Nichola Mallon
North Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I have had the very moving opportunity to meet families who have tragically lost a loved one on that stretch of road. That was an important opportunity for me to hear at first hand their experience and the experiences of the local community as they try to go about their everyday business while living in close proximity to a key transport…”
“I take safety on our rural roads very seriously. My Department continues to be actively committed to improving safety on our roads and to work closely with our road safety partners to deliver a programme of road safety education, engineering and enforcement activities.”
“I thank Mr Muir and all the members of the Infrastructure Committee for very constructive working relationships. At times, those working relationships were tense, but they were always very constructive — I mean that.”
“It was important to me to take forward the motor insurance legislation to try to protect people against a hike of up to £50 in their motor insurance premiums. Members will be aware that I took the decision to freeze any hike in public transport fares.”
“That commenced a consultation process that is open until 6 May. I encourage anyone with an interest in this significant project to make their views known during the consultation period. <BR /> <BR />In advance of the major upgrade, it is important that we do what we can to improve road safety.”
“I have announced my intention to extend the concessionary fares scheme to provide free travel for people with disabilities who currently pay half fare and to new operators who have already indicated or expressed an interest in joining. I am aware that many people with a disability have limited travel options.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,494 lines we hold for Nichola Mallon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 50.
“I thank the Member for her question. She has raised that issue on a number of occasions. The legislative and structural changes to the planning system that came into effect with the new two-tier system in 2015 are designed to deliver an inclusive, front-loaded system, with stronger third-party engagement and local democratic accountability. <BR /> <BR />There are concerns that the introduction of a third-party right of appeal at the end of the development management process could undermine an applicant's commitment to community engagement at the start. That risks reducing certainty, and it could impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the planning system at a time when it needs to be responsive to sustainable economic recovery. <BR /> <BR />I have asked my officials to keep the matter under review.”
“Notwithstanding the collapse of the Executive, my officials continue to progress to a decision point all the planning applications that are before the Department for its consideration. Indeed, I have continued to take planning decisions, such as the decision to approve the reserved matters details for the maritime museum at Ebrington Square in Derry. I will certainly continue to take decisions where I can and where I am satisfied that referral would not be required.”
“The Member and I have met to discuss that issue. He will be aware of the work that has been ongoing between my Department, the council and other key stakeholders to try to make progress. The holding direction was issued by my Department in February last year, and it is in place. The assessment of the notification is being finalised. It is my intention to respond to the council as soon as possible with a decision as to whether the application should be referred to my Department for determination. I assure you that I am mindful of the importance of reaching a decision on the matter and avoiding any unnecessary delays.”
“There is, of course, a need to continue to improve, given the importance of the issue to our economy and environment.”
“I thank the Member for his question. It is an important issue. We have been trying to increase capacity in Roads and Rivers by reallocating staff. As I said, I have also requested monthly updates to ensure that we continue to make progress in the statutory consultees that fall within my Department, such as Roads and Rivers. I also submitted an inescapable bid to the Finance Minister for the three-year Budget. I identified it as inescapable because we need to increase capacity in statutory consultees, not just those in my Department; I am also mindful of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. My permanent secretary has been engaging with her counterparts to ensure that we get sufficient resources. We absolutely need to address it. In saying that, we are seeing a record high number of applications that are very complex.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an important issue. I assure the Member that, although it does not fall within my portfolio — it is led by the AERA Minister — my officials are engaging with their colleagues in DAERA because we recognise the importance of the issue. That engagement will continue, and I am happy to keep the Member updated.”
“Unfortunately, I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to provide the Member with it in writing following Question Time.”
“I thank the Member for her question. As I said, statutory consultee response times are important, and we need to see improvement on them. The cross-departmental planning forum that my Department established is focused on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system by agreeing, prioritising and implementing the recommendations and actions that emerged from the report into the role of statutory consultees in the planning process. A work programme that involves 30 key actions has been developed, and, in total, 19 actions have been completed, with the remainder expected to be completed in 2022. I assure the Member that I recognise the importance of the issue. I have a firm focus on it, and I requested monthly updates in order to make sure that we continue to make progress on that important area.”
