October 2026

by Robin Astle.

From HISTORIC, the FBHVC magazine Issue 11

Legislation By Lindsay Irvine

Introduction

One can usually count on the summer being a quieter period for the Legislation Committee and its chair – me. Government departments reduce their output and ministerial attention moves elsewhere. However, as previewed in the last edition, we had to work on a response to a consultation on the role of the Regulator for Martyn’s Law which you can read about below. Then having bemoaned the fact we had not seen the Government draft Statement of Safety Principles (SOSP) required by section 2 of the Automated Vehicles Act before being asked to comment on the contents of draft regulations, the draft SOSP suddenly appeared demanding our further consideration. We are also considering a government consultation on regulating road vehicle emissions from more recent vehicles.

I provide important updates on two of the insurance topics covered in Edition 9 of Historic; the first concerns the Association of British Insurers Code of Practice and the second concerns the issue of vehicle “arena cover”. I pay credit to the DAF Club for an excellent article in a recent club magazine about the minister responsible for instigating the zebra crossing which I use as a reminder of zebra crossing etiquette (with the usual reminder that this does not constitute formal legal advice!). Finally another club article provides a reason for talking about aircraft again. Happy motoring!

Martyn’s Law

There can be few in the club committee world who are not at least aware of the aims and provisions of Martyn’s Law (The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025) and its potential effect on some club events. I have written quite a lot about it. That there is such a growing knowledge was evidenced by the superb reaction to an urgent round robin email sent out by our Secretary, Mel, in June. This sought information to assist with our response to a consultation on behalf of the Security Industry Association Regulator. The reaction and assistance from clubs was superb.

Some were no doubt relieved that their relatively small events were not going to attract the burdens of the new legislation when it comes into effect next year. Others revealed impressive attendances at their shows, some of which are held at existing event venues but others using “bare” sites. The former were relieved to hear that those premises should already have appointed “responsible persons” to manage risk and have existing security structures. The latter group appreciated that there will be work to be done to fulfil the Act’s requirements. It was instructive for us to learn about the number, variety and different sizes of events which our members hold.

In any event, the answers to Mel greatly assisted with the construction of a response to the SIA consultation on its aims and philosophy. For simplicity I quote from the text of our press release immediately below but our position might be summarised as “Please help, don’t penalise volunteer organisations”. As to how it should carry out its role, we called for an approach by the regulator that is “constructive and sympathetic, not overly bureaucratic and critical.” This was particularly the case because the aforementioned survey of clubs found a wide mix of types of event, largely organised by very small teams of volunteers with limited budgets. We raised concerns that the unique nature of classic vehicle events, meant that understanding the guidance – which appears to be aimed at commercial enterprises running pop concerts and the like – is proving challenging. We therefore asked for the SIA to include in its considerations the ways of providing the tailored guidance and advice that is currently lacking.

In more detailed terms we set out what we expected from the regulator in fulfilling its professed aim “to be proportionate, consistent, transparent, accountable and targeted only at cases in which action is needed.” Whilst agreeing with that aspiration, we submitted that since overwhelmingly our member clubs are staffed by volunteers, we wanted an approach which is constructive and sympathetic and not overly bureaucratic and critical. We asked for evidence of their aspiration, suggesting:

• A helpline to provide specific advice and guidance to organisers particularly in relation to assisting them with assessing what might be proportionate and reasonable protection measures for their event.
• That they ensure that in the light of experience, the statutory Home Office guidance is amended to include more examples of what is proportionate and reasonable in different scenarios and a comprehensive compendium of FAQs. We pointed out that our clubs organise events which in terms of attendance fall into every part of the spectrum, their size often quite disproportionate to the size of the club. We reminded the Regulator that as volunteer organisations they are likely to experience difficulties with aspects of compliance and we asked for a light touch to any inspection and enforcement action with a default setting of providing tailored guidance and assistance.

Finally, we asked that the next set of regulations, which will set out the instructions for notifications, etc., should be simple and straightforward and the costs of compliance for non-commercial organisations kept as low as possible.

Our full response can be viewed here: https://fbhvc.co.uk/consultations

More details about Martyn’s Law and its requirements are here: https://fbhvc.co.uk/martyns-law

The accompanying guidance on how to comply with the provisions in the Act were not open to consultation but you will find my summary of the contents in the last edition of Historic. The Government guidance is fairly comprehensive and has helpful scenarios but won’t always provide the answer to the tricky question of what is reasonably practicable in terms of security measures. That is what we look to the Regulator to assist with.

Automated Vehicles Call for Evidence and Road Safety Strategy

So, just as the previous edition of Historic was going to distribution, the Government released another consultation on Autonomous Vehicles https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/automated-vehicles-statement-of-safety-principles/automated-vehicles-statement-of-safety-principles-consultation. Having previously consulted on how the Secretary of State should construct the Statement of Safety Principles (SOSP) mandated in the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, the Government is now seeking views on a draft of that SOSP. In responding to the many questions in the earlier consultation, our principal aim was to ensure that whether implicitly or explicitly, the SOSP ensured the freedom to operate and the safety of HVs would not be compromised when autonomous vehicles were deployed.

