Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[Mojo]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/592/contents/made seems to have been published now.

Thanks for sharing this. Have been checking the page daily for this since it was announced!

 

[PupCuff]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/592/contents/made seems to have been published now.

Finally!

Thank you for sharing this, it is very interesting.

If the government had published this a week ago it certainly would have taken many of the worries away.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I note, that in the Explanatory Memorandum, para 7.5, SAGE refers only to use on the busy tube, rather than all public transport including rural buses carrying one woman and her (disinfected) wicker basket. [my bold]

The government’s Chief Scientific Advisor has, for example, noted that face
coverings would offer some benefit in crowded transport environments, such as the
London Underground: “SAGE advised the use of face coverings in crowded situations
(particularly indoor environments) where distancing is not possible. The tube is an
environment in which people are potentially crowded for more than 15min and in
which temporary use of face coverings would be supported. To get to higher levels of
use some form of mandating is certainly one way to achieve that goal, but that is a
policy choice for ministers. I would support higher use on the tube in line with SAGE
advice.”

Somewhere, a question has been asked 'how do we get higher levels of mask wearing by the unwashed disease ridden plebs' (or something similar) to which SAGE have given that response.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/592/contents/made seems to have been published now.

This legislation does indicate that the wearing of masks will be compulsory on heritage railways too.

 

[Nicholas43]

Paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum is interesting.

12.1 The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is expected to be neutral to marginally positive. The policy will come into effect alongside the reopening of nonessential retail premises. Mandating the wearing of face coverings will help improve the safety of the public transport network, and we assume that this will provide greater confidence to the public to use it. We consider this will benefit business as people will be more likely to use the public transport network and will be more likely to travel to shop.
12.2 The Department has considered the fact that some people may be deterred from traveling [sic] due to them being required to wear a face covering either because they cannot source a suitable face covering or they have protected characteristics (e.g. a disability) which makes it difficult to wear a face covering. The definition of face covering used is broad and includes using a scarf or bandana. As such, the Department considers that it will not be prohibitively costly or difficult for people to obtain a suitable face covering. The Department has also included a range of exemptions to ensure that this policy does not unfairly discriminate against those with protected characteristics.
12.3 There is no significant impact on the public sector.

I find 12.3 surprising.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I find 12.3 surprising.

That probably means they think the fares income from the number of extra people travelling from tomorrow ( under 12.1 ) will outweigh the loss of fares income from putting some people off ( under 12.2 ) so they cost of supporting the railways will fall rather than rise?

Incidentally, 12.1 will please @yorkie as it clarifies beyond all doubt that shopping via public transport is now an expected activity.

 

[island]

So it does let you eat or drink !

Only if it’s “reasonably necessary” that you eat or drink. Whatever that means.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Only if it’s “reasonably necessary” that you eat or drink. Whatever that means.

I suppose it's to stop someone sipping a bottle of water incredibly slowly so they never have a covering on throughout a long journey, or other similar extreme cases. In practice I doubt that rule will be enforced.

 

[yorkie]

Incidentally, 12.1 will please @yorkie as it clarifies beyond all doubt that shopping via public transport is now an expected activity.

Yes it is my hope that within a week or two there will no longer be seats marked out of use and train companies will take an approach that more closely matches the legislation.

I'm not a fan of the concept of wearing masks on public transport but if it means people without cars can have the same freedoms without stigma from some sections of society as those without cars then that is a positive step.

 

[yorksrob]

Only if it’s “reasonably necessary” that you eat or drink. Whatever that means.

Presumably a cup of tea on a long InterCity journey. Aberdeen to Penzance without anything to drink would be harsh !

 

[island]

I have serious doubts that the regulations have been made legally. They have been made pursuant to section 45R of the PHA 1984 without a draft of the regulations being laid before and approved by Parliament “by reason of urgency”. This does not seem to me to stack up. The regulations have been trailed since (I believe) 4 June. There has been ample time to follow the correct procedure under section 45Q (4). It clearly isn’t “urgent” if they’ve taken 10 days to prevaricate about it.

Of course, only a court can make a definitive decision on this.

 

[island]

Presumably a cup of tea on a long InterCity journey. Aberdeen to Penzance without anything to drink would be harsh !

I think that service has been deleted.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes it is my hope that within a week or two there will no longer be seats marked out of use and train companies will take an approach that more closely matches the legislation.

I'm not a fan of the concept of wearing masks on public transport but if it means people without cars can have the same freedoms without stigma from some sections of society as those without cars then that is a positive step.

Their saying that now in connection with the shops re-opening also means they logically cannot now say anything different about leisure travel after the 4th July when that sector starts to re-open.

 

[Nicholas43]

Yes it is my hope that within a week or two there will no longer be seats marked out of use and train companies will take an approach that more closely matches the legislation.

I fear that train companies will, for more than a week or two, attempt to follow guidance such as this from the Office of Rail and Road:

On trains
Practice and facilitate social distancing, encouraging passengers and employees to keep 2m (or 3 steps) apart where possible. Approaches to this should take into account that, if a train is crowded, passengers may become unsettled by regular announcements about social distancing.
Drivers should be alone in the cab. ...
Where social distancing can be achieved, on-train revenue protection and catering facilities may take place.
Ensure regular cleaning - with your usual cleaning products - of surfaces that employees and passengers are likely to touch. Pay particular attention to driving cab controls, door controls, grab handles and toilet door handles.
Passengers exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 on board should be isolated in a carriage, or else placed at least 2m away from other passengers, as soon as can be achieved. Assistance should be provided for passengers with symptoms to alight the train if necessary. In this situation assisting employees should thoroughly wash/sanitise their hands as soon as possible. There is currently no requirement to self-isolate if you have been in proximity with someone showing coronavirus symptoms in the workplace and have been following social distancing measures. The coach should be cleaned before re-entering passenger carrying service.