“A number of measures have been taken in order to ensure that that important work is placed on a sustainable and improved footing, including an inescapable resource bid in the 2022-25 Budget exercise to meet the funding requirement for the additional staff that are needed in the Department. <BR /> <BR />The Department has also undertaken a review of the implementation of the Planning Act 2011, and that has identified 16 areas where we could further improve the performance of the system for all stakeholders, including in the Department for Infrastructure, councils, statutory consultees, developers and the wider public. Work on that will continue to be progressed in the coming months.”
“I recognise that the level of statutory consultee responses that are needed to respond to consultations on a timely basis is critical and particularly relevant, given the increasing number and complexity of planning application consultations. I recently raised the resourcing issue around planning consultations with the Finance Minister, and my permanent secretary has written to other relevant permanent secretaries seeking their assistance in order to ensure that adequate funding is available for their consultation response teams. <BR /> <BR />I have also specifically asked to be briefed on a monthly basis by those planning statutory consultees in my Department so that issues impacting on their performance can be addressed appropriately and in a timely manner.”
“I fully recognise how important planning is in protecting our environment, shaping local communities and, of course, supporting and developing our economy, now more than ever, as we move into recovery from the pandemic. I am also very aware of the need for significant improvement in the performance of our two-tier planning system, particularly when it comes to statutory consultees. <BR /> <BR />My Department has been working on a number of fronts to improve the system, including on the establishment of a cross-departmental planning forum, in order to take forward recommendations from a report into the role of statutory consultees in the planning process. A key focus of the planning forum's work is to improve the response times to meet the 21-day statutory consultation target, particularly for major planning applications.”
“I hope that they can take comfort from the incredible legacy that Christopher leaves behind, the warm regard in which his colleagues from every political tradition held him and the real difference that he made to so many people's lives.”
“He enjoyed the cut and thrust of debate — more, I would say, than any other Member of the House. There is probably not a Member here who was not on the receiving end of a sharp retort or a withering glance during a contribution, but disagreements were always followed by a wry smile and a laugh. <BR /> <BR />As much as he enjoyed public life and helping people, it was clear to anyone who spoke to Christopher, even just in passing, how much he adored his family. His love for Laura, Trinity, Oliver, Cameron and Abigail radiated from him when he spoke about how the children were getting on or what they were up to at home. <BR /> <BR />We all feel a sense of loss today, but the loss of a young husband and father will be felt most acutely by those he loved the most.”
“As others have said, this is a very sombre day for the Assembly, but particularly for Christopher's friends and colleagues in the DUP. We know what it is like to lose a friend suddenly, and our thoughts are with you all today. We are truly, truly sorry. <BR /> <BR />I have known Christopher Stalford for more than a decade. We served together on Belfast City Council and, later, as representatives in this House. In all that time, I got to know a man who was challenging, argumentative, ambitious — some may even say that he was combative during debates — but also a man who was kind, quick-witted, fiercely intelligent and very, very funny. <BR /> <BR />When I think about Christopher, I think of the word unique. Christopher Stalford was unique. He loved politics and being a public representative.”
“To answer Mr Muir's question, I confirm that the Westminster Bill is in the House of Lords. In the debate on accelerated passage for the Bill, Mr Muir raised a point about its not preventing us from making changes at a later date. I assure him that it does not prevent us from doing so, should that prove necessary. It would ensure, however, that any such changes can be made in a considered and controlled fashion, with full scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I ask the Assembly to support the Bill's Second Stage.”
“Of course, as we have said on a number of occasions throughout the debate, it could also lead to higher insurance premiums for our citizens here.”
“However, accelerated passage offers the only opportunity to make the required changes in the current mandate, and I believe, particularly given the impact on struggling households, that it is essential that we amend the legislation in the current mandate. <BR /> <BR />Mr Beggs asked what the implications would be if the Bill were not passed, and he set out many of the implications if we were to fail to do that. I reiterate that it is important that we resolve the conflict in existing legislation as soon as we can. The successful passage of the Westminster Bill without corresponding provision in the North would serve only to highlight the continuing anomaly here and would potentially make the Motor Insurers' Bureau more vulnerable to legal challenges and fraudulent claims.”
