With around two million EVs on UK roads, the Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI) is warning that technician skills are failing to keep pace with vehicle complexity. AM spoke to Nick Connor, its chief executive, about why the IMI is calling for mandatory TechSafe standards as more EVs make their way into the independent aftermarket.
The IMI has called for TechSafe standards to become mandatory across the sector. What specific risks are emerging now that make voluntary compliance no longer sufficient?
The issue is less about new risks emerging and more about the scale of the challenge increasing rapidly. There are now far more electric vehicles, software-defined vehicles and other technologically advanced vehicles on UK roads than ever before. At the same time, we are not seeing a corresponding increase in the number of suitably skilled technicians needed to maintain and repair them safely. When EV volumes were relatively small, most vehicles remained within franchised dealer networks, where manufacturers had their own training and safety standards in place. As those vehicles age, however, they are increasingly moving into the independent aftermarket. That is significant because independent garages carry out the vast majority of vehicle servicing and repairs in the UK. As a result, responsibility for maintaining and repairing these increasingly complex vehicles is spreading beyond the OEM networks. The challenge is therefore becoming much larger. More high-voltage and software-driven vehicles are entering parts of the market where training and standards can vary considerably, which is why we believe a voluntary approach is no longer enough. Mandatory TechSafe standards would help ensure a consistent level of competence and safety across the entire sector.
Is there a point at which the UK aftersales sector will no longer be able to support the growing EV parc?
I would argue we’re already at that point in some areas. Anecdotally, we’re hearing about longer wait times for EV maintenance and repairs, which suggests capacity is already under pressure. There are now around two million EVs on UK roads, yet we simply aren’t qualifying enough technicians to keep pace with that growth. We currently add around 3,000 technicians every quarter who meet the TechSafe standard and who are qualified to work on these vehicles, but that isn’t enough to match the rate at which the EV parc is expanding. What’s perhaps even more concerning is that the number of technicians gaining these qualifications is no longer increasing. In fact, qualification volumes have fallen compared with the same period last year. Whether that’s a temporary slowdown remains to be seen, but as more EVs move beyond their manufacturer warranty periods and into the independent aftermarket, the gap between vehicle growth and technician capability risks becoming increasingly significant.
The IMI believes technicians need to become “omnicompetent” rather than siloed by powertrain. How realistic is that ambition given current recruitment and training pressures?
It is realistic, but it’s also one of the industry’s biggest challenges. The encouraging thing is that we know many technicians already are omnicompetent. Today’s technicians are increasingly required to work across multiple powertrains and technologies, so the underlying ability is there. The real issue isn’t capability, it’s capacity. The industry is already facing a well-documented technician shortage, As a result, we’re trying to upskill a workforce that is already under significant pressure while also addressing a broader recruitment challenge. An omnicompetent workforce is achievable, but only if we can significantly increase both the number of technicians entering the profession and the volume of training being delivered.
Independent garages and recovery operators have been highlighted as critical to maintaining road safety. How do you ensure smaller operators can keep pace with increasingly complex vehicle technologies?
That’s where a recognised standard such as TechSafe can play an important role. It gives independent operators a clear benchmark to work towards and provides assurance that they have the skills and competence needed to work safely on modern vehicles. The alternative is to do nothing, and that simply allows the problem to grow. As vehicle technology becomes more complex, the skills gap will widen and the risks associated with inadequate training will increase. Our view is that we should address the issue now rather than wait for a significant safety or consumer confidence problem to emerge. TechSafe is already recognised by government, and we believe mandating it would provide the industry with a clear target and a consistent standard. That doesn’t mean every garage has to achieve full compliance overnight. Operators can work towards the standard over time, building the necessary skills and qualifications in a structured way. The important thing is establishing a clear direction of travel for the industry before the challenge becomes much harder to address.
The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 was identified as a key opportunity to embed TechSafe into regulation. What would success look like from the IMI’s perspective in terms of legislation?
We’re not suggesting the Act itself should be amended. Our view is that this can be addressed through secondary legislation, statutory guidance or the wider regulatory framework that sits beneath the Act. We’re also conscious of not creating unnecessary bureaucracy. The objective isn’t to add complexity for businesses, but to establish a clear and consistent standard that supports safe vehicle maintenance as technology evolves. A few weeks ago we hosted a roundtable with the transport secretary Richard Holden, bringing together employers, legal experts and fleet operators. There was broad consensus that action is needed and that a recognised standard such as TechSafe would benefit the industry, consumers and government alike. The arrival of automated vehicles makes this even more important. These technologies are coming sooner rather than later, and public confidence will depend not only on how safely autonomous vehicles operate, but also on how safely they are maintained throughout their lifetime. From our perspective, success over the next 12 months would be to see TechSafe formally recognised within the guidance and regulatory structures that support the Automated Vehicles Act that provide the opportunity to establish a clear, industry-wide standard for technician competence and vehicle safety.
How has your message been received by government?
Very positively. Among policymakers and stakeholders who understand the issues facing the sector, there appears to be a strong recognition that action is needed. We’ve found government to be receptive to the concerns we’re raising around technician competence, vehicle safety and the growing complexity of the vehicle parc. TechSafe itself has already been referenced in Parliament, which demonstrates that awareness of the standard is growing. We’ve also seen encouraging signs of support from across the political spectrum, suggesting this is an issue that transcends party politics. So while there is still work to do, our sense is that we’re pushing at least a partially open door. The conversations we’ve had so far suggest there is genuine interest in finding a practical solution, and we’re optimistic that momentum is building behind the case for wider adoption of TechSafe.
What’s the realistic timeframe for TechSafe becoming mandatory?
These things don’t always move as quickly as we’d like, and we have to be realistic about the legislative and regulatory process. That said, we’re already having constructive discussions with government and, to be fair, they have been receptive to the issues we’re raising. Ideally, I would like to see TechSafe mandated in some form within the next 12 to 18 months. Even if implementation isn’t immediate, having a clear commitment and timetable would be a significant step forward because it would give businesses certainty and allow them to start building the skills and capacity needed to meet future demand.