Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of this draft order. I add my support to the words of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Blencathra, about the important role and work of staff in the bus industry, particularly during Covid-19.
As the Minister said, the Bus Services Act 2017 amended the Transport Act 2000 to provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring bus operators and local transport authorities to make data available regarding timetables, fares, stopping places, vehicle location and the time at which buses arrive or are expected to arrive. Information on historic punctuality data is also included. These regulations now make that provision, to allow for the development of bus information applications for use on mobile and other devices to help passengers in England to make informed decisions about their journeys, although I suppose that in the current situation it is a moot point whether it is less a case of passengers wanting to find out where the buses are than the buses wanting to find out where the passengers are.
The objective of the regulations is to be achieved by requiring operators of local bus services, and local authorities outside Greater London, to make their bus data available, including on timetables, fares and location, through the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will in turn publish it on a website for developers of bus information apps to access so that they can create applications, products and services for passengers’ mobile and other devices. As has been said, that already happens in Greater London for buses, and across the rail industry, enabling passengers to plan journeys, find the cheapest fares and obtain real-time service updates and information.
The Minister has already answered in her opening contribution some of the questions that I was going to ask so I will try to avoid repeating them, at least in some cases. She said that the order was essential to encourage the travelling public to use their local bus services and to make the switch to public transport, in order to reduce congestion and improve air quality. I know the Minister will acknowledge that more than the provisions of this order will be needed to get people back on to buses. So, in addition to this order, do the Government intend to provide bus operators and local authorities, including Transport for London, sufficient long-term assistance, particularly financial funding, to ensure that their income from running buses is maintained at at least at pre-Covid-19 levels until passengers return in sufficient numbers to achieve this objective without financial support? If that is not the Government’s intention, the anticipated and hoped-for favourable impact of this order on buses, which we support, will be somewhat diminished.
Under the order, any operator of a local bus service across England must publish its timetable, fares and location data for the bus open data service before that service comes into operation. The new rules will be enforced by the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, which will be able to conduct checks to ensure that the operator is complying. How will those checks be conducted and what form will they take? Will that require additional resources for the DVSA?
Punctuality data will also be legally required, and local transport authorities will be legally responsible for maintaining data about bus stops and stations. As has been said, the regulations will be brought in in phases: timetables and stop data requirements from the end of this year; basic fares and location data from early January; and complex fares from January 2023. Why is such a timescale deemed necessary in respect of complex fares? What is the definition of a complex fare? As far as the two much earlier deadlines are concerned, are the Government satisfied that these much shorter timescales can still be delivered in light of the disruption resulting from Covid-19?
The order does not appear to cover the provision at bus stops, as opposed to via mobile devices, of information for waiting passengers on when the next bus or next few buses will actually be arriving, on which routes and to what destinations. Is that the case? If so, what is the reason for that? Such information, where already available at bus stops, can be very useful for passengers who may not have any other means of finding out how long they will have to wait for their bus to arrive.
What growth in bus use are the provisions of this order expected to generate? Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to it being “assumed” that this will
“lead to increased bus patronage.”
There is also a reference, I think in the same paragraph, to greater profits for bus operators of £0.8 million to £5 million per year. What percentage increase in profits does that represent? Would it also mean a reduction in the level of subsidy that local authorities pay to operators for running local authority-subsidised services?
As I have indicated, we support the provision of more comprehensive information, including real-time information, about bus services to passengers. We hope that the order achieves its stated objectives.
Public Transport: Social Distancing
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
We are not lifting the restrictions regarding face coverings, nor are we doing so in respect of social distancing; they are being amended. I take the noble Earl’s point about local lockdown, which is a very important issue. Even in areas where there is local lockdown we still need public transport to function to get key workers to the places that they need to be to do their work in combating the pandemic.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Government’s continuing message even as the lockdown is eased that bus and rail travel poses a risk is resulting in high levels of car usage while many services currently carry far fewer passengers than could be carried while still observing the two-metre rule let alone the one metre-plus rule. The rail industry estimates that, at best, the railways will return to 50% to 60% of their pre-Covid passenger numbers in 2021. Do the Government have a plan for getting passengers back on our buses and trains—which I think was the point of the question from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester? Some airlines now operate with potentially all seats filled, so why can it be made safe to do this on planes but not apparently on trains?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I refer the noble Lord to the comments that I made earlier. We will be working on recovery plans for all transport modes over the summer. At the moment and at peak times in particular, many of our transport modes are operating at capacity. I take the point that we need to look at what will happen next year, the forecasts for it and how we encourage people back on to trains and buses, but that point has not been reached now.
