Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not extend, and in some circumstances restrict, competence to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles which are not zero-emission vehicles.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has explained, this is a very narrow and technical instrument, but it has some very interesting and indeed rather sinister ramifications.

If we start with the first interesting ramification, we could talk, at least briefly, about the state of the roads. There is a great deal of complaint about potholes in the road. I would go a little bit further. I suggest that there are many roads in this country now which do not merely have potholes, but where the base of the road—its underlying structure—is now seriously damaged and has not been properly maintained. It is true that this was not looked after well by the previous Government, but it has got worse under the current Government.

I was in Oxfordshire at the weekend. I drove along one road in the country that was in such an appalling condition that it was reminiscent of the sort of 19th-century travel writing one reads of enterprising journeys into Calabria and strange and unexplored parts of Europe at the time. This road was virtually about to break up completely. Our roads are falling to pieces and the Government are doing nothing about it.

Why is that relevant to this instrument? I can hear noble Lords asking that question—gasping in fact, in exasperation to try to know the answer. The relevance is that the principal reason why roads are breaking up in this country is the weight of vehicles: not the occasional juggernaut that passes down an Oxfordshire lane, but the relentless beating they take from heavier and heavier vehicles. Part of that is due to the fashion for SUVs, which I personally deprecate and cannot entirely understand, but a great deal of the rest of it is to do with the fact that electric vehicles are, as the Minister has said, notably heavier than petrol vehicles. That is what is breaking up our roads. This Government are doing nothing at all about it, and it is getting worse. They said they would be better than the last Government—they are not making those improvements.

That brings us to the instrument, which tries to make it easier for vehicles to be heavier, if I can put it that way. It removes certain restrictions that have been placed on the driving of heavier electric vehicles.

We should start from the point that the purpose of putting conditions on driving licences, which we have done for many decades, almost since they started, is to achieve road safety. That is why we have different licences matching different sorts of vehicles. The conditions that the Minister is removing today were put in place for safety reasons. The Government are making the case that they are no longer required for safety reasons, and the Official Opposition accept that. So to the extent that these restrictions are being removed, we have no objection to it on safety grounds; the Government have made that case. But they are being removed solely for electric vehicles, and it is very important to draw two conclusions from this.

First, the Government are sending, whatever the Minister says, a very powerful signal to people trying to develop synthetic and alternative fuels—the limits are not being reduced and the conditions are not being removed for those—that they do not matter. The Government have made their choice: their option is to back electric. They are not backing the alternatives. That is the first message, and it is not a good one. It was, as the noble Lord says, aired in the other place.

The second point, which was not, I think, aired in the other place, but is an important one, is that the Government are doing this because, as set out in paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Although alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less CO2 emissions than petrol and diesel vehicles, alternatively fuelled vehicles still produce CO2 emissions at the tailpipe. Consequently, these vehicles would not meet the Government’s objective for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission at the tailpipe by 2035”.


This is what is sinister: this is the first time that conditions have been attached to driving licences, not for the purpose of road safety, not to match skill to the type of vehicle being driven, but to achieve a government net-zero policy. In principle, it opens the door to other measures whereby driving licences are restricted so as to match government policy on net zero. Those people, many of them on lower incomes, who are dependent on internal combustion engines and will probably never be able to afford an electric vehicle as things stand, will find themselves squeezed out of the possibility of driving them as more and more restrictions are placed on their driving licence. This would be a genuinely sinister and worrying trend. The Government should be ashamed, quite frankly, of paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, and they should repudiate it.

Finally, of course, a driving licence is no use whatsoever if you cannot get a driving test, another point that arises from this. It is again true that the Government inherited a large backlog of driving test bookings—people could not get through—but that has now risen to a queue of 600,000 people waiting for a driving test. The Government, although we aired this in the House recently by way of an Oral Question, are making no progress on this; things are going backwards. They are not better than their predecessor on this—they are palpably and measurably worse. I hope the Minister can address that point as well.

This instrument in itself is not objectionable—except for the signal it sends to synthetic fuel manufacturers and, most importantly, the introduction of the principle that driving licences can be manipulated to achieve other government policies. This is also an opportunity for the Government to explain why money is not being put in, on the other hand, to strengthening our roads to carry these heavy vehicles—rather, the roads are breaking up—and what they are doing to make a driving licence a reality by allowing people access to driving tests. I beg to move.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have any argument with the Government over their laudable environmental and other objectives in bringing forward these regulations, but I have a question that is really to do with the physics of the matter. We know that kinetic energy is a key, or perhaps the key, determinant in the severity of and damage caused by road accidents. Kinetic energy is of course calculated as half of the mass times the square of the velocity.

Essentially, if, as I understand it, the Government are content that it is safe for a category B licence holder to drive a 4.25 tonne vehicle powered by zero-emissions means, why is it not safe for that same driver to drive another vehicle powered by any other means? In the event of a road accident or collision, the power source of the vehicle the category B driver is at the wheel of will make no difference to the brakes and tyres, and to the impact caused to the other vehicle involved in the accident.