“I thank the Chair of the Committee and all other Members who spoke for their constructive contributions to the debate. I thank the Committee Chair for comprehensively outlining the wide-ranging support for the Bill and for having its implementation as quickly as possible. I thank all Members for highlighting the impact if we delay in doing so, particularly the impact on households from higher insurance premiums at a time when they struggle to feed their families and to heat their homes. <BR /> <BR />I agree absolutely with Ms Kimmins about the importance of scrutiny. Unfortunately, my Department and I have been left in this position, and I very much regret the need to progress the Bill or any Assembly legislation in this way.”
“Its effect is that the Crown's rights to compensation from the MIB are affected by the Bill in the same way as the rights of people other than the Crown. The effect of the provision is entirely consistent with the Westminster Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will restore the original interpretation and intention of our motor insurance law. Compulsory insurance requirements will remain confined to the use of motor vehicles on roads and in other public places. I emphasise that the Bill will not prevent us from making changes to existing statutory provisions for motor insurance in the future, should that prove to be necessary. It will, however, ensure that any such changes can be made in a considered and controlled fashion, and with full scrutiny. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“Paragraphs (3) and (4) of new article 102B concern the removal of relevant directive rights to compensation from the MIB. Essentially, that brings to an end any right to make a claim against the MIB in all cases, apart from those in connection with an accident involving the use of a vehicle on a road or other public place as defined in article 2(2) of the 1981 Order. Paragraph (5) provides that retained EU case law that is inconsistent with the position set out in paragraphs (1) or (3) will cease to have effect. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to clause 2. Clause 2(1) applies the provisions of the Bill to the Crown. It uses language that is required by section 7 of the Interpretation Act (NI) 1954.”
“and has seven paragraphs. Some of the paragraphs are self-explanatory, but I will mention the following paragraphs in particular. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph (1) of new article 102B alters the way in which the 2009 directive is to be read insofar as it is relevant to the interpretation and effect of Part VIII of the 1981 Order. The effect of that provision is to make clear that the 2009 directive's interpretation of insurance obligation in light of the Vnuk judgement is not applicable when interpreting the compulsory insurance requirements in the 1981 Order. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph (2) of new article 102B clarifies that, where the vehicle is used or normally based in Britain or in an EU member state, insurance policies must comply with the cover that is legally required in that territory.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, the purpose of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill is to resolve the conflict between retained EU law and the compulsory motor insurance provisions in the 1981 Order by disapplying the Vnuk judgement. It is a relatively short Bill of two clauses. Clause 1 inserts new article 102B into Part VIII of the 1981 Order. It is entitled:”
“<BR /> <BR />The Westminster Bill is currently progressing through the House of Lords and will remove the effect of the Vnuk decision and related retained case law when assessing what constitutes compulsory motor insurance requirements in Britain. It also ends any associated liability for insurance claims against the Motor Insurers' Bureau in respect of accidents on private land and involving vehicles not constructed for road use. The Westminster Bill would effectively preserve the status quo in British domestic motor insurance legislation. The Westminster Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland as, unlike in Scotland and Wales, motor insurance is a devolved matter here.”
“<BR /> <BR />While Europe has effectively lessened the impact of the Vnuk judgement on its laws, I note that the amended motor insurance directive has no reach here. We remain bound by the 2009 directive as it applied on EU exit day and by the related EU case law. However, following Brexit, there is now the option to remove the Vnuk judgement from retained EU case law. For the North, that requires amendment to the motor insurance statutory provision in the 1981 Order. The equivalent provisions for Britain are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988, and provisions to make the necessary amendments to that Act have been taken forward in a Westminster private Member's Bill.”
“In response to the Vnuk judgement, the European Commission initiated a process to amend the 2009 directive. The UK participated in that process up until the point at which it left the EU. The amending directive was taken forward by the Commission on 2 December 2021, and member states have until December 2023 to reflect its requirements in their respective domestic legislation. <BR /> <BR />It is perhaps worth noting that, while the 2009 directive has been extended to cover accidents caused during the normal use of a wider range of vehicles, it restricts compulsory insurance requirements to the use of those vehicles on land to which the public have access. A certain number of on-road motor vehicles such as garden tractors, mobility scooters and electric bicycles are also excluded from insurance obligations.”