Covid-19: Airline Sector
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. The Government have worked, and continue to work, closely with the devolved Administrations throughout the Covid-19 pandemic to ensure as coherent an approach as possible across the four nations. We will announce further details on the regulations, including a full list of the countries and territories from which arriving passengers will be exempted from self-isolation requirements, later this week.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In response to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on 4 June, the Minister said that if a firm sought any bespoke financial support from the Government, it might be subject to conditions that included some of those which had been outlined by my noble friend, which were: protecting jobs, salaries and workers’ rights; taking steps to tackle climate change; maintaining their tax base in the UK; not paying dividends until doing so was liable; and fully complying with consumer law, particularly in relation to refunds. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the Government’s position, and say whether any discussions have taken place with airlines or air operators over bespoke financial support and what progress has been made on that support being subject to conditions?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I am not able to comment on any particular conversations we may or may not be having with individual companies. However, I can confirm that the Government stand ready to support individual companies seeking bespoke support if they have exhausted all other measures, either from the Government or through private sources—for example, their shareholders. It remains the case that such support might come with the sort of conditions that the noble Lord mentioned. However, I would not want to prejudge that and, as I have said, any ongoing discussions about support would be subject to all sorts of terms.
Public Transport: Face Coverings
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
The issue that the noble Baroness brings up is extremely worrying. We do not want people having to get GP letters. That is not what is intended. When we put these regulations in place, we did an equalities impact assessment and took advice from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to make sure that we understand fully the sorts of exemptions that are needed. We are working closely with operators to put in place exemption schemes, which may include badges, lanyards or cards that people can show to other individuals—and, just as importantly, to transport operators and police—to show that, for whatever reason, they are exempt from wearing a face covering.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Despite the impending reopening of museums, pubs, cinemas and hotels, there has been no clear updated guidance on whether people can use public transport to reach these destinations. Can the Minister clarify the guidance? Will individuals and families be encouraged to or discouraged from using public transport to travel to leisure and hospitality facilities? If they travel, will they be required to wear a face covering? If they do not do so, will they be stopped from using public transport?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
As I mentioned previously, wearing a face covering on public transport is mandatory. If a person does not have a face covering on, they can be denied service or removed from the service. On the reopening of various facilities on 4 July, the Department for Transport and broader government are continually looking at the demand for transport and our transport capacity to see whether we are in danger of demand exceeding supply. If there is capacity on public transport, the Government’s messaging may well change, but in the short term, we cannot suddenly open up public transport to everybody because there simply is not the capacity.
Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister and her officials for the virtual meeting on these regulations on Tuesday, and the Minister specifically for her explanation of the content and purpose of this draft SI, to which we are not opposed.
EU regulation 785/2004 establishes minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties. It also requires that air carriers and aircraft operators have insurance which covers specific risks, including acts of war, terrorism, hijacking, acts of sabotage, unlawful seizure of aircraft, and civil commotion. The regulation will be retained in our law at the end of the transition period and the Minister has already been asked more than once about insurance cover for Covid-19 type pandemics—I am sure she will respond to that point.
As a result of recent amendments made to EU regulation 785/2004, these further draft regulations are needed to ensure that the terms of that regulation, as amended, continue to operate effectively in our domestic law after the end of the transition period. This is achieved by replacing Commission powers with powers for Secretary of State for Transport to amend the minimum insurance requirements by regulations which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As I understand it, the 1999 Montreal Convention provided for airlines to be responsible for compensation in the case of death and injury to passengers, and to be adequately insured to cover any liabilities, and the EU minimum insurance requirements stemmed from that. First, I ask the Government to confirm, as I believe the Minister said, that these regulations make no changes in the present minimum insurance requirements that apply in the UK on the day after the end of the transition period, apart from replacing Commission powers with powers for the Secretary of State.
