PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles - 2 April 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move,

That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.

The aim of the regulations is to support the transition to zero emission vehicles, to reduce the regulatory burden on business, and to drive economic growth on our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower.

Businesses and families are choosing to make the switch to cleaner, greener vehicles that are cheaper to run and reduce noise and air pollution on our streets. The UK was the largest electric car market in Europe in 2024, and so far this year demand is up 42%, according to industry figures. However, zero emission vehicles can be heavier than equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles because of the weight of their battery or power train, which can push them into a higher driving licence category than their petrol or diesel equivalents.

Regulations to partially solve the problem were passed in 2018, allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes if they fulfilled additional requirements, including receiving five hours of additional training from an accredited instructor, driving only for the purpose of transporting goods, and having no ability to tow. However, following the rapid growth of zero emission technology since 2018, the existing regulations represent an unnecessary barrier to switching to zero emission vehicles. The cost of the training, and of taking drivers off the road to complete it, can be prohibitive and time-consuming for businesses. These regulations will therefore enable the holder of a standard category B licence to drive a fully electric or hydrogen-powered vehicle up to a maximum weight of 4.25 tonnes without those additional requirements. Existing category B rules on ages and passenger numbers will apply.

Category B licence holders can also usually drive minibuses weighing up to 3.5 tonnes if they fulfil additional requirements, including the requirement for the driver to be over the age of 21. The regulations apply the same additional requirements to zero emission minibuses weighing up to 4.25 tonnes. They also allow zero emission vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes to tow a trailer, just as rules permit their petrol and diesel counterparts to, provided that the total combined vehicle and trailer weight does not exceed 7 tonnes.

It is important that people with disabilities should have equitable driving licence flexibilities. To ensure that they are not excluded from the benefits of these regulations, an eligible zero emission vehicle may weigh up to 5 tonnes if it is fitted with specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers. That additional weight allowance also applies to minibuses.

Could the Minister elaborate on the types of vehicles that will be covered by the provision for additional weight for disabled users?

The provisions apply to electric vehicles, not to gas or synthetically fuelled vehicles.

The fuel types in scope of these regulations are zero emission, rather than alternative fuels. The only vehicles not covered by these regulations, but that were in scope of the old ones, are gas-powered vehicles. The Government estimate that there are fewer than 30 on the road today, and their technology does not require an additional weight allowance.

A public consultation on these proposals was held in 2022 and received 89 responses, which were largely supportive of the changes, though some concerns were raised about safety. Following a detailed analysis, the Government are confident that these regulations pose an extremely low risk to road safety. Between 2020 and 2023, there were a total of nine collisions involving such vehicles, and six of them were minor collisions. However, we will closely monitor incident data as it becomes available, to protect the safety of all road users. In the unlikely event that a concerning trend emerges, swift action will be taken to protect the public. The Department will publish detailed safety guidance, which we are working with industry to disseminate.

In closing, these regulations are a common-sense measure to equalise the driving licence rules for zero-emission vehicles and their petrol and diesel counterparts. I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as it relates to the use of synthetic fuel donated for my summer surgery tour last August.

My concerns about this statutory instrument, unlike my concerns about other recent pieces of parliamentary business, are narrow, which means—this will be a relief to Members from across the House, I have no doubt—that my remarks will be brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have never had such a big cheer.

I thank the Government for bringing forward sensible reforms, which will decrease the regulatory burden and provide more flexibility for category B licence holders. Many of the reforms are sensible steps that were widely supported in the consultation during the last Parliament. It is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the Government’s so-called plan for change did not involve scrapping the limitations in this statutory instrument. Narrowing the scope of eligible vehicles from alternatively fuelled vehicles to zero emission vehicles is a mistake that cannot be ignored. As we transition to new technologies, we as a country must be less prescriptive. Too often, Governments want to tell industry and innovators what to do, and I am afraid that the restrictive nature of this measure risks hampering our country’s attempts to reduce emissions.

Let me be clear: my concerns are not a judgment on whether the Government are right or wrong to suggest that zero emission vehicles will be most effective. The issue is rather that limiting the measure’s scope to a smaller subset of non-petrol and non-diesel fuels makes them far too narrow.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the regulations could be of serious detriment to the UK’s synthetic biology research community? Significant effort is going into the creation of engineered bugs that can turn renewable matter, such as sugar cane, into fuel for internal combustion engines. In a circular economy, that would represent a completely renewable source of energy that would be carbon neutral throughout its entire life cycle.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, which I have been making for many years. I certainly did so during my time on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and outside this place, as I have engaged with the classic car sector and all parts of the industry. He is right that there is a big innovative drive for sustainable fuels, if I can call them that. Some of them derive from feedstocks, others from waste matter, and they work in the internal combustion engines that we already have—in jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines.

There are also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such feedstocks. They do not require food to be grown in order to be burned. There are innovators on that in this country and all over the world. For example, Zero Petroleum, just next door to my constituency—just over the Oxfordshire border at Bicester Heritage—has developed a fuel that works in every jet engine and every internal combustion engine that we enjoy today. It is entirely man-made; it is literally made out of air and water. It is a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture. However, the ZEV mandate and the approach that the Government are taking in this statutory instrument rule that technology out of order, because there is still carbon at the tailpipe. The regulations ignore the fact that the carbon at the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is captured out of the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. In fact, a whole-system analysis shows that technology to be carbon-neutral—one volume of carbon is in a perpetual cycle. However, no matter how much Ministers and the Government claim to be technologically neutral, the test at the tailpipe, and the test in this statutory instrument, which explicitly refers to zero emission vehicles, rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles, do in fact mean that the Government pick a technological winner at every step, rather than letting our great innovators innovate.

