
Ongoing admin costs for HGV drivers for repeated trips	Direct (to business)	HGV drivers will need to account for the admin costs of using ‘Check an HGV’ service for repeated trips. This is assumed to be direct and ongoing cost per year.	£6.5 / £17.6 / £35.1
Cost to roll out the ‘Check an HGV’ service	Direct (to government)	The Government will incur costs for rolling out the ‘Check an HGV’ service nationwide. BPDG is expected to bear the costs for this service and hauliers will not need to pay to use this service.	We were expecting the user engagement and industry responses to the consultation document would help inform us on cost estimates to government. However, we were unable to use these sources.

Non-monetised impact

Costs	Explanation
Enforcement costs for Kent police / DVSA	There are resourcing costs to Kent police and DVSA to administer and enforce the new regulations. There is also resourcing costs to DfT to train and administer border readiness checks to check for compliance. Both Kent police and DVSA will have the power to impose a £300 fixed penalty fine for non-compliance to border readiness checks. Any disputes on fines will potentially lead to costs for the courts to process justice outcomes.
National awareness campaign	BPDG may incur some costs associated with increasing awareness of the new regulations put in place. An awareness campaign would be a one-off cost but would be expected to improve benefits as more HGVs become border ready.
Local congestion and business impacts	Even though the KAP enforces against ‘rat-running’, there could still be increased congestion on local roads in Kent if HGVs decide to change routes to avoid queues as a result of traffic management and border readiness checks. This may have a knock-on effect on local businesses.

Benefits	Explanation
Journey time saving	Disruption on major roads in Kent may fall once the ‘Check an HGV’ service is introduced and this could potentially lead to journey time savings for HGVs.
Reduced journey variability	Improving the flow of traffic by ensuring border checks are done prior to travelling to Kent will likely reduce journey variability and make journeys smoother.

Sensitivity analysis

Assumptions

There’s a lack of evidence surrounding the true extent of the ‘Check an HGV’ service in ensuring border readiness and addressing disruption as this measure is novel and has yet to be tested out as the service is not yet available and we’re still in the EU transition period.

We’ve therefore made several assumptions as to its impact in achieving the policy objective. Table 2 outlines the methodology and assumption used to estimate the costs and benefits that feed into the analysis for option 2. It’s important to note that the assumptions in Table 2 are illustrative and not necessarily an indication of reality.

We’ve used a cautious approach to estimate familiarisation cost as currently it’s based on the flow of HGVs over a 1-year period. However, the ‘Check an HGV’ service will be legislated for traffic management for around 10 months.

Familiarisation costs

Summary of method:

• the total number of HGVs that fall in scope of the mandatory ‘Check an HGV’ service is estimated
• the assumed total hours spent by HGV drivers to familiarise themselves with service is estimated and multiplied by the hourly wage. The wage is also multiplied by an uplift rate to account for non-wage costs of familiarisation, in line with TAG guidance
• this familiarisation time cost is assumed to be a one-off cost that will be incurred when the ‘Check an HGV’ service is introduced
• HGVs will incur admin costs for using the service for repeated trips. This is assumed to be ongoing but the time costs will be less than the familiarisation cost, as drivers will be more familiar with using the service
• the proportion of HGVs that are considered empty running to estimate the reduced business impact on this sub-sector

Table 2

Assumption	Source	Further information	Scenario (low/central/high)
Number of HGVs that pass through the Short Straits per year	DfT freight statistics Table RORO0301	We have a breakdown of the number of UK registered vehicles (RORO0601) and number of foreign HGVs (RORO0701). The central estimate is based on the average number of HGVs (both UK and foreign) over a 5-year period from 2014 – 2019. The low and high scenarios use the lowest and highest estimates over this period.	1.8m / 1.9m / 2m
Number of HGVs considered empty running per year	DfT port statistics team 2019 figures	The 2019 figures for empty running HGVs are: Dover 27% and Channel Tunnel 17%, both figures have been used for our high and low scenarios respectively. We’ve used the average estimate of 22% for our central scenario.	17% / 22% / 27%
Average hourly wage for HGV drivers (£)	ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2019) – Table 14 [footnote 6]. Hourly pay, excluding overtime Row 443	Central estimate uses mean hourly pay (£) for all large goods vehicle drivers. Excluding over time. Low and High estimates are the 10th and 90th percentile values, respectively. Hourly wages have been inflated to 2020 prices.	£9.50 / £12.45 / £15.99
Number of hours required by drivers (HGV loaded) for familiarisation	Stakeholder engagement (HMT)	+/- 30 mins scenarios used to address uncertainty. This range is based on departmental expert opinion.	0.5 / 1 / 1.5
Number of hours required by drivers (HGV empty running) for familiarisation	Stakeholder engagement (HMT)	Assumed that empty running HGVs will still need to use the ‘Check an HGV’ service but the time for familiarisation will be much shorter than loaded HGVs. +/- 20 mins scenarios used to address uncertainty. This range is based on departmental expert opinion.	0.33 / 0.66 / 1
Non-wage cost uplift	In line with Better Regulation guidance.	Uplift on hourly wage estimates to account for non-wage costs of familiarisation.	30%
Average number of trips per HGV	EU HGV Levy		5 / 10 / 15
Number of hours required by drivers (HGV loaded repeated trips) for ongoing admin cost to use the ‘Check an HGV’ service	Stakeholder engagement (HMT)	+/- 20 mins scenarios used to address uncertainty. This range is based on departmental expert opinion.	0.33 / 0.66 / 1
Number of hours required by drivers (HGV empty running repeated trips) for ongoing admin cost to use ‘Check an HGV’ service	Stakeholder engagement (HMT)	+/- 10 mins scenarios used to address uncertainty. This range is based on departmental expert opinion.	0.16 / 0.33 / 0.5

Direct costs and benefits to business calculations (Business Impact Target)

Option 0:

No direct business costs have been monetised in the built-in test (BIT) analysis, as this option does not propose any legislative changes, and any actions taken by businesses would fall outside the scope for EANDCB. The EANDCB score is estimated as £0 million.

