Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Pack (LD)]

This is a welcome statutory instrument, particularly given the importance of growing the zero-emission sector and its potential role for reducing the health and environmental impacts of our transport systems.

As I have on other occasions, and perhaps will again in the future, criticised other SIs for either not reflecting previous consultation responses or taking too long to appear after a consultation, it is only right to acknowledge that, in this case, the SI definitely does reflect the broad results of that earlier consultation and indeed has appeared at a much speedier pace than many other SIs. Even so, it has been a year since the consultation concluded, so I hope the department will continue to look at ways of speeding up the turnaround of its legislative work.

Reducing the regulatory burden is certainly welcome where it can be done safely and without undermining other policy objectives or causing other problems. With that in mind, I have three questions that I hope the Minister can give reassurance on.

First, as the Minister has touched on already—and as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, highlighted in its report on the SI—once the powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire in June this year, which is now only a few weeks away, there are no primary powers available to further amend the assimilated EU retained drivers’ hours and tachograph regulations. If it turns out that further legislative change in that area is needed or would be beneficial, that gap in the department’s powers could become a problem.

It was welcome that the Minister mentioned that the department plans to address this at the earliest opportunity. I hope she does not mind me pressing to see whether it is possible to get something a bit more specific than that, as that could cover anything from days to centuries, given the pace at which some items proceed in this place.

Secondly, given the improved safety features we are seeing on zero-emission vehicles, the move towards heavier vehicles—which this SI is part of—should not, I am sure we all hope, turn out to be at the expense of overall road safety. It is likely, for the reasons the Minister gave earlier, that the SI gets this balance right and rightly encourages zero-emission vehicles without endangering road safety. However, as they are generally heavier, it is important to be sure that we are getting this right. Can the Minister provide a bit more detail about the plans the department has to keep this situation under review?

I ask that because when the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations came through the system last year and were scrutinised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the department very much focused on how zero-emission vehicles are no more likely to be in an accident than other vehicles. It gave—I think it is fair to say—relatively little consideration to the risk that, even if there are not more accidents involving zero-emission vehicles, their typically greater weight might mean those accidents are more severe in nature.

That focus on the frequency rather than severity of accidents unfortunately continues in the Explanatory Memorandum for this statutory instrument. It is absolutely fair to say, and it is very welcome, that in response to questioning from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the department engaged more directly with the issue of the severity and not merely the frequency of accidents. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to be clear about the department’s commitment to tracking whether increased weight causes any safety issues that need further action to address, and in particular what data will be published, and with what frequency, to make sure that we can be confident that these changes are working.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, there is the Northern Ireland angle and the divergence we will see in tachograph requirements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government’s approach, as I understand it, rests heavily on saying that this will not be a problem, because the number of relevant zero-emission vehicles which currently travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is fairly small. There is, though, a potential tension between a policy that is designed overall to increase the number of zero-emission vehicles in use, yet also depends in part on the number of those vehicles in use between Great Britain and Northern Ireland being and remaining small. As the Minister mentioned earlier, there are certainly powers and responsibilities that rest with the Northern Ireland Executive in that area, but if we are changing rules for Great Britain that may have an adverse knock-on effect for Northern Ireland, that is obviously our responsibility as well. I hope the Minister can reassure us that monitoring will be done of the number of relevant zero-emission vehicles travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I hope that on all three points, the answers will be such as to reassure everyone that the result of this statutory instrument will be a welcome, safe and practical growth in the use of zero-emission vehicles.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pack, but also quite annoying, because he has made about three-quarters of my speech, and with his customary effectiveness and clarity.

I too start by emphasising the importance, as it seems to us, of the fact that almost through carelessness, the Department for Transport is going to lose, in a very short space of time, its legal ability to make amendments, not just in this area but, as the Minister herself said, in a wide number of areas of policy. We will be left in a position where it will be possible to make these often technical adjustments only by primary legislation.

This date of June 2026 has been in the diary now for something like three years. I seem to remember a case, a long time ago, of George Bernard Shaw writing a letter to the Times, which began “Saturday morning, despite occurring at regular and predictable intervals, always appears to take the staff of Baker Street station by surprise”. We are in a very similar position here. June 2026 has been in the diary for a long time, yet here we are.

Just think through the practicalities: everyone assumes, I think rightly, that we are approaching the end of a parliamentary Session and we will then have a Prorogation, a King’s Speech and a State Opening. Before we know where we are, we will be in June and the Government, on behalf of this department, will still have no legislation to table to give themselves the range of powers they normally need. That is not just carelessness, it is a dereliction of duty, and the Official Opposition will be holding the Government fully to account. I can hardly believe that I am saying this, but it is what is actually happening, although the department could have planned for it a long time ago.

As for future transport legislation, we know that the Railways Bill will be arriving from the Commons after Prorogation, in the new parliamentary Session. Is that the instrument that the Minister has it in mind to amend in order to give the powers—I see some potential scope issues in that regard—or will a new and separate Bill be brought forward, and on what timescale? We need to know these things and it is ceasing to be a joke.

The second aspect relates to the question of Northern Ireland. What we are seeing here, and this applies to the remainder of my remarks, is that the commitment to net zero is now taking over and becoming responsible for all sorts of problems and costs, not merely financial. One of them, because the vans we are discussing are mostly used for commercial purposes, will be a disruption to trade and the provision of services—artisanal services, plumbers, whatever—between one part of the United Kingdom and another because we have chosen to do this.

