Draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The purpose of this statutory instrument is to introduce an alternative route for renewal of the driver certificate of professional competence, or DCPC, that will be recognised across all four nations of the United Kingdom and will offer more flexible courses than the current system, with an accelerated pathway for drivers to return to the profession. The existing process for demonstrating competence, which is recognised across Europe, will remain for drivers who operate within the European Union, and indeed Switzerland and the European economic area, and will remain valid when driving in the UK.
We are amending the existing Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. The regulations transposed EU directive 2003/59/EC and were last amended in 2020. We are amending the regulations to increase the choice and flexibility available to drivers when they renew.
Members may remember that, back in 2021, there was an acute shortage of lorry, bus and coach drivers, which caused significant disruption to critical supply chains. As part of its response, in 2021 the Department launched a review of DCPC that involved the industry, seeking views on ways to improve processes to increase recruitment and retention. Many felt that the current renewal process is inflexible and unnecessarily burdensome —in particular, the time and cost burdens of the periodic training required for the renewal of qualifications. Drivers must currently do 35 hours of training under a rigid structure, with courses being a minimum of seven hours and most being trainer led. It was identified that that contributed to drivers leaving the profession. In the 2021 review, drivers and former drivers stated that the burden of renewing the certificate of professional competence acted as a barrier to those considering joining or looking to renew their qualification, leading to people leaving the sector.
A public consultation was launched in early 2023, suggesting options for possible changes to the ways of demonstrating professional competence. That consultation, along with regular industry engagement, has informed the reforms we are proposing today to give drivers more options and greater flexibility during the renewal process, and to assist the industry in retaining and recruiting drivers. As I said, drivers currently renew their DCPC every five years in order to drive in the UK or the EU by doing 35 hours of training through a rigid system of courses, each of which is a minimum of seven hours long, with little option for e-learning. We are introducing a national qualification to sit alongside the existing international qualification. The national qualification, which will be valid across the UK, will still require 35 hours of training every five years, but courses can be shorter, with a minimum of three and a half hours, and there will be more e-learning available, with the introduction of new stand-alone e-learning courses. This flexibility was requested by many in the industry, particularly by drivers.
We are also introducing an accelerated pathway to allow drivers to return to the workforce. If a driver’s DCPC has lapsed by more than 60 days but less than two years, the driver can take a seven-hour bespoke return to driving course to gain a one-year national DCPC. That window of time was chosen to avoid drivers deliberately allowing their DCPC to lapse in order to take the accelerated return pathway, and to avoid drivers who have been out of the profession for a prolonged time from rejoining without adequate retraining. Within the 12-month validity period of their national DCPC, the driver can then do the remaining 28 hours of training to gain a full five-year national or international DCPC.
I am aware that some in the industry would have liked to abolish the DCPC entirely, and although I have some sympathy with drivers who see it as a burden based on time and cost to renew, I do believe that it is necessary for road safety and driver professionalism; overall, that was supported in the consultation. Additionally, due to the requirements of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, and other international obligations, the DCPC must be kept for most commercial international road transport.
The reforms will make renewing or regaining a DCPC much easier and more flexible for operators, particularly drivers, easing the impact on work-life balance while not reducing the quality of the education drivers receive to ensure we maintain a safe and highly professional workforce in the road freight and passenger transport sectors.
The draft regulations will make changes to the driver certificate professional competence regulations by making the renewal process more flexible for drivers operating solely in the UK, and they may help to reduce the chances of future driver shortages. We listened to stakeholders in all four nations while developing the amendments, and we expect these regulations to support the industry while ensuring a professional and safe workforce throughout the UK and beyond. To help the industry understand the more flexible training route, the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency in Great Britain and the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland will issue guidance to the industry.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
Although the draft regulations may be touted as innovative legislation, I am sure the Minister will be the first to accept that they were in fact the product of successive Conservative Governments, who, following our exit from the European Union, took the decision to simplify regulations for our hard-working hauliers by asking the industry what it needed to thrive, while of course ensuring the high standards of vehicle and driver safety that have always been upheld and enhanced. The draft regulations are a culmination of that process. Indeed, the previous Minister, Guy Opperman, is listed in the explanatory memorandum as having signed the declaration on the draft regulations. Therefore, as the previous Government would have laid this instrument anyway, the official Opposition will clearly not divide the Committee today.
The regulations deliver is the long sought-after flexibility that the industry needs to ensure that safety standards remain among the best in the world—all thanks to the work of the previous Government over the last few years. Hauliers will welcome options made available by the split between UK and international training programmes, and the means through which training is delivered—above all, the option to complete a course over a series of half days rather than full days.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us why one critical element—the incentive for hauliers to push the international training programme as a viable option for drivers—has been omitted from the regulations, risking the available pool of drivers for overseas work by essentially making that training an opt-in part of the job. Combined with the rumoured end to the previous Government’s fuel duty freeze, which has been critical to hauliers since its introduction by the Conservatives in 2011—if the rise goes ahead, hauliers estimate it could cost their businesses over £185 million a year—we must ask: who is really standing up for our hauliers and championing the vital role that they play in our economy?