“That means that, unless there is a change to existing statutory provision, GB and NI would potentially be vulnerable to Vnuk-style compensation claims. <BR /> <BR />Moreover, a recent High Court decision in England established that the UK's Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) would be directly liable for claims relating to uninsured motor collisions occurring on private land. The MIB is the UK's designated body to compensate victims of uninsured and unidentified drivers. It carries that function under agreements with Government.”
“That would mean that motor insurance policies should cover certain types of off-road risks across a greater range of motor vehicles, including non-road-going vehicles. <BR /> <BR />That contrasts with existing motor insurance statutory provision in both Britain and Northern Ireland. In domestic legislation, the compulsory third-party motor insurance requirement is limited to the use of motor vehicles on roads and other public places. It also has a narrower definition of "motor vehicle". Crucially, the Vnuk judgement, together with the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, means that UK statutory provision on motor insurance is no longer consistent with the requirements of the retained 2009 directive and retained EU case law.”
“EU case law was retained in Britain and the North by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, meaning that the general principles established by case law continue to affect our domestic laws. <BR /> <BR />One piece of case law is of particular significance. The 2014 case of Vnuk versus Triglav concerned a claim that was brought by a Slovenian farmer who was knocked off his ladder on private land by a reversing tractor trailer. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the accident should have been covered by compulsory motor insurance. In effect, the Vnuk judgement directed that the 2009 directive should be interpreted to require compulsory motor insurance for vehicles beyond their use in traffic, including use on private land.”
“However, its purpose and length belie the fact that it was a complex piece of legislation to navigate and draft. Prior to Brexit and during the transition period, domestic motor insurance arrangements were governed by the motor insurance directive 2009. That directive established a framework for motor insurance requirements that individual member states then had to implement in their domestic legislation. <BR /> <BR />The 1981 Order gives effect in domestic legislation to the 2009 directive. That provision restricts mandatory motor insurance cover to the use of motor vehicles on roads and other public places. Historically, that was believed to be in keeping with the requirements of the 2009 directive. However, the provision is interpreted in line with case law, including European case law.”
“First, I thank my Executive colleagues and the Assembly for their support in bringing the Bill to the Assembly, and I also thank the Infrastructure Committee, which ceded Committee Stage so that the Bill can progress within the mandate. <BR /> <BR />Today, we have the opportunity to debate a Bill that will ensure domestic statutory provision on compulsory motor insurance, as contained in the Road Traffic Order 1981, remains effective. It does that by ensuring that the requirements of the motor insurance directive and any retained EU case law are not taken into account when interpreting the compulsory motor insurance requirement in Northern Ireland. Effectively, therefore, it simply maintains the domestic status quo for compulsory motor insurance. <BR /> <BR />It is a relatively short Bill, with only two clauses.”
“In response to Ms Hunter's point about monitoring closely the legislation as it progresses through Westminster, I confirm that my officials will continue to do that. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I ask the Assembly to agree the motion.”
“Unfortunately, however, DfT Ministers advised us, at incredibly short notice, that that was no longer an option because of concerns that it might delay their Bill. I am deeply frustrated, and I deeply regret that that course of action was taken at such a late stage, given the ongoing work between my officials and officials in DfT. I have written to Minister Shapps to detail my frustrations at what occurred. <BR /> <BR />In response to Mr Muir's question, I confirm that Executive approval was sought for the process of accelerated passage, but, if I had not secured that, we would be in the very difficult situation of not being able to introduce the Bill. Of course, that would mean adding to the already significant financial burden on households across the North.”
“I thank the Chair of the Committee, the Deputy Chairperson and all Committee members for their contribution and indications of support. I will try to address some of the issues that were raised about seeking to include the Northern Ireland provisions in the Westminster Bill via a legislative consent motion. I assure the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee that every effort was made to explore that route. While the Westminster Bill was confined to Britain only, we were advised that it might be possible to introduce Northern Ireland provisions as amendments at Committee Stage. My officials were working with their GB counterparts and lawyers to take that forward, and I had approached my Executive colleagues and secured their agreement to a legislative consent motion.”
“It would also avoid the otherwise inevitable increase in motor insurance premiums, which has been estimated to be approximately £50 a year on every driver's policy. <BR /> <BR />I, therefore, commend the motion to the Assembly and ask that it agrees that the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill proceeds under the accelerated passage procedure.”
