Covid-19: Extension of Driving Theory Test Certificates

Debate between David Linden and Rachel Maclean

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this important debate, which I am sure is being watched closely by many drivers up and down the country. The covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for us all, and following the announcement of national lockdown restrictions to help stop the spread of coronavirus, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has once again had to suspend all routine theory tests and practical driving tests until restrictions are lifted. The hon. Gentleman fully outlined the resultant challenges for learners, and I assure him that I understand those challenges. He also recognised that Ministers have had to balance a number of conflicting issues when making decisions on these matters and many others. On the advice of scientific advisers, we need to take action to protect the NHS and save lives.

The requirement to undertake a driving theory test before a practical driving test is set out in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999. The theory test is administered by the DVSA and has two elements: first, an assessment of the learner’s knowledge and understanding of the rules of the road and safe driving, comprising 50 multiple-choice questions, of which candidates must answer 43 correctly to pass; and secondly, the hazard perception test, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which is an assessment of the learner’s ability to identify developing hazards, with 75 points available, of which candidates must score 44 to pass. Candidates must pass both elements during the same theory test.

Regulation 47(6) states that a theory test certificate has a validity period of two years. The maximum duration of two years between the passing of a theory test and the taking of a subsequent practical test is in place to ensure that a candidate’s road safety knowledge and ability to identify developing hazards is current. It is set in legislation and we currently have no plans to lay further legislation to extend it. I realise, of course, that that will affect and disappoint some learners—including the hon. Gentleman—and driving instructors, for understandable reasons, but it is nevertheless important that road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills are up to date at the critical point at which a candidate drives unsupervised for the first time.

Those with expiring theory test certificates will have taken the theory test in early 2019; since then, unfortunately, their lessons and practice sessions will have been significantly curtailed during recent lockdowns, and it is likely that their knowledge base will have diminished.

[David Linden]

I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister, but she will be aware that it is possible for someone in this country to have taken a driving test, say, 20 years ago and never to have driven in that 20-year period, but they will still have a valid licence and can get into a car and drive off. How does she reconcile that with the argument she is making?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman temps me into a broad discussion that it would not be appropriate for me to undertake at this point, because we are discussing the particular issue of extending the theory test. I want to do full justice to this issue, and I will answer the questions that he has asked.

As I was saying, learner drivers will have had their practice sessions significantly curtailed. It is vital that we ensure that new drivers have current relevant knowledge and skills—that is a vital part of the preparation of new drivers, who are disproportionately represented in casualty statistics. That is an important point and one relevant to the point the hon. Gentleman just made. A 2008 study by the Transport Research Laboratory indicated that one in five new drivers had a collision within their first year of driving unsupervised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a high proportion. The Transport Research Laboratory also found that the hazard perception test is linked to a measurable reduction in some accidents. Those with higher scores on the test have safer records as new drivers.

The DVSA has not stood still on this issue: following a series of improvements to the learning and testing process, a 2017 revaluation found that only one in 11 new drivers had a collision within the first six months. Although that is a significant improvement, we cannot afford to be complacent about road safety and the risks to new drivers.

There will be those who ask—the hon. Gentleman made this argument powerfully—why the theory test expiry date cannot be extended in the same way as MOT certificates were extended during the first lockdown. The hon. Gentleman asked me to address this point, suggesting that it is a quick fix. Unfortunately, driver theory testing and MOT testing represent different issues in terms of the underlying legislation, road safety risk and potential risk of covid-19 transmission. For that reason, they cannot be directly compared.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically why, if the Government of Northern Ireland have made the decision, we cannot do the same thing. We have, of course, looked at the matter and considered it as part of our deliberations, but ultimately such matters are devolved to the Government of Northern Ireland and it is rightly a decision for them.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the MOT due dates for cars, motorcycles and light vans were automatically extended by six months from 30 March 2020 to help prevent the spread of covid-19. Drivers at that time, however, were advised that all vehicles must continue to be properly maintained and kept in a roadworthy condition.

The DVSA’s focus should rightly be on developing solutions to address the availability of theory tests and the backlog of practical driving tests that has arisen as a result of the pandemic. I am aware of proposals to allow approved driving instructors to sign off their learner and issue driving test pass certificates. Unfortunately, that is not possible. The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 require driving test examiners to pass an examination before being authorised by the Secretary of State to conduct practical driving tests. The Road Traffic Act 1988 allows a full driving licence to be issued only if the person has passed the test of competence to drive.

To increase the availability of theory tests, which I know the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, the DVSA has extended theory test centre opening times where possible and extended the booking window from three months to four months to give candidates more choice of available dates.

