Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the requirement for
passengers to wear face coverings on public transport, what
assessment they have made of compliance with that requirement;
and how that requirement is being enforced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are working closely with transport operators and the
British Transport Police to monitor compliance. As we expected,
initial reports from operators suggest a high level of
compliance, and there is strong public support for the measure.
More data will be available in the coming weeks. We expect to see
a gradual ramping up of enforcement, supported by a significant
communications campaign, over the coming months.
(Lab)
[V]
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. I am surprised that she
points to that level of compliance. There is growing evidence,
admittedly anecdotal, that not everybody is complying. This week,
the BMA, among others, urged the wider use of face coverings as
an important mitigation measure once social distancing rules are
relaxed. The Government made face coverings on public transport
mandatory from 15 June, with the potential of fines for
non-compliance, yet, as I say, there is growing anecdotal
evidence that many people are not complying. Can the Minister say
a little more about what the Government will do to ensure that a
strong, unambiguous message gets through to everyone? Can she say
what support and training are being offered to front-line staff,
such as bus drivers and ticket inspectors, to help them deal with
non-compliance?
[V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her follow-up question. I assure
her that compliance is at around 85% to 95% on rail, 90% on TfL
and 70% on non-London buses. This soon after the mandating of
face coverings, that is a pretty good return. We are looking at
ways of explaining things, engaging with people and encouraging
people to wear face masks. At this moment in time, heavy-handed
enforcement would not be appropriate. Part of that explaining
element is making sure that transport workers work hand in hand
with the public and the police to explain to people exactly why
they should wear a face covering and that they may not use public
transport if they do not have one.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, to what extent are the Government hoping that the
travelling public will help to police this policy?
[V]
My Lords, I do not expect the travelling public to police this
policy. It is important to be aware that there are exemptions to
it. Gentle guidance from transport operators will be absolutely
key, as will them working hand in hand with the police and, for
example, TfL-authorised personnel.
(LD) [V]
I believe that the present public transport policy is killing
public transport, particularly buses outside London. Some 40% to
70% of normal capacity will be available after next weekend. The
Government need to stop sending the message that it is unsafe and
dangerous to use public transport. It is important that people
wear face masks and that people avoid the busiest journeys.
Transport companies are striving to do the right thing but it is
up to the Government to use their publicity machine to draw
attention to the positive things that can be done.
[V]
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, . The Government support
public transport. Indeed, we are funnelling vast amounts of
taxpayers’ money into making sure that the services are there for
the people who need them. He mentioned 40% to 70% capacity; I
have no idea where those figures come from. Capacity is nothing
like that on public transport. With 100% of services, we are
looking at capacity of less than 30%. There is a balance to be
achieved. We want people to use public transport in future but
using it right now would be counterproductive and may risk our
ability to control the virus.
(CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the use of face coverings in principle but
are the Government fully aware of the challenges that this
presents for people living with disabilities, including those who
need to lip-read? I know that exemptions are in place but they
are not clearly advertised; nor are staff adequately trained to
deal with them. This has left people with disabilities being
refused entry and being reported to police by fellow travellers;
some have had to pay for GP letters that prove their exemption.
Will the Minister commit to reviewing communications and
mandating transport staff training so that people who cannot wear
face coverings can travel safely without further questioning and
harassment?
[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.
(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?
[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.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, the case for wearing face coverings on public
transport, particularly on commuter services, appears quite
strong. However, to be effective, face coverings must be of
sufficient quality in their design and manufacture to help stop
the spread of Covid-19. Will the Government consider making the
manufacture, import or sale of coverings that do not meet the
defined British standard an offence, as they have for surgical
face coverings being used in clinical settings?
[V]
My Lords, the Government are working to the advice of SAGE on
face coverings, which is that face coverings worn in enclosed
spaces are at least partially effective in preventing the spread
of coronavirus to other people. That is why we have said that
face coverings can be made of various materials. We do not have a
specific British standard, which I feel would stop the supply to
people across the country who need to use public transport.
(CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that to minimise the risk to fellow
passengers, it is imperative that face coverings are worn on
public transport, but if a passenger with an urgent need to
travel arrives without one, drivers or staff should be able to
provide an inexpensive covering that can be recycled at the end
of the journey?