“Without accelerated passage, the Motor Insurers' Bureau would remain vulnerable to additional claims, some of which may be expected to be fraudulent, which it is not funded to discharge. Inevitably, that would also result in higher insurance premiums for citizens here at a time when households are already struggling to make ends meet. It is my hope that, with accelerated passage, the Bill can complete its legislative passage before the Assembly is dissolved. It would then become law as soon as it receives Royal Assent, hopefully by May 2022. That would allow us to keep pace with Britain. It would provide clarity in the marketplace and remove the risk to the Motor Insurers' Bureau.”
“My officials then worked urgently with departmental solicitors and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to draft the Bill that is before us. I am grateful to my Executive colleagues and legal staff for making that possible. I am also grateful to the Committee for Infrastructure for its support in my seeking accelerated passage for the Bill despite its reservations around the use of that process in principle. I share those reservations and fully agree that it should be used only when absolutely necessary. <BR /> <BR />In this instance, the accelerated passage of the Bill offers the only opportunity to make the required changes in the current Assembly mandate. Speed is of the essence. The making of the Westminster Bill will serve only to highlight the continuing discrepancy in Northern Ireland.”
“Using Westminster Bills to amend devolved legislation is never my preferred option. In this instance, however, it seemed to me to be the most pragmatic approach. It would have achieved early statutory provision for Northern Ireland at the same time as in Britain and would have avoided further congestion in our legislative programme. <BR /> <BR />Late in December 2021, I was advised that Department for Transport Ministers had decided not to include Northern Ireland provisions in the Westminster Bill. I very much regret that decision. However, I still considered it necessary to ensure that the existing conflict between retained EU law and domestic statutory provision be removed as quickly as possible. With that in mind, I immediately sought and received Executive approval for Assembly legislation.”
“That, quite simply, is the purpose of the Bill. Essentially, it will restore the original interpretation and intention of our motor insurance law. Compulsory insurance requirements will remain confined to the use of motor vehicles on roads and in other public places. <BR /> <BR />I move on to my reasons for seeking accelerated passage today. As Members will be aware, corresponding legislation for Britain is contained in the Westminster Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, a private Member's Bill that is progressing through the House of Lords. As I have said, I am aware of the constraints on our legislative programme in this mandate. With that in mind, I had originally planned, subject to Assembly consent, to include the required Northern Ireland provisions in the Westminster Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, as in Britain, successful claims against uninsured drivers are met by the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) under government contract. The MIB is funded by the insurance providers. However, until we amend our legislation, the MIB is vulnerable to compensation claims that may be brought by victims of accidents involving uninsured vehicles on private land. The potential for additional claims is significant, since our domestic law does not mandate motor insurance cover for the use of vehicles on private land. Those are claims that the MIB is neither contracted nor funded to meet. There is also significant potential for fraudulent claims. Again, I will cover those matters in more detail in my opening remarks in the Second Stage debate. <BR /> <BR />We need to act quickly to resolve the conflict.”
“<BR /> <BR />Briefly, the EU motor insurance directive sets the framework for compulsory motor insurance across Britain and Northern Ireland. In turn, our domestic motor insurance legislation is set out in the 1981 Road Traffic Order, which currently restricts mandatory motor insurance cover to the use of vehicles on roads and in other public places. Historically, that was believed to be in keeping with the requirements of the motor insurance directive. However, European case law subsequently determined that the directive actually required compulsory motor insurance for vehicles beyond their use in traffic, including their use on private land. That case law has been retained following Brexit, and it conflicts with our domestic legislation, which is the 1981 Order. That has created a significant problem.”
“I seek the House's agreement today to progress by accelerated passage the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, which makes changes to the motor insurance provisions that are contained in the Road Traffic (NI) Order 1981. I do not make the request lightly. It is my firm view that, whenever possible, primary legislation should be subject to full Assembly scrutiny. The Committee Stage of a Bill is clearly a significant element of that scrutiny process. However, for reasons that I will outline, there are, on this occasion, compelling grounds for the use of accelerated passage. Before I do that, I will say a few words about why legislative change is required. I will, of course, cover that in more detail in the Second Stage debate that will follow the debate on this motion.”