Readers who take an interest in this topic may recall that amongst other points, we raised the issue of the AV being able to interact safely with vehicles whose size, speed, construction and lighting might be quite different from modern vehicles. The task for us now before the September deadline is to consider whether the draft adequately deals with our concerns. I could note on first glance that whilst HVs are not mentioned specifically, the requirement for safe interoperability is covered in the draft principles and particularly in relation to 2-wheeled vehicles. Draft principle number 7 states that:

“Self-driving vehicles should interact safely with all road users, particularly vulnerable road users. This includes, though is not limited to, being considerate around pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, children, older adults and disabled people more at risk.”

We will look at the rest of the consultation in detail and decide if a further response is required. I have provided the link above so please do write in if you have any comments or suggestion and feel free to respond directly to the DfT.

Emissions

In July we received notice of another DfT consultation, “In-use emissions of road vehicles: regulating environmental impacts.” Emissions are clearly a sensitive topic for the HV community and an urgent scrutiny was required albeit a closer examination will be undertaken after this column is written. The bottom line is that the consultation is about proposed amendments to construction and use regulations to deal with a gap in enforcement provisions on emissions from relatively modern vehicles; they do not impact on current HVs. They may have an effect on future generations of HVs but our scope to influence that is limited.

As discussed recently in the context of VED, emissions standards have been one of the defining features of post 2000 vehicles in terms of excise duty, MOT and clean air zones in cities. When “Euro” emissions standards were mandated in the late 90s and came into effect in the UK from 2000 onwards, the UK Government enforced compliance with the Euro standards once the vehicles were in use, through Regulation 61A of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (C&U Regs). As Euro standards advanced from Euro 1 through 4, the C&U regs were appropriately amended. This consultation reveals that this updating has not been the case for Euro 5 onwards. This is significant as the higher emissions standards have generally required the fitment of more devices (catalysts, diesel particulate filters, exhaust gas recirculation equipment and “Adblue” selective catalyst reduction systems). These can be expensive to maintain and replace and there is growing evidence of their manipulation or complete removal so that the vehicle is no longer in its “as built” state and therefore increasing pollution and sometimes noise.

The proposal is to fill that gap in the emissions laws between what is required when a vehicle is newly built and registered and when it is in use on the roads particularly in respect of maintaining the functioning of the ECS (electronic control systems) of Euro 5 or 6 light-duty vehicles or Euro VI heavy-duty vehicles. There will also be a general tightening up of the legislative consequences for breach of the Regulations and an extension of the provisions in Regulation 61A to wider classes of motor vehicles including mopeds, scooters and motorcycles:

“There will be a legal requirement that all road vehicles in-use in GB must have their ECS maintained in such a way that the maximum level of emissions and other requirements of the control system continue to operate as set by law at the time of manufacture.”

On the one hand it proposes that modifications will be banned which result in the approved emissions standards no longer being met. On the other hand, the government is at pains to stress it does not want to stop legitimate modifications such as the installation of parts that are generic rather than original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The legality test will be fulfilled if the vehicle modification, whether to hardware or through alteration to software, does not affect the standard to which it was legally built.

I am sure that some will be concerned about the situation when these vehicles move closer to being HVs under the rolling provisions and any restrictions on modifications. However, as a matter of principle, our ability to enjoy our freedoms and exemptions largely rely on our vehicles remaining compliant with their original build standards and not having to be modified to meet later standards. We do not have any sensible argument as to why current generations of more complex vehicles should be allowed to deviate from their build standards with consequent detriment to the environment but we will have a closer look. The consultation is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/in-use-emissions-of-road-vehicles-regulating-environmental-impacts/regulating-environmental-impact-of-in-use-emissions-of-road-vehicles

FIVA

Working with FIVA on Alps ‘ban’

A ban on all vehicles in groups (such as organised tours) from using roads over 1,600m in elevation in the Italian Alps (Sud Tyrol) was suddenly implemented on 25 July, without notice.

The ban includes the famed Stelvio Pass, which marked its 200th anniversary of opening last year.

Further details are awaited, including how it is being enforced, but it’s understood that the ban covers all ages and types of vehicles (including motorcycles) and has been introduced primarily due to congestion on the road. The ban only covers ‘organised’ groups of vehicles; individual vehicles are not prohibited.

The international body for historic vehicles FIVA (Fédération Internationale des Véhicules Anciens), of which the FBHVC is a member, has taken immediate action to establish the facts and challenge the ban, to exempt historic vehicles.

As it’s a local government measure (rather than one brought in by the Italian national government) the options for challenging this under EU law are limited.

There is concern that this ban could spread leading to similar measures being adopted by the local regions covering the French and Swiss Alps, which are also popular with tour organisers.

FIVA points out that tours by historic vehicle groups bring in many hundreds of thousands of Euros in revenue to the region, of which much is spent with the hotels in the area.

We will provide updates on our website and social media.