 

[Mag_seven]

Yes it is my hope that within a week or two there will no longer be seats marked out of use and train companies will take an approach that more closely matches the legislation.

Agreed - indeed the whole rational for the compulsory wearing of of facecoverings is to help stop the spread in situations where social distancing is not possible. Ergo the public transport operators must now concede that social distancing is not possible on public transport and stop marking seats as being out of use. They cannot have it both ways!

 

[LOM]

I have serious doubts that the regulations have been made legally. They have been made pursuant to section 45R of the PHA 1984 without a draft of the regulations being laid before and approved by Parliament “by reason of urgency”. This does not seem to me to stack up. The regulations have been trailed since (I believe) 4 June. There has been ample time to follow the correct procedure under section 45Q (4). It clearly isn’t “urgent” if they’ve taken 10 days to prevaricate about it.

Yes exactly, and the same is true of all the amendments. Having had a read through the SI it looks rather shoddily drafted and any half decent lawyer would be able to drive a coach and horses through it.

 

[Nicholas43]

Their saying that now in connection with the shops re-opening also means they logically cannot now say anything different about leisure travel after the 4th July when that sector starts to re-open.

Er, can you name any measure taken, or not taken, by this government in order to appease SARS-CoV-2 which had any connection with logic?

 

[Nicholas43]

Yes exactly, and the same is true of all the amendments. Having had a read through the SI it looks rather shoddily drafted and any half decent lawyer would be able to drive a coach and horses through it.

Er, but the Face Coverings Regulations, SI 2020/592, linked in post #1071, were only published today, and there aren't, yet, any amendments to them. In my opinion they are rather well drafted to impose what Grant Shapps wants, but the drafting, understandably, took the government lawyers several days.

 

[LowLevel]

I think the proof will be in the pudding but I think the public reaction will be along the lines it usually is - those vehemently opposed will think that everyone thinks like them and predict doom. Those strongly in favour (for whatever reason) will say it doesn't go far enough, took too long or whatever.

The common or garden person in the street will probably just shrug and get on with it or ignore it and be dealt with or not.

I would be amazed if it caused a particularly huge impact on passenger numbers.

I don't exactly relish it but I will just get on with it (as I have been doing for a fortnight already in fact).

 

[greyman42]

Their saying that now in connection with the shops re-opening also means they logically cannot now say anything different about leisure travel after the 4th July when that sector starts to re-open.

They have not been able to say anything that carries any weight since the 1 June. Let them say what they want, just ignore it.

 

[tspaul26]

I have serious doubts that the regulations have been made legally. They have been made pursuant to section 45R of the PHA 1984 without a draft of the regulations being laid before and approved by Parliament “by reason of urgency”. This does not seem to me to stack up. The regulations have been trailed since (I believe) 4 June. There has been ample time to follow the correct procedure under section 45Q (4). It clearly isn’t “urgent” if they’ve taken 10 days to prevaricate about it.

Of course, only a court can make a definitive decision on this.

I am inclined to agree, but by the time a court came to consider the matter (assuming that judicial review proceedings are commenced) they will almost certainly have been approved by the Commons and Lords and I would expect relief to be denied.

Collateral challenge to a prosecution might have more success, but I don’t envisage these regulations being legally (as opposed to socially) enforced in practice (especially after the Newcastle debacle a couple of months ago).

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Lately, I have seen buses displaying a "Bus Full" notice in the windscreen with what appears like no more than 15-20 pax on board. Goodness knows what it's going to be like tomorrow morning...

 

[Pete_uk]

If you are having problems with breathing using face masks try something like this

A nice knitted face mask with plenty of big holes for air to pass through

 

[tspaul26]

Well that somewhat defeats the point of wearing a mask in the first place.

My local station has a TVM on the opposite side of the small booking hall from the ticket office window. There are markings on the floor that tell you where to wait in each queue i.e. 2 metres behind the person in front of you.

The markers are laid out something like this:

 

[MDB1images]

A couple of Pendolinos have been painted up with masks on the front of the train.
Seen Transdev have done the same with Buses.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

A couple of Pendolinos have been painted up with masks on the front of the train.
Seen Transdev have done the same with Buses.

You'd think they'd use any money that they have to enhance the services that they operate...

 

[sheff1]

So they have introduced a new SI rather than attach it to the existing one.

Review after six months, expiry after 12.

That is very significant.

The existing SI requires a review at least every 28 days (up from the original 21). It also states "As soon as the Secretary of State considers that any restrictions or requirements set out in these Regulations are no longer necessary to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection in England with the coronavirus, the Secretary of State must publish a direction terminating that restriction or requirement."

The difference between the SIs suggests that they have no intention of removing the face coverings requirement before 6 months is up, regardless of any changes in the incidence of the coroanvirus.

 

[MDB1images]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/592/contents/made seems to have been published now.

If Heiniken did advertising for Car dealerships.......

 

[pat okeeffe]

Well that somewhat defeats the point of wearing a mask in the first place.

No, I think the point of the masks is a political move to reassure people. As far as I can ascertain from the evidence only N95 respirators are good enough to block the virus effectively.

 

[Ianigsy]

I suppose it's to stop someone sipping a bottle of water incredibly slowly so they never have a covering on throughout a long journey, or other similar extreme cases. In practice I doubt that rule will be enforced.

Or a packet of crisps or peanuts, say. I can make a sandwich, packet of crisps and a biscuit last over an hour if I eat lunch at my desk.

My impression is that the English regulations are worded so that they can be suspended and reapplied as necessary. I don't honestly see how they can last six months while at the same time being out of step with the rest of the UK.