The Minister appeared to say that this is not a problem arising from the Windsor Framework; it is entirely because the power involved rests with the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that is the case, what contact and what effort has the department made to co-ordinate this action and decision with Northern Ireland, so that these unnecessary barriers do not arise? Will the Minister tell us what discussions have therefore taken place?

Those are the immediate topics. What is the timetable, what is the practical proposal for resolving the legislative gap, and what contact occurred between the department and the Northern Ireland authorities to try to ensure that these measures went ahead in tandem and that this rupture—this unnecessary rupture, as it now appears—in trade between different parts of the United Kingdom did not take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I was just coming to the point of saying that—as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, pointed out—we are now seeing personal safety and road safety being sacrificed on the altar of net zero. It is undoubtedly the case that heavier vehicles have a greater impact when an accident takes place. I am not claiming, nor did the noble Lord claim, that they are more likely to have an accident but they will certainly have a greater impact. This is exactly the same physics that lies behind the argument that speed limits in city areas should be cut. The impact is a function of the speed times the mass. If you increase the mass, you are putting back—so to speak—what you have gained by reducing speed limits in cities. That is what the Government are doing. They are playing recklessly with personal safety on the road, including that of vulnerable users in particular, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as those driving other motor vehicles.

There is a further point that was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pack: the effect on the roads themselves. The roads in this country in many places are breaking up. It is not simply a matter of potholes now but of another complete dereliction by the department. In many cases, the base of the road is being damaged because maintenance is being neglected. It is no good the Government saying they put a certain amount of money into it—which is what they always say when this point is brought up—because it is not having an effect on the roads. The roads are breaking up. A lack of maintenance means that the effect is not simply on the surface—the potholes—but on the base. Very often you can see that on many rural roads, which are breaking up, and a huge bill is being stored. Part of that is to do with heavier vehicles.

Some of those heavier vehicles—all the heavy SUVs and so on—are heavier for reasons that I do not personally approve of. Another reason is that we are actively encouraging heavier vehicles, and doing so through measures such as this one. We did it through the amendments to the driving licence provisions, which we dealt with late last year. Now we are doing it in relation to the testing regime and the drivers’ hours rules for vans. The Government are driving forward, and they are very much driven by net zero, with no regard for the consequences for personal safety and road surfaces—and now, of course, we need to add the bridges.

I say on a personal note that, years ago, I used to have some responsibility for Albert Bridge as a local councillor, and I see that it is now closed. At that time, we spent quite a lot of money bringing Albert Bridge up to a standard where it could bear and be safe for 3-tonne vehicles—that would be the weight limit. Now that 3-tonne limit is almost of historical interest, so another bridge across the river in London is being taken out of use. What is the Government’s plan for this? There is no plan for any of this. They have not thought about any of these things; they just drive ahead recklessly with net zero.

Although this measure appears to have a purely technical character, it is very significant in a number of respects that I have set out in my speech. The Government need to start taking these things seriously, because otherwise they will be abandoning their transport-related duties. That is something we will constantly highlight and oppose.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Moylan, for their comments on this important area of work. Some of the points raised have come together from both noble Lords, if from slightly different angles, so perhaps they will forgive me if I cover them together.

One of the major themes coming through was the concern about the devolved Administrations and divergence. Just to reiterate, the regulations apply in Great Britain only; to reinforce that, this policy area is devolved to Northern Ireland and the officials in the Department for Infrastructure there have been updated on the regulations. I want to reassure noble Lords that the department in Northern Ireland is currently considering the potential impact the introduction of this legislation may have on regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is considering the impact of proposals that have been presented by the European Commission on drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements, which mirror the changes in these regulations—I think the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, picked up on some of the details around this.

I can only repeat that decisions on changes in Northern Ireland will be for Northern Ireland Ministers. While officials in the DfT and Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure are working together to manage the impact of these measures on GB operators for the change in vans that regularly travel to Northern Ireland, we want to minimise the impact on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

In the meantime, drivers of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans will need to ensure that their vehicle complies with the applicable law while operating in Northern Ireland, including ensuring that they are meeting testing requirements and that their vehicle is fitted with a tachograph. For further reassurance, I can inform noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, speaks regularly to her counterpart in Northern Ireland to make sure that they are kept appraised of progress.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to answer my specific question? What contacts took place between her Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland, prior to the tabling of this secondary legislation, with a view to ensuring that the legislative gap did not exist—in other words, that they could proceed in harmony?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord will understand that I cannot be specific at this point about the exact detail. I am happy to write to him to make sure that he is fully apprised of the contact between the two areas.

On the road safety theme that has been picked up, I reassure noble Lords that there is no data to suggest that there is likely to be an increase in the collision rate following the introduction of these regulations. In fact, some van operators have indicated that they experience a lower collision rate with their 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission van fleet compared with the equivalent diesel vans. This may be due to features such as the regenerative braking that I mentioned earlier, whereby braking energy is captured and can be reused, reducing wear on brakes. It is also important to note that, although heavier, in most cases these vans are the same physical size as the diesel vans they replace.