I will simply end by saying that it is only because of our exit from the European Union that any of this is possible in the first place. While the Labour party in opposition sat on their hands without making any real contribution to the haulage sector, blaming Brexit for every challenge the sector has faced in recent years, it was Conservatives in government who took steps—including drafting the very regulations before us today—to support hauliers on terms that were right for the United Kingdom, not for the European Union. Although we welcome the regulations, I gently ask the Minister: what are the Government offering the haulage sector that is new?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
With brevity in mind, I will just say that the Liberal Democrats support this measure to make training more convenient for drivers and small businesses. However, given the transition to e-learning, it is imperative that the quality of training is not compromised, and we urge the Minister to monitor closely the outcomes of the changes to ensure that there is no negative impact on road safety.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire—and the hon. Member for West Dorset for their thoughtful contributions, and I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for the regulations.
As I set out in my opening comments, the Department conducted a review that ended in 2022; there is no question that this instrument continues work that started under the previous Government. If one wished to play political games, I suppose one might query why it has taken such a long time for the regulations to appear in front of a Committee—it is this Government who have ensured that they have been considered in in good time.
We continue to work closely with the haulage sector, which we are determined to support. We have already recognised the importance of freight and logistics, with new wording in the draft national planning policy framework that recognises the importance of the industry. The shadow Minister may have missed it, but in recent weeks I have also announced further funding to support improved heavy goods vehicle parking and driver welfare, and further support for the freight transport sector through the freight innovation fund. However, I am straying off the point of today’s debate.
Let me answer the question about the quality of e-learning. I am pleased that Liberal Democrats colleagues have welcomed the flexibilities introduced by this legislation. I reassure them that the Department considers 3.5 hours for stand-alone e-learning courses to be the right balance, providing increased flexibility for drivers taking their training while ensuring that the course is long enough to be meaningful. There will be an audit process and the DVSA will still approve all courses to make sure that they are of suitable quality. I raised particular concerns about how we will ensure that people are participating fully in the e-learning; I am reassured that there will be a start and end time, so drivers will not be able to scoot through the courses quickly, and that courses may include quizzes to ensure engagement and test that learning has taken place, although there are no mandatory course assessments. All courses are audited by the DVSA to check records and we will make sure that they deliver the safe standards that we want to see.
The shadow Minister asked who will undertake the international DCPC. As I am sure he will be aware, a majority of freight drivers—possibly as many as 90%—operate only within the UK, so they may well choose to do the national DCPC. Many hauliers, though, also drive across the European Union, as those routes are very important for our supply chains and for getting exports out to Europe, including the EEA and Switzerland; of course, those drivers will want to continue to do the international DCPC. Flexibility exists within the courses, so if a driver completes a seven-hour course, it will count towards either the national or international DCPC—they can easily upgrade their national DCPC to an international DCPC depending on the courses they choose to undertake to make up the 35 hours. I hope that provides the hon. Member with reassurance that this provision will continue to be available for British drivers who need to operate internationally.
These reforms to the way in which professional drivers renew their driver certificate of professional competence will provide increased flexibility to those in the sector while maintaining the original purpose of the qualification: to improve road safety and driver professionalism. To abolish the qualification would be counter to those aims, although I am interested that no one has mentioned doing so today. We did consider that possibility but decided to keep the 35 hours of training because 60% of consultation respondents supported keeping the process as it is or reforming it—and it is really important for road safety and maintaining professional skills and standards in the industry.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It was the great Mancunian Daniel Adamson who in the 1860s envisaged a northern region from the Mersey estuary to the Humber estuary, hence the Manchester ship canal; I hope that one day a Government of some ilk will finish his work and join up the northern region properly from Merseyside to the Humber estuary.
The Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023, which implemented the zero emission vehicle mandate, came into force in January this year. It sets targets for the registration of new zero emission cars and vans as a proportion of total new car and van sales. The draft order will amend the 2023 order for the purpose of facilitating the Northern Ireland Assembly’s decision that Northern Ireland should join the scheme, as well as making some technical updates. This amendment will bring Northern Ireland into alignment with the rest of the UK. It represents an important milestone on the pathway for the United Kingdom to achieve 100% zero emission new cars and vans by 2035 and net zero by 2050.
When the 2023 order was made, the Northern Ireland Assembly was not sitting. Owing to the requirements of the primary powers used to create the mandate, Northern Ireland was unable to join at the scheme’s commencement; instead, it retained a scaled version of the assimilated European regulations that had previously applied in the UK following Brexit. I am pleased to report that following the Assembly’s return, it has chosen to support joining the ZEV mandate: it approved this legislation on 14 October, thereby approving Northern Ireland’s joining the mandate. I pay tribute to the Minister for Infrastructure, John O’Dowd, and to his officials in the Department for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive for their hard work in achieving this milestone. I also thank Ministers in the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government for their support.
