Government reviews its Driver CPC exemption guidance

Advice previously published by the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Driving Standards Agency (DSA), regarding exemptions from the requirement to hold a Driver CPC, has been removed from the government’s website and is being reviewed, following “queries” raised by trade associations.

A document published recently on the gov.uk site, which has now been removed in its entirety pending the review, included numerous examples of situations in which the DfT considered Driver CPC would and would not be required. This included guidance echoing previous advice issued by VOSA and published in February by Transport Operator, suggesting that mechanics and technicians taking vehicles to annual test would need the Driver CPC.

In a statement, the DSA told Transport Operator: “Driver CPC was implemented in GB, in close partnership with the industry, to improve road safety. Following requests from them, further guidance on Driver CPC exemptions was recently published on gov.uk. In response to queries from trade associations on some of the examples given, the guidance has been removed and is currently being reviewed.”

It is currently unclear exactly which of the examples have prompted queries. However, when asked whether the issue of mechanics taking vehicles to annual test was the primary motivation for removing the advice, a spokesperson for the DSA said: “I can confirm that the concerns relate to a relatively small group of drivers, including some drivers employed as garage mechanics.”

Website visitors attempting to access the advice now encounter a message stating that: “The Driving Standards Agency is reviewing previously published examples of Driver CPC exemptions. They’ll be published again as part of this guide when they’ve been reviewed.”

The news follows a joint intervention on the ‘mechanics’ issue earlier this month by the Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association. In a letter to the roads minister Stephen Hammond, the organisations cited industry estimates that there were more than 30,000 technicians in the UK – claiming that while a few companies had included mechanics in their DCPC training programmes, the vast majority had not.

Requesting further discussions with the minister, the associations referred him to “the title of the Directive 2003/59/EC and the frequent references within the recital which refer to ‘the profession of driver’” – which, they suggested, indicated that the Directive was never intended to include such activity.

The associations said that for all HGV operators to achieve full compliance for their staff in just over a year would be “a massive task and cost for the industry and one that they believe will deliver relatively little benefit to the freight industry.”

The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the Directive in question applies across the European Union – and appears to have been interpreted differently by different Member States.

The UK is not alone in having interpreted mechanics taking vehicles to test to fall under the scope of DCPC, according to the RHA. In a recent campaign update, the association said that Belgium “takes a similar view” to the UK authorities, but that all other states whose view was known – the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland – “have no such requirement.”

RHA chief executive Geoff Dunning said of the issue: “RHA doesn’t think that the Directive was ever intended to include the same restrictions on technicians and mechanics carrying out these activities, and the frequent reference to “the profession of driver” in the recital confirms to us that technicians, who are neither professional drivers nor engaged in the carriage of goods, were not who the Commission had in mind when developing these requirements.”

Theo de Pencier, FTA’s chief executive, said: “FTA feels strongly that the recent advice issued by the DfT represents an unreasonable reading of the Directive which we believe will put undue burden on our members and all businesses within the logistics sector.

“It also appears to run contrary to the Department’s stated aim – presented in the Logistics Growth Review and the Red Tape Challenge – to reduce the regulatory burdens placed on industry.”