Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

These regulations have the effect of increasing the fortnightly driving limit from 90 hours to 96 hours. They also, as a result, raise the likelihood of a driver not being able to take proper rest away from work—that is, away from the cab of their vehicle. There have been other relaxations of drivers’ hours since April 2020, with this latest one following the UK-EU agreement being for the longest period of time. Normally, such relaxations are for very short periods of time and have been very specific to particular sections of the industry. However, due to the definition of “exceptional circumstances”, this latest relaxation in reality covers practically every professional HGV driver in the country, including those delivering to the UK from other countries.

It also needs to be said that the key purpose of drivers’ hours regulations is road safety and the welfare of drivers. Any relaxation potentially puts not just the drivers covered at risk but all road users as well, through HGV drivers either not having appropriate periods of rest or working for longer periods of time or both. Could the Government indicate in their response whether these latest regulations, which come to an end in about two weeks’ time, are going to be further extended beyond then? If so, why?

In laying these regulations, the Department for Transport said that the relaxations

“continue to be required because of both delays at the borders and the reduction in driver numbers due to Covid-19.”

Could the Government in their response say what these delays at the border are and what has caused them? The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered these regulations and concluded:

“Although a contingency provision may be needed, we were not clear about the conditions in which these exemptions are intended to be used and where the responsibility for implementing these decisions lies. The House may wish to ask the Minister to provide a fuller explanation.”


That is what I am now doing. Expanding on this, the committee said:

“These relaxations are not restricted to port areas or to essential supplies, and the definition of when they can be used, ‘when necessary’, is very vague. There is also some blurring in this policy between the responsibilities of the driver and the operator in deciding when to use the extended hours, and we are concerned that drivers may feel under pressure to use them. A submission from Unite the Union illustrates the problems likely to arise. The sector is very diverse, with both employed and self-employed drivers, and the balances of risks and advantages may differ between these groups.”


No doubt the Minister will wish to comment on those observations from the committee.

Could the Government also say in their response to what extent the increase in the fortnightly driving limit—from 90 hours to 96 hours—has actually been used, and whether it has been used more in relation to some routes than others, whether it has been used more by some firms than others, and whether it has been used more by some sectors than others? Could the Government also say under what circumstance and why the allowable increase in hours has been applied, so that we can have an idea of how and address what situations the “where necessary” criteria has actually been brought into play.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the submission from Unite the Union. One gets the impression that the committee gave rather more consideration to what Unite had to say than perhaps the Government did. When asked by the committee who had been consulted, and whether any drivers’ representatives had been included, the Department for Transport replied:

“Relaxations to drivers’ hours rules were sought by a number of individual firms, representative bodies and Defra … Unite the Union was consulted informally — and for the record was not in support of the relaxation as made.”


What a dismissive response. The view of Unite—and the drivers’ regulations are there for safety reasons—was simply “for the record” following informal consultation as far as the DfT was concerned, not views that should be reported with reasons given why they were not taken on board. How revealing that we have to turn to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to find out the concern of Unite, since there is nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum, which simply states:

“There has been no formal consultation on this Instrument, although advice has been taken from representatives from the logistics and retail sector”,


and that

“an impact assessment has not been produced”.

Could the Government tell us what their assessment was, and the basis of that assessment, of the potential impact of this instrument on safety, bearing in mind that a key part of Unite’s concerns was that, the longer the period of relaxation from the drivers’ hours rules—now some three months—the greater the potential risk to safety? It is not enough to say that, under the relaxation,

“Drivers should not be expected to drive whilst tired”.


If that is deemed a responsible approach, then there is no need for any rules at all beyond that. In its submission to the committee, Unite expresses concern about the ability of enforcement officers to be able to enforce the relaxed regulations effectively, not least in respect of international drivers whose operating base may be in another country. No doubt in their reply the Government will wish to provide the hard evidence that enforcement officers had enforced the regulations effectively.

Unite welcomes the fact that drivers and their unions should be involved in managing any relaxation, but said that

“in reality drivers are not given the choice, operators simply plan drivers’ routes and then apply a relaxation if needed.”

Do the Government accept that that is the reality? If not, could they provide the evidence that it is not the case?

Concluding its submission to the committee, Unite said it understood

“that there are often genuine reasons for using a relaxation in very limited circumstances. This relaxation, however, is far more than that and in our opinion goes much further than is actually necessary even under these very difficult circumstances”.

Unite believes this could be

“the start of watering down vital safety rules for professional drivers.”

This is now the opportunity for the Government to provide the hard evidence to prove that these potentially safety-compromising regulations, applicable to practically every professional HGV driver and for a longer period than normal, have been necessary and that it was not a case of bringing them in simply because some firms wanted them so that they were there if required across the board without the Government really knowing either whether they really were required across the board or the extent to which they would be required.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

That this House takes note of the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/58).

Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

Motion agreed.