I wish to raise a couple of other points. Will UK air carriers and aircraft operators have to have, at all times in the future, minimum insurance levels that are not below EU minimum requirements in order to be able to fly to EU countries? If we wanted to, could we have minimum insurance requirements that are below EU minimum requirements and not put in jeopardy the ability of our air carriers and aircraft operators to fly to EU countries? The Government’s mantra is that at the end of the transition period we will have taken back control and be able to do what we want to do and not, as a member of the EU, be a party to EU legislation. What does this draft regulation enable us to take back control of, in practice and not just in theory? What have we been wanting to do but have been unable to do on minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators because we have been a member of the European Union?
The insurance requirements covered by these draft regulations are about providing cover for airline operators rather than consumers, including passengers. Can the Government say whether the minimum insurance requirements provided for in these draft regulations cover airline operators against legal proceedings for failing to reimburse fares for flights that were cancelled? On the face of it, these regulations offer no good news for passengers, of whom I am one, waiting far too long for such refunds. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government, in their response to this debate, will also take the opportunity to say what actual progress they have made in ensuring that airlines make the necessary arrangements to refund these fares promptly and not leave it for several months.
I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to the points made in the debate, including the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Air Traffic Management (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for the explanation of the provisions and purpose of the regulations, to which we are not opposed. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I also thank the Minister and her officials for the virtual meeting yesterday.
The regulations follow an earlier set of air traffic management regulations and are needed to make legally operable, in the light of our departure from the EU, further EU air traffic management legislation that has come into being since the 2019 air traffic management EU exit regulations were made. This is being done, where relevant, by transferring to the Secretary of State for Transport or to the Civil Aviation Authority roles that are currently undertaken by the European Commission and EU bodies.
Could the Government confirm what I believe the Minister has said: these regulations change nothing relating to air traffic management practices, procedures, regulations or standards on the day after the transition period ends, apart from the transfer of roles to which I just referred? Could they also say what the regulations enable us to do that we are likely to want to consider doing after the end of the transition period that we cannot do at present? I ask that in the context that air traffic management, which covers organisations, operations and procedures, is the subject of international agreements as well as EU regulations, for fairly obvious reasons—namely, that it is an international activity or industry where considerable commonality of practices and standards is vital.
The Government’s mantra is that we will take back control, so to revisit a point made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, what is it that these regulations enable us to take back control of in practice, not just in theory? What is it that we have been wanting to do but have been unable to do in respect of air traffic management because we have been a member of the European Union? I hope the Government will be able to provide some specific examples, because the Explanatory Memorandum does not appear to address that question.
I will also raise a safety issue, to which the Minister referred in her opening speech. As the Explanatory Memorandum says, the EU’s single European sky legislation supports the EU initiative to enhance air traffic safety standards, contribute to the sustainable development of the air traffic management system and improve the efficiency of air navigation services within the European air traffic management system.
When we leave the EU, there will presumably be a more obvious border, air traffic-wise, between France and ourselves, for example—a border with a very high density of air traffic crossing it in both directions. If the Secretary of State is to take over the role of the European Commission and other EU bodies for air traffic management, does that not run the risk of potentially compromising the current EU-wide safety arrangements and their oversight? Aircraft might be in the process of climbing or descending at that air border between us and France—for example, if they are starting their descent into the airport for which they are heading. Contact between controllers is crucial, since aircraft collisions at other border points have occurred, including when communication over aircraft movements between controllers are temporarily not as effective as they should be, for one reason or another—perhaps frequency changes. If there was an incident at the air transport border between France and ourselves once we have left the EU, which single body or organisation would be responsible for investigating it, and which single body or organisation would be accountable for ensuring there were safe practices and procedures for aircraft traffic management at that border point?