[Rachel Maclean]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to ensure that theory tests are available to all candidates. I will certainly consider the matter that he raised and discuss it with my honourable colleague in the other place.

I assure hon. Members that once testing can resume safely, the DVSA will continue to work closely with Pearson, the provider, to monitor demand and explore ways in which it can further expand testing capacity and reduce waiting times. We are very focused on social distancing at those test centre sites, the wearing of face coverings and using physical screens between test booths.

[David Linden]

The Minister is being very kind in giving way once more. There is also this issue: if the Government are so insistent—as it sounds like they are today—on ensuring that people have to go back and resit an exam that they have already passed, will they at least waive the £23 fee? That strikes me as being a reasonable compromise at this stage. Are they willing to consider that?

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course, we have considered this issue. The current view is that, actually, the candidate whose theory test certificate has expired will have received the service for which they paid the fee. If we are to waive that fee for subsequent tests, someone has to pay, and ultimately, that has to be paid for by the taxpayer, so that is not a decision that we are taking at this time.

So what are we doing to increase the number of driving tests available to tackle the backlog once it is safe for tests to resume? Some of the measures include offering overtime and annual leave buy-back to examiners, asking warrant card holders who are qualified to carry out tests to do so and conducting out-of-hours testing. A recruitment campaign is also under way to increase the overall number of driving examiners available for testing. The DVSA will continue to assess further options for increasing testing capacity and is committed to reducing the backlog as quickly as possible.

[David Linden]

If I understand things correctly, the Government are going to try to bring in other examiners. Given that this whole debate is about current knowledge, will the Minister clarify that the examiners who will be brought in will have their knowledge refreshed before they pass judgment on people?

[Rachel Maclean]

Yes, of course. All these measures will be taken according to road safety and the regulations and standards that we rightly expect the DVSA to abide by.

I would like to address again the points that the hon. Gentleman made on the refund of fees. While I have said that the candidate whose theory test certificate expires will have received the service for which they pay the fee, if a practical test is already booked at the time when the theory test expires, the DVSA will refund the fee for the practical driving test. I hope that he would welcome that approach.

It is also important to put on record that during the current lockdown, the DVSA is offering a mobile emergency worker testing service in England and Wales. This is a limited service, and it is restricted to candidates working in the NHS, health and social care and public bodies involved in work responding to threats to life.

To conclude, I understand very well the impact the pandemic is having on individuals and businesses, and I am grateful to all learners and training providers for their continued patience during this challenging time. Keeping Britain’s roads safe must remain our priority. The decision has been made not to extend theory test certificates, and learners will need to pass another theory test if their certificate expires. In closing, I hope that with the engagement I have mentioned, I have been able to offer some reassurance to address the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Question put and agreed to.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Debate between David Linden and Rachel Maclean

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I am delighted to hear that, and I absolutely acknowledge my right hon. Friend’s support for the withdrawal agreement and for any future deal. It is wonderful to hear that.

Special advisers are caught up in this Humble Address. I do not have a lot of experience of special advisers. I am a junior Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I have had the privilege of working with a few special advisers in the Departments I have been honoured to assist, and I have found them all, without exception, to be dedicated and conscientious individuals who do their job to the best of their ability.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

How many special advisers has the hon. Lady worked with who have been found in contempt of Parliament?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is a hypothetical point, because we have not yet passed this motion. As I said at the start of my remarks, I have not been here long and I have very limited experience, so I have worked with none.

This would be an unprecedented situation for individuals who came into public life and into politics for the best of reasons. They want to perform public service and carry out their offices, and this Humble Address puts them in an extremely difficult position.

Governments of all colours have special advisers, which is an established role. It is not just this Government who have special advisers. The Labour Government had special advisers, too. We need to be extremely careful about tying their hands and constraining their freedom to advise the Ministers with whom they work.

Welfare Reform and Work Act

Debate between David Linden and Rachel Maclean

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow her speech, which raised some very important issues. As Members of Parliament, we all want to ensure that the welfare system operates correctly. I am a strong believer in what the Government are doing on welfare and find myself, once again, in a debate about welfare reform. I am glad to be here, because one of the Government’s most important jobs is looking after those who are unable to look after themselves. I am proud of what this Government have done during the time I have been in Parliament, and of the record since the 2010 coalition Government and the Conservative Government that followed.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady talks about how proud she is of this Government’s actions, but by the time this debate concludes, at 11 o’ clock, St Stephen’s church café in Redditch will open as a food bank. Does she not understand that there is a clear correlation between this Government’s actions on welfare reform and the food banks in her constituency?