Option 1:

Option 1 would not introduce any additional costs to UK businesses as compared to the status quo. Compliance checks would only occur if there is already a queue so businesses would not have to undertake any border readiness checks prior to travelling but when there is a queue, businesses would face disruption costs. The EANDCB score is estimated as £0 million.

Option 2:

BIT analysis has included the transitional one-off familiarisation costs associated with the new ‘Check an HGV’ service scheme and the on-going admin burden for businesses wanting to make repeated trips. The analysis is based only on UK registered goods vehicles. The net impact on UK businesses has been estimated to be around £0.8m (low scenario), £2.1 million (central estimate) and £4.3 million (high scenario). Therefore, the impact of option 2 on UK businesses is below the £5 million EANDCB threshold.

Small and Micro Business Assessment (SAMBA)

Option 0: There will be no regulation put in place on businesses under the ‘do-nothing’ option so we do not expect there to be a burden on small and micro-businesses.

Option 1:

There will be regulations put in place to ensure compliance with traffic management. However, we do not assume any major costs to businesses so the impact of SAMBA is expected to be negligible.

Option 2:

In the UK, 90% of the road haulage sector is considered to be made up of small and micro businesses (Table 3). The new mandatory ‘Check an HGV’ service will therefore impose costs on SMEs. An exemption is not applied, as the traffic management regulations will not be effective in achieving policy objectives as the vast majority of businesses would be exempt and the problems under consideration will not be addressed.

BEIS business population estimates for the UK and regions 2019: detailed tables ^{[footnote 7]} includes the following industry group that is expected to be directly affected by the ‘Check an HGV’ service:

• freight transport by road and removal services: 83% micro and 14% small businesses
• the number of employees is 257,000 based on the 22 thousand firms that fall under the freight transport by road industry category
• turnover is generally balanced across smaller firms with large businesses accounting for around 32%

Table 3: UK Road haulage market structure ^{[footnote 8]}

Size	Vehicles	% Veh	Firms	% Firms
<10	128,000	29%	63,000	89.9%
10 to 19	51,000	12%	4,000	5.4%
20 to 29	29,000	7%	1,000	1.8%
30 to 39	20,000	5%	600	0.8%
40 to 49	16,000	4%	400	0.5%
50 to 59	12,000	3%	200	0.3%
60 to 69	11,000	2%	200	0.2%
70 to 79	8,000	2%	100	0.2%
80 to 89	8,000	2%	100	0.1%
90 to 99	5,000	1%	100	0.1%
100+	148,000	34%	500	0.6%
Total	437,000		70,000

Risks and unintended consequences

There’s a risk of major delays post-transition period if road haulage companies fail to prepare for border readiness. Currently, 30% ^{[footnote 9]} of traders are assumed to be border-ready for 1 January 2021. But COVID-19 impacts, and a possible second wave, could hinder time required for businesses to prepare for the border changes. The requirement to complete this service, and administrative exercise to check border readiness before travel, will cause additional implications and could mean a higher risk of non-compliance at the Kent borders which would increase costs to both business (through fines) and government (through enforcement operations).

There’s also a risk that some HGV drivers may simply avoid the online border readiness checks and head to the border. This is likely to increase enforcement costs for Kent police/DVSA and the number of fines issued. We have insufficient information about drivers’ behaviours to predict the exact level of disruption and we’re using ‘No-Deal’ estimates of readiness (30%) in our planning assumptions as we’ve not been able to engage specifically on the transition period with hauliers this year due to COVID-19.

Furthermore, as the haulage industry has been considerably affected by the Coronavirus pandemic, it’s likely that they have not had the chance to consider the changes in customs and could therefore result in disruption to the flow of traffic.

There may be a risk that the ‘Check an HGV’ service technology may not be fully ready at the end of the transition period. The backup plan will be to conduct physical checks at sites in Kent (as proposed in Option 1). Therefore, the risk of rolling out the service and the costs to businesses would be nil.

Analytical assurance

The analytical assurance for this assessment is considered medium. Publicly available data published by DfT has been used to quantify the average yearly number of road haulage vehicles that pass through the Short straits. Average hourly wage has been obtained from ONS to estimate the familiarisation costs imposed on vehicles that fall in scope of the proposed measures. The analysis of congestion impacts was largely qualitative and proportionate to the timelines.

The level of uncertainty is medium given the number of assumptions made. However, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted to communicate this uncertainty and limit the risk of error. Overall, the analysis undertaken is not complex and has been reviewed by experienced analysts but has a small risk of error given minimal quality assurance on the quantitative aspects of this analysis.

1. The Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019, the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019, and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Order 2019 ↩

2. False responses were those that claimed to be from organisations that had not in fact sent them. Following a verification process with the organisations in question we discounted these false responses. ↩

3. A traffic management system in Kent used in 2015 where 1 or more sections of the M20 coastbound carriageway was used to queue HGVs. ↩

4. As of December 2019, BPDG have used user research and expert knowledge to estimate that only 30% of traders and hauliers will have prepared the necessary paperwork for changes to the imports and exports processes. ↩

5. DfT Freight statistics – Table RORO0601 and RORO0701 ↩

6. Earnings and hours worked, occupation by four-digit SOC: ASHE Table 14 ↩

7. BEIS Business population estimates 2019 ↩

8. Traffic commissioners: goods and public service vehicle operator licence records ↩

9. Expert opinion from Border and Protocol Delivery Group ↩