Finally, on our departure from the EU, work that the European Aviation Safety Agency currently undertakes will, in our case, be transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority. I shall pursue once again a point made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley. What impact will that have on the workload of the authority, or is the Government’s position on that that it is largely the transfer of a responsibility or a duty rather than a workload?
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points that I have made and to the variety of points made in the course of this debate.
Covid-19: Walking and Cycling
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
There are all sorts of things that we can do to make cycling a better experience for all, particularly those who are starting out on their cycling journey. They include actions by local authorities to make some streets cycling- and pedestrian-only. Work can also be done on improving cycling safety.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Government figures indicate that, nationally, increases in cycling and walking in the light of Covid-19 will result in fewer journeys by public transport and not fewer journeys by car, which people now regard as a safer means of transport. What do the Government intend to do to promote cycling and walking as an alternative to the car, rather than it being an alternative to public transport, as is happening now?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
This comes down to the actions that can be taken by local authorities. We have provided the guidance that they need to follow. What they put in place within their own areas will be key to reducing localised congestion. That might include speed restrictions, as previously mentioned; traffic light cycles can be changed; there can be car-limited areas; and there could be changes to parking charges.
Covid-19: Public Transport
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I agree that the wearing of face coverings will be a very important element in restoring confidence in our public transport, not only for the passengers and the workforce but, in the longer term, for the industry. It is really important that people should wear face coverings on our public transport; that is the message that we are putting out there at the moment. Of course, any changes such as mandating the use of face coverings is an issue for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, which is considering this.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Given that, at least in the short to medium term, the economics of public transport are likely to be altered by lifestyle changes resulting from Covid-19, such as more people working from home and less international travel, will the Government provide financial support to public transport operators while they adjust to lifestyle changes of this kind once the pandemic is finally brought under control?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The Government are already providing financial support to a range of transport operators to make sure that they can operate as good a service as possible in the current environment. This will include funding for buses and light rail—and of course we have the Emergency Measures Agreement for all our heavy rail services. The situation is being kept under review. As demand changes over time and as the country comes out of lockdown, clearly, demand for public transport will go up, but it is not clear exactly when it will become commercially viable to operate public transport without government support.
Covid-19: Transport
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I begin by expressing our thanks to all involved in the transport industry, and in particular all those key workers on the front line who have kept this vital sector up and running during the pandemic for the use of other key workers and for the movement of essential supplies. I do not know the exact number, but certainly over 50 transport staff have died with Covid-19, the majority in London. We express our sincere condolences to their families and friends.
The devastating consequences of Covid-19 make this Statement on government guidance all the more important, as people are now being actively encouraged to go back to work if they cannot work at home. Indeed, some people who have been able to work from home are now being told by their employer to return to the workplace. Those going back to work are being told to avoid using public transport where possible and, instead, to travel by car, by bike or on foot.
However, this guidance is not a directive and contains a lot of “shoulds” and “coulds”. I am concerned about how practical implementing the guidance will be, in particular in respect of social distancing and maintaining a two-metre distance on public transport. Transport for London has said that, given the national requirement to maintain social distancing wherever possible, capacity on the Tube and buses will be reduced to around 13% to 15%, even once services are back to full strength.
Some 80% of those coming into central London to work come in by public transport. Even if that figure is halved by people still working from home and by more people coming in by car, there will not be the required capacity on public transport if social distancing is to be maintained, as indeed we have already seen. At times, the position will be the same in our other major cities, even though the percentage travelling to work by public transport is nowhere near the level in London.
How will social distancing be maintained? For example, a suburban train, bus or tram coming into the centre of London or another major city will start its journey from the outer terminus with a limited number of passengers. As more passengers join at each station or stop on the inward journey, the train, bus or tram will become more crowded. Under these guidelines, will the operator be expected to have staff at each station or bus stop deciding how many passengers can still be allowed to get on each arriving train, bus or tram, consistent with maintaining social distancing, and preventing passengers joining if maximum capacity still enabling social distancing to be maintained has already been reached? Will the operator, under these guidelines, be expected to stop passengers entering at each station if the platforms already have the maximum number of people on them waiting for a train, consistent with maintaining social distancing?