When we are legislating on road safety, we have to take into account the realities and physics of the matter as well as other government objectives, such as decarbonisation, laudable though they may be. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will first turn to the regulations and then to the fatal amendment.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome these regulations, which represent a sensible step forward in facilitating our transition to zero-emission vehicles. Zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, such as those that are fully electric or hydrogen powered, are often heavier than our petrol or diesel equivalents. This additional weight is primarily due to the weight of the batteries. Since weight has been mentioned in this debate, I will just say that although electric vehicles are heavier than cars of the equivalent size, they are not heavier than the vans, buses, lorries or lots of other things that use our roads.

Previously, this extra weight could push these vehicles into higher driving licence categories, such as category C or C1, requiring drivers to undergo additional training, testing and, potentially, medical examinations and professional competency certificates. Regulations introduced in 2018 attempted to address this by allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes but only under specific conditions: five hours of additional training, driving only to transport goods and no towing ability. These conditions, however, have proven to be an unnecessary barrier to the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, with the cost, time and training required being prohibitive for businesses.

These new regulations remove these previous conditions, allowing standard category B licence holders to drive ZEVs up to 4.25 tonnes without the additional five hours training or restriction on goods transport only. This will significantly reduce the regulatory and financial burden on businesses and individuals looking to switch to cleaner vehicles. This should be something that the Conservative Party welcomes—I understand that it is a party all about removing unnecessary regulations for business.

These regulations also allow the towing of a trailer, provided the combined weight does not exceed 7 tonnes, bringing ZEVs in line with petrol and diesel counterparts in this regard. Furthermore, important provisions are included to support drivers and passengers with disabilities, allowing ZEVs with specialist equipment to weigh up to 5 tonnes on a category B licence. This is very welcome and ensures equitable access to the benefits of these regulations. There is more to do in this space to ensure equal access in terms of the design placement of batteries, which inherently restrict disabled use and access to future autonomous vehicles by disabled people.

These Benches support the decisions to narrow the scope of this flexibility from alternatively fuelled vehicles to specifically zero-emission vehicles. While alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less CO₂ than petrol or diesel, they still produce emissions. Focusing these licence flexibilities solely on ZEVs aligns with the cross-party consensus and the Government’s commitment for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission by 2035 and our legally binding net-zero obligations. It rightly supports the cleanest vehicles.

However, as we have heard, concerns have been raised about the removal of the five-hour training requirement, which was previously considered necessary, requiring questions about potential impacts on road safety. While the Department for Transport assessed the risk of removing the conditions as very low, based on current, albeit limited data—the Minister mentioned very few cases—concerns have been raised that heavier vehicles could lead to more severe damaging collisions, particularly involving lighter vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Indeed, this was an issue that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised.

Against this, we note that these modern vehicles inherently have more safety features, including systems such as collision avoidance. I ask the Minister how the department will

“closely monitor incident data as it becomes available”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/25; col. 375.]

I ask what specific matrix will be tracked and what thresholds could trigger “swift action” to protect the public if a concerning trend does emerge? What is the timeline for publishing the detailed safety guidance? What steps will be taken to actively disseminate it to drivers and businesses, particularly those who run electric fleet vehicles? I call on the Minister to commit to publishing a full and transparent review of all the safety data within two years and for that review to be made public.

Finally, the target for new EVs by 2035 is UK-wide. The Minister has mentioned this, but we have concerns about the fact that this does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Minister has been clear that this is something for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish to ensure that we have uniformity of regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, so I encourage the Minister to continue those conversations with colleagues to make sure that we have the same regulations across our isles.

I turn to the fatal amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is not fatal.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I apologise—the amendment. This seeks to broaden the scope of these regulations to include alternatively fuelled vehicles that are not zero-emission.

I question the perceived need for such a change, to be honest, and what benefits would flow were it to be passed. The Government’s policy, which we support, is rightly focused on promoting zero-emission vehicles in line with our climate targets. Diluting this focus to extend the weight uplift flexibility to vehicles that still produce CO₂ emissions would undermine the clear objectives of supporting the transition to the cleanest vehicles.

Furthermore, alternative fuel vehicles are not subject to the inherent weight disadvantages as they have no need for heavier battery packs, so are not caught out by the previous regulations. They do not have the same excess weight. Gas-powered vehicles such as vans are the main type of alternative fuel vehicles which were in scope of the old regulations but not in scope of the new ones. But, as the Minister has said, the Government’s impact assessment found that as of December last year there were only 28 of these vehicles on our roads in the whole of the UK. Presumably, those drivers have already undergone all their training needs.