I am interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and experience of alternative fuels. He perhaps understands this statutory instrument better than I do, but I understood that it was about the weight of vehicles, and that an alternative fuel going through the internal combustion engine does not result in additional weight. Will any of the technologies that he is describing result in additional weight, and might they therefore fall foul of the limits in the regulations?

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is fundamentally about weight, but on the point about synthetic fuel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) drew me on to a moment ago—I rarely need asking twice, given the number of years I have spent talking about this—it is true that there would not be an addition of weight. However, there would be for some alternatively fuelled systems. For example, in the case of hydrogen, the fuel tanks have to be much more robust. They certainly are in a hydrogen combustion vehicle, of which there are very few. As far as I understand it, it is only JCB that has developed the technology for a construction plant, but there could be an application to road vehicles in the future. Hydrogen runs at about 700 bar in the fuel tank, so we obviously would not put it in an existing car’s fuel tank; it simply could not take the pressure. There would be weight implications for such a system.

It is interesting, when sitting in the Chamber, to hear colleagues’ expertise on subjects that we did not know they had expertise in. I wish to draw my hon. Friend back to a slightly different subject, which he was beginning to touch on. Electric vehicles, which of course have batteries, tend to be far heavier than equivalent vehicles with an internal combustion engine. Some of the vehicle combinations that the Minister talked about—for example, he mentioned a vehicle and a trailer not exceeding 7 tonnes gross vehicle weight—would vary in weight depending on whether the car or van was electric. That might affect a person’s decision to change from a vehicle with an internal combustion engine to an electric vehicle.

My hon. Friend makes an accurate point. In some ways, the statutory instrument seeks to address that point. However, he is right that when real people out there in the country make choices on their vehicles, they will make practical decisions such as the one outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), rather than looking at some of the other things the Government from time to time wish they were thinking about when they make those choices.

To make rapid progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the consultation was conducted, 25% of respondents —I accept that that is only a quarter—favoured retaining alternatively fuelled vehicles on the basis of the extra flexibility offered by the current alternative fuels definition, particularly for hard-to-transition use cases. That is a small subset, but we risk limiting the capability of industry and technology if we close down the possibility of innovation. There may be occasions when the additional weight would be beneficial to those alternative fuels. However, without flexibility we will not know the answer. Those 25% will have to maintain the status quo. However, we believe we must let the technology decide, not the Government, to ensure that those hard use cases are not abandoned.

For those who may not be aware, the Government have already withdrawn this SI to correct a drafting error. All the Opposition are asking is for them to do exactly the same: amend the error, bring back the changes, and allow the reductions in regulation without the restrictions on alternative fuels. That is not only the right approach, but the fair one.

I rise to make one very brief point. The regulations amend the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999. To get a driving licence, one has to pass a driving test. I have had lots of complaints from constituents, as I am sure have many right hon. and hon. Members, about the increasing wait times for driving tests. I have had extensive correspondence with Loveday Ryder, the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, but some of the replies have been very unsatisfactory. Will the Minister go back to the Department and look at what we can do to speed up driving tests, in particular by combating the bots that capture the tests and sell them on for profit?

We are pleased that the provision maintains the ability of those with category B driving licences to drive zero emission vehicles up to certain weight thresholds. As has been noted, the SI also reduces the scope of eligible vehicles, from alternatively fuelled to zero emission. Alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel vehicles, but they still produce CO₂. As the vehicles do not, therefore, meet the cross-party consensus that all new cars and vans should be zero emission by 2035, we support the restriction to zero emission vehicles.

However, we again remind the Government that more needs to be done to ensure that EV charging infrastructure is in place. It is no good for people to be able to drive electric vehicles if they are unable to charge them. In addition to improving our EV charging infrastructure, we support other incentives such as restoring the plug-in grant. However, at this point we need convincing—not that we might not be convinced—that removing the five-hour training requirement, which is also contained within the SI, is a good idea. Incentives should not come at the cost of reduced safety and if a five-hour training requirement was thought necessary in 1999, I would like the Minister to explain why it is no longer required.

With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the points that have been raised. I thank hon. Members for their consideration.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said that he would be brief and got a cheer, but then went on for just a little while to talk about his favourite subject of synthetically fuelled cars. We know he has one.

That was brief! [Laughter.]

I think Churchill famously said from this Dispatch Box that a fanatic is someone who cannot change their mind and will not change the subject. I say that gently—[Laughter.] I really am being gentle there.

The intention of the SI is to support the transition to zero emission vehicles. The driving licence flexibility is therefore designed to account for the additional weight of heavier batteries in fully electric vehicles and some implementations of hydrogen fuel cell technology. Vehicles powered by natural gas or biogas are not net zero. I get what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is saying about the single life cycle of the carbon, but they are not subject to the standard category B licence requirements, meaning that they can be driven if they weigh up to 3.5 tonnes. The Government estimate that there are currently fewer than 30 such vehicles on the road.

E-fuels and synthetic fuels—which I know are the hon. Gentleman’s area of expertise and interest—are not disadvantaged by the standard category B requirements, which apply to petrol and diesel vehicles, and are therefore not included in the SI. As I have said, synthetic fuels are already treated no differently in the driving licence regulations to their petrol or diesel counterparts, and do not require the additional weight to achieve payload parity. The instrument seeks only to achieve parity with zero emission vehicles.

I am not sure about the issue with driving licences raised by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is no longer in his place. I will undertake to write to him.

In closing, this instrument, while technical in nature, represents a common-sense step that will support industry to make the switch to zero emissions and decarbonise our road transport as we make progress to net zero. It will cut transport costs for business, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and further accelerate our progress to becoming the clean energy superpower that we so hope to be. I trust that the House has found this debate informative and will join me in supporting the legislation. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put.