Once Northern Ireland has joined the ZEV mandate, the ZEV targets and carbon dioxide targets will be applied as a UK-wide average. That means that Northern Ireland’s vehicle market will not, by itself, be required to meet the headline ZEV target in 2025; instead, it will be a part of a UK-wide calculation. It also means that instead of there being two separate emissions regulations to engage with in the UK—one for Great Britain and one for Northern Ireland—there will now be a single framework for new cars and vans. The measure is accordingly supported by vehicle manufacturers, because it will reduce the administrative complexity of engaging with the UK market. It is also supported by the charging industry, as it will give investors the certainty that they need to invest in Northern Ireland as they have in the rest of the UK, where £6 billion of private investment has been committed to the end of the decade. The regulation, as it applies across the UK, is the single largest carbon-saving measure in government and is of singular importance if we are to meet our climate commitments.
The draft order will bring the whole of the UK into alignment, not just in terms of regulation but in terms of ambition for zero emission mobility. It will give investors the confidence to invest in the transition across every part of our great nations and will ensure that nowhere is left behind as our technology and economy evolve.
I am grateful to all Committee members for their attendance. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The draft order, as the Minister rightly says, is very technical in nature and will make few changes to the 2023 order. For the most part, it will simply bring the whole of our country under one set of rules by correcting the understandable omission of Northern Ireland from the original order. In the silo in which they are presented, the changes being made are broadly uncontroversial. The official Opposition will therefore not seek to divide the Committee today.
What is slightly more controversial, however, is the limit of the order and the wider questions that it poses about the Government’s approach to the ZEV mandate, our domestic automotive sector and the transition to de-fossilised and decarbonised forms of private transport. The Labour party had previously been clear that it wished to reverse the Conservative Government’s practical, pragmatic and sensible delay from 2030 to 2035 of the banning of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, yet the draft order will do no such thing: it leaves the 2035 date intact. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are leaving the 2035 date in place, which would be sensible, or whether we are set to see more orders coming forward? If so, will they come with a wider debate in the main Chamber?
What of hybrids? There is much talk in the media, but little actual legislation or rule making is coming forward. I gently ask the Minister to give the Committee and the wider House clarity in that regard.
Certainty is important for consumers and manufacturers alike, but the draft order will give neither any confidence about the detail of the Government’s intended direction of travel. That uncertainty is playing out in the real world: in real sales numbers, in real demand, particularly for battery electric vehicles, and in uncertainty for our great innovators at home and overseas, where they are pioneering technologies around other forms of fuel, hydrogen and synthetics.
It is a reality that consumers are turning their backs on battery electric vehicles. Taking fleet sales out of the picture, EVs are just not selling. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that year-to-date private battery electric vehicle demand remains down 6.3%. Robert Forrester, chief executive of Vertu Motors, has observed that manufacturers are delaying deliveries of cars until next year, fearing that immediate deliveries would cause them to exceed the Government’s set quotas. In July, Stellantis announced that it would review its manufacturing footprint in the United Kingdom.
Can the Minister explain why the draft order does so little? It is just tinkering at the edges, with no practical steps to solve the real-world problems that we face. Can he confirm what the Government’s actual plans are to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel internal combustion engine cars? Is there even a plan? What confidence can he give to motorists and car manufacturers alike that the Government value—in a de-fossilised, decarbonised way—the freedom to drive?
Mike Kane
I say to the shadow Minister that little has been learned since the defeat 16 weeks ago. The last Secretary of State indulged in a culture war around vehicles and 15-minute cities, spreading conspiracy theories at the Conservatives’ party conference. They messed about with vehicle emissions targets. They criticised the Mayor of London for the ultra low emission zone and for the attempts to produce clean air across our capital city. It was a complete culture war, and they lost out, because the British public were not fooled by the attempts to divide people, from car and van owners to pedestrians and cyclists, instead of improving the general environment in our city.
On the shadow Minister’s substantive point about commitments, let me say that the Government are committed to phasing out new cars that rely solely on combustion engines by 2030. That means that pure petrol and diesel cars will be phased out by 2035, and all new cars and vans will need to be 100% zero emission. That is still our clear commitment.
The shadow Minister said that we were tinkering around the edges of the ZEV mandate. The reality, which counters what he says, is that with the ZEV mandate, the UK mandate is growing faster than any comparable European market as we speak. The number of electric vehicles in the UK market has grown by 13.2% on 2023, which is faster growth than Germany, France, Italy and the EU as a whole. That is not to say that there are not challenges, but this Government will face the challenges through our mission for both growth and decarbonisation. I am proud that we were elected on that mission.
The draft order is technical in nature, as the shadow Minister says, but it represents a shared ambition for the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and now the Northern Ireland Executive to decarbonise our road transport as we make progress to net zero. By bringing Northern Ireland into the ZEV mandate, we can ensure that every part of this country benefits from zero emission mobility and that no community is left behind as we transition to a greener, cleaner future.
I trust that the Committee has found this debate informative and that it will join me, alongside colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, in supporting this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.