The Government’s impact assessment also highlighted that manufacturers do not have provisions to manufacture great numbers more of these vehicles. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats will support the government regulations, but we call for a full safety review to be completed in the next two years. If the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, calls a Division, we will not support it—we will abstain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly accept the simple physics. I am mostly not in the ministerial car; I am mostly on public transport. I accept his point, but the frequency of such collisions is so low that the Government are proposing to monitor what happens in the knowledge that, regarding that difference in weight, there were nine collisions involving these vehicles between 2020 and 2023, with six of them being slight. I accept completely the proposition of the physics, but not only is the real effect of this very small in terms of the total number of accidents but the Government are committing to monitor road accident data as it becomes available in order to know what will happen as a consequence of these changes. If something happens, then we will do something about it.

In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I certainly commit to saying what the incident thresholds will be. I will write to the noble Earl and put that in the Library.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of small electric cars. I admire his keenness to travel around the roads of Eastbourne in tuk-tuks—actually, I admire his being brave enough to travel around the roads of Eastbourne in any vehicle of that sort—but I do not think anybody has produced an electric tuk-tuk. There are several vehicles available as an alternative to large electric cars, including the Citroën Ami, Fiat Topolino and BMW i3. I can vouch for that one because I have one and I use it. It is a very small car. We do not need large electric cars; small electric cars are easily purchased.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support for the statutory instrument generally. I have said that I will write to him about the thresholds we will use to decide whether accidents are material or not. I will also write to him about the timetable for safety guidance. On the dissemination of safety guidance, fortunately there are some strong trade associations for small and medium-sized commercial vehicles. We would take their advice, as we always do. I am familiar with them and they have been involved in these discussions.

On the noble Earl’s last point, on the applicability of this instrument in Northern Ireland, we will of course continue to discuss this with the Northern Ireland Government because it is important. I agree that it would be unsatisfactory for there to be inconsistency, without a similar measure in Northern Ireland, but it is for them to do it.

The instrument, although technical, represents a common-sense step that supports industry to make the switch to zero emissions and to decarbonise our road transport as we make progress towards net zero. It will cut transport costs for businesses, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and further accelerate our progress to becoming a clean energy superpower.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords that this instrument in no way disadvantages non-zero emission fuel types, so much as it levels the playing field between technologies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, feels able to withdraw his regret amendment. I trust that noble Lords have found this debate informative and that they will join me in supporting this legislation.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for raising the interesting point about an electric tuk-tuk for passenger use. I listened with great care to the Minister’s response. I have to admit, a few years ago, I looked at the possibility of purchasing a BMW i3. The cost at that stage was £33,000. I do not know what the Minister paid for his. I do not think, however, that my noble friend Lord Lucas is thinking about a vehicle of that sort and that cost. That is one of the principal—

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

For noble Lords’ information, the cost of an electric tuk-tuk in China is about £1,500.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful. That is something the Minister should respond to. I shall not comment further on it other than to say that it is a useful thing to know. But the BMW i3 is not £1,500; it costs a great deal more, and that is beyond the scope of the majority of people.

My noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about road safety. The Government have given assurances on this. Although I am happy to accept those assurances for today, they will be held to them. We will expect those changes to be monitored for their road safety effects. The Minister has said that and we will hold him to it—it is a very important consideration.

Concerning the state of the roads, much has been made by the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. I know that. Everybody knows a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. It has the word “heavy” in its name. The key difference is that there are 33 million cars in this country. There are 500,000 heavy goods vehicles. The damage being done to our roads is not, as I said in my opening remarks, because of the occasional passage of a heavy goods vehicle down a lane in Oxfordshire. It is done by the relentless passage of heavier and heavier cars across those roads, which is not only leading to potholes but breaking up the base and creating a huge maintenance and restoration bill for our roads that will not, in my view, be properly addressed by £1.6 billion.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Government were given the opportunity to reject the notion that they were going to manipulate driving licences and the conditions on driving licences to achieve objectives related not to road safety or vehicles but to net-zero policy. That would open a door to further manipulation in the future, which could well be used to disadvantage—as the price of a BMW i3 already disadvantages—people on lower incomes. The Government took no opportunity to reject that. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, endorsed it and thought it was a very good idea. That is a cloud perhaps no larger than a man’s hand, but it will come back—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I think there is confusion here. This regulation is fundamentally about removing restrictions, not placing them. I think the noble Lord is confused on this point.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Do I have to read out paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum again? I thought not. I think it is engraved in the minds of most noble Lords that the purpose of the differential lifting of these restrictions is to achieve our net-zero policies. I should not have to read out the whole of the paragraph, because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, read it out verbatim, as if it were part of his speech. In fact, this paragraph was cut and pasted into his speech, so why should I have to remind him? I think he is the one who is likely to be more confused. This is a very dangerous door the Government have opened, and it will cost them votes when people realise what they are doing.

In the meantime, with that remark, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Government’s Motion.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.