Lords Committee criticise Department for Transport over unanswered safety questions on removal of towing licences

To increase capacity at test centres for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) drivers, these Regulations would remove the obligation for car and van drivers to take an additional test (Category BE) before being allowed to tow a trailer or caravan.

The Committee appreciates the urgent need to increase the supply of HGV drivers, but these Regulations, in DfT’s programme of 32 initiatives, raised concerns about the potential for an increase in towing accidents. The Committee’s initial report took issue with the lack of clear road accident data and suggested that in view of the uncertainty the review period of three years, set by the Regulations, was too long.

The Regulations have had to be re-laid due to a procedural error, but their explanatory material is unchanged. Despite safety issues being raised in the Committee’s initial report, in debate and in questions in the House, the explanatory material accompanying the second set, the No. 5 Regulations, does not address any of the points that have been raised.

The Committee is particularly critical of the fact that the Impact Assessment, which they have been told will include the risk assessment, is still not available nearly three months after the original Regulations were laid. Nor will it be available before the Regulations are debated. The lack of this crucial information renders effective Parliamentary scrutiny impossible and undermines Parliament’s role in the legislative process.

The Committee has therefore invited the responsible Minister to give evidence to explain the policy choices made by DfT.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said:

“In our recent report Government by Diktat: A call to return power to Parliament, one of the concerns raised was the number of occasions on which departments have failed to provide the explanatory material necessary for Parliament to carry out effective scrutiny of secondary legislation at the appropriate time. These regulations present a particularly grievous example of this practice.

“Despite us raising previous concerns about road safety and the lack of data-based evidence to support or justify this policy, the Minister’s response has neither addressed the safety issues nor provided any reassurance that DfT understands the importance of tackling these issues and affording Parliament the correct information to allow it perform its necessary scrutiny function.

“We are publishing this report so that it is available to those participating in the upcoming debate of these Regulations. As a result of our deep dissatisfaction with the Department’s approach to these Regulations, we have also asked that the Minister attends to give evidence and provide a more thorough justification for the Department’s failure to respond to the House’s concerns and provide explanatory material to allow full and proper scrutiny.”