Summary of responses

Introduction

The Department for Transport conducted a public consultation in late 2007 to seek views from consultees on two sets of proposed amendments to regulations 36A and 36B of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

The first set of amendments is to remove time-expired transitional and savings provisions in regulations 36A and 36B. These were originally inserted to take advantage of permitted transitional arrangements when implementing the speed limiter requirements in Directive 2002/85/EC. They also ensured that operators of goods vehicles, registered between October 2001 and December 2004 with a maximum laden weight of 7.5tonnes- 12 tonnes, could not remove the fitted speed limiters that were required under domestic legislation.

The second set of amendments is to provide a permanent exemption, from the requirement to have a speed limiter fitted, for certain categories of HM Prison Service (HMPS) vehicles that are primarily used to transport Category A prisoners or to respond to emergency situations, such as disturbances in prisons.

In total, only 8 responses to the consultation document were received. The organisational breakdown of the respondents was as follows:

Business	1
Professional Bodies and Trade Associations	2
Voluntary, Community and Charitable Organisations	0
Government and Other Agencies	5
Individuals	0

Overview

The Department sent out the consultation document to stakeholder organisations and it was also posted on the Department's website for anyone with an interest to read and comment. There were only 8 responses to the consultation. The responses broadly supported the proposed amendments set out in the consultation document.

Question 1 - Amend the 1986 Regulations by removing the time-expired 'savings-provision' in the regulations affecting goods vehicles registered between October 2001 and December 2004 with a maximum laden weight of over 7.5 tonnes and up to 12tonnes.

Of the total 8 responses received, 5 of the respondents clearly agreed with the Department's approach in seeking the removal of this time expired savings provision. 2 of the respondents did not wish to make any comments to this question - and in the absence of any other indication we have taken this to mean that these respondents did not object to (rather than agreed with) the approach of removing the (now time-expired) savings provision.

1 of the respondents noted that they accepted the proposal but there were concerns raised as to the cost to operators of adjusting individual speed limiters to the affected goods vehicles.

Question 2 - Do you agree with our analysis of the costs and benefits of the speed limiter recalibration, which will be required as a result of the amendment to the 1986 Regulations?

The consultation sought views from stakeholders on the costs and benefits analysis (provided in the Impact Assessment) relating to the speed limiter recalibration required to be undertaken by operators in relation to the vehicles affected by the removal of the time-expired savings provision.

4 respondents agreed with the analysis provided in the Impact Assessment. 1 respondent also noted that it would be in the best interests of road safety that the 'savings provision' should be removed as soon as practicable.

3 of the respondents did not make any comment about question 2 - so we have again taken this to mean that they did not object to (rather than supported) the figures and assumptions as contained in the Impact Assessment.

Question 3 - Potential costs to operators a result of amending the 1986 regulations

5 of the respondents did not make any comments on the potential costs to operators as a result of removing this savings provision. 1 respondent noted that such costs would be borne by operators anyway, due to the normal business practice of renewing the fleet. 1 respondent noted that they had concerns over the costs of adjusting the speed limiters on affected vehicles.

Question 4 - A permanent exemption from the speed limiter requirements for HMPS Vehicles

3 respondents agreed with the proposal for a permanent speed limiter exemption for HMPS vehicles. 1 respondent was not convinced that there was a need for HMPS vehicles to be exempted. 1 respondent questioned the use of the term 'van' - in the consultation paper. This has since been corrected to say "vehicles" in the Impact Assessment, Explanatory Memorandum and other documents as the exemption would not just exempt goods vehicles but also vehicles used to transport category A prisoners or Prison Officers to disturbances at HMPS facilities. The same respondent noted that if when carrying out the risk assessment for the journey the HMPS identified additional risks then other measures would need to be considered.

HMPS have already indicated that drivers using the exempted vehicles would be subject to special training and that the advice of the Police would be sought when undertaking such journeys.

1 respondent opposed the exemption for HMPS on the basis that there would be other vehicle operators with high value or high risk loads that could justify being granted an exemption. The respondent did not however give any examples of other types of vehicles that should be eligible for exemptions.

The drafting of the EC directive provides no scope for other vehicle types to benefit from such exemptions so DfT are not proposing to consider exemptions for other organisations. As the exempted HMPS vehicles would almost always be under Police escort it is difficult to imagine how this exemption might be misused by HMPS drivers.

The Departments' Conclusion

The Department welcomes the support offered by most of the respondents on the proposed amendments being made to regulations 36A and 36B of the 1986 Regulations. The Department proposes to proceed with the suggested amendments. An updated Statutory Instrument, Impact Assessment and Explanatory Memorandum will be laid in Parliament.