Are these examples of what is meant by maintaining social distancing wherever possible under these guidelines? If not, how will social distancing be maintained in reality if it is entirely a matter for each passenger whether or not they choose to get on a train, bus or tram that already has more people on board than is consistent with maintaining social distancing? What can the Government tell us today about the extent to which it has been possible to maintain social distancing this week on our trains, buses and trams as they have got nearer on their inward journeys to the centre of London and our other major cities?
For public transport staff, the train or station, bus, coach, ship, plane or taxi is their place of work rather than a means of getting to work. I am not clear how much guaranteed protection these guidelines provide them with. There is no provision for PPE to be provided for front-line staff. The Statement also says that wearing face coverings when using public transport could help protect other travellers, and presumably also staff, from coronavirus—but having said that, the guidance then only advises people to wear face coverings.
If a bus driver, for example, feels that more people have been regularly getting on their vehicle than is consistent with maintaining social distancing, and that their employer has not done as much as could have been done to prevent that situation arising, which they feel puts their health at risk, is it clear in the Government’s view whether the driver has the right to decline to continue working, without penalty, until the situation is resolved, whether by the employer or the intervention of an outside body?
I turn to the Government’s 14-day quarantine proposals, which cover apparently everyone coming from anywhere in the world unless via France or from Ireland. Will the Government publish the advice that says we need 14-day quarantine now but there has been no case for it previously? Why is France excluded and why, just as one example, does Gibraltar find itself included when it has had no deaths from coronavirus? How will the 14-day quarantine period be enforced? More than 18 million passengers have entered the UK since January. Will it be against the law for an individual not to be present at the address they have given? Who will ensure that they are, and which organisation or body has the resources to do this in the current situation?
I have real doubts about the practicality of applying some of these guidelines, in particular in relation to social distancing on public transport, and I suspect that many in the Government do too, unless the vast majority of people returning to work simply choose not to travel to work in this way, and particularly in London. Time will tell, but we can only hope that the guidelines do their job and we do not end up with a second spike in coronavirus cases which could affect anyone, including those of us taking part in this debate today.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I echo the thanks to all those key workers in transport industries who have kept vital supplies and vital workers moving during the last two months. As always, our economy sits on the shoulders of the transport sector. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I want especially to mention bus drivers and others who died, who were particularly exposed to the virus in their work.
I start by reminding everyone that last Sunday’s broadcast by the Prime Minister was essentially for England only. New rules and advice were announced, but they were for England. The situation is different in Wales and Scotland, so it is now a complex picture. That matters, of course, because transport crosses borders.
I very much welcome the investment announced in cycling and walking, specifically the emergency and temporary measures. While I am delighted to see the speed of response, I seek assurances from the Minister that this first tranche of money will be followed by long-term investment in improving the infrastructure for active travel. Indeed, the Department for Transport itself has estimated that it needs £5 billion to nearly double the number of trips using cycling from 2% to 4%. This announcement was of course for £2 billion. Can the Minister give us some detail on how the Government will work with local authorities to ensure that the money is indeed spent well and quickly?
I was also pleased to see the announcement about trials of electric scooters on public roads. Can the Minister tell me a little more about this? Will it involve only scooters for hire or include privately owned scooters?
For me, the peace and quiet in recent weeks, due to the lack of transport noise, has been wonderful. So too has been the improvement in air quality. The reduction in harmful emissions has allowed us to glimpse a view of how to tackle climate change. However, on Sunday, the Prime Minister fired the starting gun on the return to old habits when he advised people to get back in their cars and avoid public transport. I accept that there is an impossible conundrum with public transport. It is not possible to socially distance on most buses and trains; it is therefore essential that every other possible safety measure is taken seriously.