[Rachel Maclean]

I visited the food bank and have spoken to the people there, but time does not permit me to talk in depth about those issues. I have an ongoing dialogue with both the people who run the food bank and the people who use it. I understand very well what is happening in my constituency of Redditch and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for moving on, I will speak about some of my experiences with universal credit and the jobcentre there.

I will focus my remarks on universal credit because it is a key plank of the Government’s reforms. Since my election, I have made it a priority to understand what services exist for my constituents who face challenges, whether those are unemployment, poverty or physical and mental health problems. As a constituency MP, I understand very well what is going on. There are areas of deprivation in Redditch, as there are in every constituency up and down the country. It is up to the Government to ensure that the help is on the ground, where it is needed.

It is important to revisit the principles behind the drive to reform the system that we inherited from the last Labour Government. In that system, people had little or no incentive to get back into work. When they did, they found themselves worse off and liable to lose money if they took on more hours or a better paid job. How could that be right?

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talked about tax credits. It is my understanding from DWP statistics that tax credit spending ballooned from £1.1 billion at its introduction to £30 billion a year by 2015. I do not think it is right to spend such a rapidly escalating amount of GDP on benefits. That indicates there is something fundamentally wrong at the heart of the system.

There is widespread public support for the principle that welfare should be not a life sentence, but a lifeline as someone transitions through difficult circumstances or the loss of a job. The old welfare system had become labyrinthine in its complexity, with a number of different benefits adding to the confusion over what someone was entitled to. It was not a system that gave people a ladder to a better life, but rather one that trapped them in worklessness and poverty.

Balancing the Public Finances

Debate between David Linden and Rachel Maclean

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on securing this debate. It was somewhat mischievous of him to comment on one side of the Chamber being empty—interestingly, the Government side was empty last week when we were debating WASPI women.

For far too long, balancing the public finances has generally been done on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

I will not, because Members have taken quite a long time. Despite several years of austerity, Her Majesty’s Government continue to miss their targets on debt, deficit and borrowing. Quite simply, austerity has failed to rebalance our public finances, and we need to reassess and re-evaluate our approach.

The biggest contributor to a sluggish UK economy and the biggest threat to our public finances is the reckless hard Brexit currently being pursued by Her Majesty’s Government. That has not been helped by Labour Members voting to give the Prime Minister a blank cheque by voting against single market membership only two weeks ago.

Scottish National party Members will continue to stand up not only for access to but membership of the single market and customs union. When we look at our public finances, we see a major trade deficit, which in the three months to April was £8.6 billion, up from £6.9 billion in the previous quarter. By turning our back on the single market and pursuing a hard Brexit, we risk delivering further shocks to our already precarious economy.

The UK economy grew by just 0.2% in quarter 1 of this year. In comparison, in the same quarter Scotland’s economy grew four times faster. That was somewhat of a surprise, not least because colleagues in the Scottish Conservative party were briefing last week that Scotland was about to move into recession, which certainly did not happen.

We face difficult financial decisions in Scotland, not least because Scotland’s budget faces a real-terms cut of £2.9 billion due to UK austerity. That figure of £2.9 billion is significant, because had Barnett consequentials been followed during the Government’s grubby deal with the Democratic Unionist party, Scotland would have stood to receive £2.9 billion.

I want to move on and to some of my concerns about the deeply worrying consequences posed for Scotland by a hard Brexit. The stark reality is that Brexit threatens to cost the economy around £11 billion by 2030 and result in 80,000 fewer jobs compared with remaining within the EU. We understand and accept that, despite 62% of Scots voting to remain in the EU, we are leaving. However, the Scottish Government have sought to be reasonable and amicable, and have come forward with a compromise that would allow Scotland to remain within the single market. Unfortunately, those pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

We know that Her Majesty’s Government are pursuing a reckless approach to the economy, with a hard Brexit coupled to an ideologically driven obsession with austerity. SNP Members believe it does not have to be like that. Cuts are a choice, not a necessity. During the recent general election campaign, we put forward a responsible and credible fiscal plan that would return a balanced budget by the end of the Parliament. However, in doing so, we would generate an additional £118 billion cumulatively over the next Parliament, with around £10 billion flowing to Scotland. Our fiscal plan would stabilise net borrowing at the level it was before the financial crash and see debt begin to fall as a share of GDP from 2019-20.

Ministers and Conservative Members regularly tell us how employment is high under this Conservative Government. What they do not say is that much of that is due to part-time work or, worse still, exploitative zero-hours contracts. Unstable and low pay is a worry for my constituents in the east end of Glasgow, with the Resolution Foundation estimating that the period 2011-2020 will be the worst decade for wage growth in 210 years. That is before we take into account the Government’s con trick of the living wage, which will actively discriminate against under-25s.