[V]
I agree with the noble Lord that it is essential that people use
a face covering when they travel. We have been working with the
rail industry and other transport operators on the provision, on
a one-off basis, of a supply of face coverings that can be given
out in the circumstances he has described, particularly while
people get used to wearing them. We are also looking with the
Cabinet Office at longer-term supply options so that members of
the public can purchase low-cost face coverings at various
outlets. For example, Network Rail has installed vending machines
supplying face coverings at many of its stations.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, what consultations took place with bus, coach and train
operators and their representatives before the announcement about
face coverings was made? Turning to enforcement, does the
Minister expect front-line staff to turn away would-be passengers
who for any reason are not wearing face masks? What other
consultations have there been with the police, particularly the
British Transport Police, about the enforcement of the wearing of
face masks on railway services?
[V]
I think the noble Lord will understand that at present, all
Ministers have a close ongoing relationship with transport
operators and unions. We are continually having conversations
about the sort of measures that may come in in the future. We
spoke to the unions about face coverings; indeed, it was the
unions that did not want the use of face coverings by transport
workers made mandatory. We listened and worked with them to make
that the case. Transport operators such as bus drivers often have
to turn people away, for example, because of poor behaviour, in
which case they might then go on to call the police. It is the
same in the case of face coverings; if people create a fuss
because they are denied boarding, transport operators will get
the police involved. Of course, we speak frequently to the
British Transport Police about this matter as well.
(UUP) [V]
My noble friend will be aware that we are negotiating with other
countries over air bridges for air transport to and from the
United Kingdom. Given that the rules on the wearing of face
coverings differ in the various parts of the United Kingdom, how
is that matter being reconciled in the negotiations to create air
bridges, which I fully support?
[V]
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. It is obviously a
consequence of devolution that the devolved Administrations can
make their own rules in this area. However, I am pleased to say
that the wearing of face coverings is mandatory in Scotland as
well, so there is less confusion there, and their use is advisory
in Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, the wearing of face
coverings on aircraft and the reciprocal arrangements with other
countries will be an important consideration as discussions on
international air bridges continue.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, I also support the use of face coverings, which I think
is imperative, but I have heard a significant number of anecdotes
of people who, using good common sense, have approached other
travellers saying, “You should have your face covered,” are then
threatened, rather as we found early on when the ban on smoking
on public transport came in; not everyone will support this. What
do the Government envisage happening if threatening behaviour
greets the use of common sense by the public?
[V]
The issue raised by the noble Lord is extremely distressing. I
would advise members of the general public perhaps not to
approach individuals themselves, but to speak to transport
operators, either the station staff or the driver if they are on
a bus. If there is a continual refusal to wear a face covering
without an appropriate exemption, in those circumstances the
police could, and indeed should, be called. I do not want members
of the public to put themselves at risk to encourage people to
wear face coverings.
(CB) [V]
My Lords, should there not be better education from the
Government about why and how face masks should be used?
[V]
I would slightly challenge the noble Earl on that. A significant
communications campaign is going on at the moment and that will
continue over the weeks and months ahead. We are also working
closely with the transport operators, which have put an enormous
amount of signage in their vehicles and at stations. They are
also sending emails to their customers, as well as messages via
their apps and websites, so a lot of work is going on. I think
that the message is getting out there, but I can reassure the
noble Earl that we are pushing on with this, although there is
always more that we can do.
(Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Far East, people have been wearing face masks on
public transport since the outset of the pandemic. If Her
Majesty’s Government think that wearing face coverings on public
transport is a good idea now, why did they not think that months
ago? I suggest to the Minister that this was always just a case
of shortage of adequate PPE, including face masks?
[V]
I do not think that the noble Lord is correct in his assumption.
As we have said consistently throughout the pandemic, we were
following the science at the time. It is also worth noting that
very few people were travelling on public transport in the early
days of the pandemic. The reality is that handwashing and social
distancing are more critical in reducing transmission of the
virus than wearing a face mask. Having a face covering on is
something that we can put in place now, given that social
distancing may not be as possible as it was in the early phases
of the outbreak. In the early phases, almost no one was
travelling on public transport.