I was disappointed that the guidance issued by the Department for Transport to public transport operators was essentially a series of suggestions. There are many bus operators across the country, many of them small operators with limited capacity. Early in this crisis, the Government recognised the need to take centralised control of train services. I am not suggesting for a moment that they should nationalise bus services, but I am surprised that they have apparently not established a national forum for sharing good practice and providing guidance to bus operators. Will the Minister consider that?
On issues such as screens, frequent cleaning, going cash free and the availability of hand sanitiser, the guidance was very laissez-faire. It was merely a series of suggestions, which I fear can—and in some cases, will—be ignored. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, the advice to passengers on face masks states:
“There are some circumstances when wearing a face covering may be marginally beneficial”.
It goes on to emphasise that it is “optional” and “not required by law”. The lesson of the past few weeks is that although we, the public, like to know why we are being told to do something, we also like clear instructions. That instruction on face covering would have been much clearer if it had simply said, “You are advised to cover your face in crowded places.”
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
Lord Rosser Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
To move that the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this is a take note Motion. I am not opposed to the principle of the regulations, which introduce a one-off, six-month exclusion from the requirement for light vehicles to hold a valid MoT test certificate, but I have a number of points and questions to raise with the Government.
To start, what were the key factors behind these regulations? The Explanatory Memorandum states that
“given the widespread impact of COVID-19 there are likely to be local difficulties in obtaining testing imminently, with more widespread difficulties as the pandemic develops.”
That suggests that the basis of the regulations is an assumption, rather than hard evidence, about local and more widespread difficulties.
The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to state that without the regulations
“many people may have to unlawfully use their vehicle without an MOT, to reach work or do essential shopping, which is a particular concern for vulnerable people”
and:
“The lack of a valid MOT may also mean that vehicles cannot be taxed and using a vehicle unlawfully may also invalidate insurance cover.”
These last two points depend on the accuracy of the assumption that Covid-19 has led to difficulties in obtaining testing. However, I hope the Government can confirm that they have ensured that the DVLA has updated its records and systems so that people in the six-month exemption period will not have problems renewing their car tax or over insurance cover.
Returning to the point about difficulties of obtaining testing, which would presumably be caused by garages being closed or short-staffed due to the incidence of Covid-19, my local garage was shut for three weeks in April, but it then reopened, since after another month there might not have been a business left at all. The Government did not say that garages had to close. Indeed, they encouraged them to remain open, and I assume they have issued appropriate advice on maintaining social distancing at work for garage mechanics.
There are 23,500 test stations, and in normal times there is a surplus of capacity, according to the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Government say what that level of spare capacity in normal times actually is? What is the maximum number of MoT tests on vehicles covered by these regulations that can be carried out per six months in a normal year compared with the number actually carried out per six months in a normal year? How many MoT tests on light vehicles covered by these regulations were carried out in the four weeks prior to the announcement of the lockdown, and what was the maximum number of MoT tests that could have been carried out in the four weeks prior to the announcement of the lockdown? By how much has the maximum capacity for testing been reduced so far during this pandemic, and what do the Government estimate that maximum capacity to be at present?
Presumably the Government wish to see the terms of these regulations, with their one-off, six-month exemption from an MoT test, brought to an end as soon as possible. If the principal reason for these regulations is concern about present testing capacity, the Government must surely have their finger on the pulse of changes in the maximum available testing capacity.
The continuation of these regulations ought surely to be reconsidered as soon as the required level of testing capacity is available. Unless the Government are going to argue that the MoT test is actually somewhat unnecessary—in which case, why do we have it in the first place?—there must be potential safety issues in allowing light vehicles that would not pass their next scheduled MoT test to remain on the road for a further six months. It is not good enough for the Government simply to say, as they do in the Explanatory Memorandum, that
“vehicle users are still required by the Road Traffic Act 1988 … to ensure vehicles are in good working order.”
There will apparently be millions of light vehicles on the road that would have failed their scheduled MoT test had it taken place. The Explanatory Memorandum says that around 16.6 million relevant MoTs are due to expire over the first six months of these regulations. It also says that 29% of those tested, around 4.9 million vehicles, would have received a dangerous or major MoT failure over the same six-month period. That is then shrugged off in the Explanatory Memorandum with the statement that
“however the maintenance requirements and low risk of incidents occurring from vehicle defects mitigates this risk”,
followed by
“but, the risk remains low during the ‘stay at home’ rules as trips are made for essential purposes only.”
Three days ago, that position changed. Rather than stay at home, we are now told by the Government to “stay alert”, which I suppose is pretty good advice for all road users and pedestrians with 4.9 million vehicles that would have failed their MoT with a dangerous or major failure allowed on the roads under the six-month exemption.
I recognise that a decisive majority of road accidents or incidents are the result of human error rather than vehicle defects, though it would be surprising if a vehicle defect did not increase the likelihood of human error, but nevertheless the six-month exemption increases the likelihood of accidents or incidents due to vehicle defects. An impact assessment would have addressed that point, but there is no impact assessment due to lack of time. What, then, is the Government’s estimate of the increase in the number of incidents due to, in whole or in part, vehicle defects that would have been picked up in an MoT test, but were not, as a result of the six-month MoT test exemption?
I also understand that vehicles are being sold on the basis of up to six months still left on the MoT when that period is the six-month exemption, and does not mean—as implied—that the vehicle passed an MoT test between six months and up to a maximum of a year ago.
The DVSA has separately issued certificates of temporary exemption from the requirement to hold a test certificate for goods vehicles and public service vehicles. What is the MoT failure rate for these vehicles, and how many such vehicles were due an MoT test in the six months to the end of this September? Returning to the non-existent impact assessment, will the Government now produce one, since impact assessments often provide helpful and illuminating information not otherwise readily available?
The importance of MoT tests in the present situation has also been further emphasised by the Government’s announcement on Sunday that they are actively encouraging people to return to work if they cannot work at home, and that they should avoid travelling by public transport if they can travel by other means, including by car. In other words, the Government are now encouraging people to use their cars rather than public transport—perhaps the first Government ever to do that. People are also now being told they can use their cars to drive as far as they like to an outdoor space.
In other words, one of the key risks to which I referred a few moments ago—of 4.9 million vehicles that would have received a dangerous or major MoT failure over the six months to the end of this September being on the road—is no longer being mitigated to the same extent by the “stay at home” rules, under which trips are made for essential purposes only.
The Government say:
“This instrument is being introduced to address the ongoing pandemic and will be revoked if it no longer serves a useful purpose.”
Do they envisage revoking the regulations early, taking into account that there would be a backlog of MoT tests to be carried out for a few months as well as the normal number of such tests? I have heard it suggested that 20% of garages may not survive the pandemic as viable businesses. Do the Government have any estimates of how many of the 23,500 testing centres may not survive the present situation, and the impact this could have on testing capacity?
Do the Government have any figures for the percentage of eligible people who already could have availed themselves of the six-month test extension facility for light vehicles and who have done so by not having their MoT test done by their scheduled date, as opposed to the percentage who could already have availed themselves of the facility but have chosen not to do so, perhaps preferring to have the assurance that their vehicle is not one of the 29% that would have received a “dangerous” or “major” MoT failure? The answer to that question must also be a factor in determining when the testing capacity exists to enable the order to be revoked, and a return to a situation where MoT tests are undertaken at the time laid down.
Six-month MoT test extensions will start to terminate at the end of September. Are there any circumstances under which the Government would continue that extension period beyond the six months, or will vehicles that have had that six-month exemption definitely be required to pass an MoT test after then in order to be driven lawfully on our roads?
I hope the Government will be able to provide the answers, today or subsequently, to all the questions I have raised. We must by now have a clearer picture of the situation in respect of testing capacity. If the Government can provide the evidence that it is insufficient, the order should continue, but when the evidence indicates the testing capacity is available, then the Government should seriously consider revoking this order, since deferring the need for an annual MoT test by six months or 50% must represent a potentially significant road safety issue. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been useful, and I thank the Minister for her response, which certainly provided answers to a number of the issues that have been raised. Obviously, I do not intend to proceed any further on this Motion.