“I am always open to hearing the Committee's suggestions about what we can do that is beyond what we are currently doing, what is legal and will not counterbalance road safety. I thank the Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with it on this and many other matters.”
“I also have to constantly balance the road safety concerns with that call. As Members have said, as a result of the lift situation and the pandemic, we have issued a number of TECs. I think that Members will agree that, in that context, it is important that vehicles are brought forward for testing for road safety purposes. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Erskine raised the theory test, and you will know where all the test centres are located. They are all located within 40 miles of constituents. The balance in this matter is between the provision of additional test centres, the additional costs that would be incurred and those costs then being passed on to the customer. I am keeping the issue under review. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I thank Members for their acknowledgement of the Committee's hard work.”
“It is my policy preference that DVA remains in the public sector, but, of course, if a subsequent Infrastructure Minister wished to take a different course of action, it would be for them to have that discussion with their Executive colleagues. <BR /> <BR />I have to say that there is tension about the extension of temporary exemption certificates. I am conscious that, in some ways, Members are telling me that they are opposed to the move to biennial testing because of the impact that it would have on road safety and on private garages, but, at the same time, they are calling for TECs to be utilised once again in order to try to deal with the situation. The truth is that we do not have the vires to do that. The legal vires to issue TECs no longer exist now that normal test times have resumed.”
“However, we, of course, examined that as a potential option. The other issue that was raised by Mr Beggs was the privatisation of the DVA. That is the model that is used in England, where you can take your car to a private garage. The issue of the DVA delivery model was scrutinised under a previous Minister, and the public-sector model was the recommended way forward.”
“I remind drivers and riders that, regardless of the frequency of MOT testing, the statutory responsibility to ensure that a vehicle is roadworthy rests with the owner at all times. Any subsequent introduction of biennial vehicle testing would require the development of primary legislation, which would not be deliverable in the current Assembly mandate. <BR /> <BR />One of the suggestions made by Members previously, although not here today, was to use approved driving instructors to conduct driving tests. That is not possible under the legislation. In fact, under the legislation, driving instructors cannot act as driving examiners. To do so, they would be required to resign from being a driving instructor, which would have an impact on the people who are waiting to take their driving test in the first instance.”
“Any customer requiring an MOT to tax their vehicle will be given priority. Leaflets including that information are being issued by the DVA to customers with their MOT reminder notices. Details are also available on the nidirect website and are being communicated through social media channels. <BR /> <BR />Mr Beggs raised the issue of systemic change. Members will be aware that, in August 2021, I issued a call for evidence on the potential introduction of biennial MOT testing for private cars, light goods vehicles and motorcycles. That ran for eight weeks, and I am pleased to say that some 1,200-odd consultation responses were received. Those responses are being analysed, and a synopsis of the results will be published shortly. For me, road safety remains a priority.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members will know that vehicle tax is a reserved matter under the DVLA, operating on behalf of Treasury, but the DVA's advice to customers who need to tax their vehicle and cannot secure an MOT date before their MOT expires is to book the earliest available appointment and check the booking system for an appointment before their MOT expires. If you get to within five days of the expiry date of your tax and have not been able to secure an MOT appointment, or if your tax has expired, contact dva.customerservices@infrastructure-ni.gov.uk, and the DVA will do its best to get an urgent appointment for your vehicle. I assure all Members that, to date, all customers who have used that process and contacted the DVA in those circumstances have been offered an earlier appointment.”
“The PSNI has agreed not to penalise a driver of a vehicle whose MOT has expired, so long as the vehicle is in a roadworthy and safe condition, the vehicle is properly insured, and the driver can provide proof that a test appointment has been booked. The ABI view is that not having a valid MOT certificate would not necessarily invalidate your insurance, but customers should check their policy documents or speak to their insurer if they find themselves in that position. The ABI has confirmed, however, that it is a condition of insurance that owners maintain their vehicles in a roadworthy condition.”
“So far, 29 of those vehicle examiners have been posted to test centres. The other eight, who finished their training last Friday, will take up their posts this week. Further training courses are being scheduled for February and March. <BR /> <BR />The DVA is experiencing significant demand for vehicle testing services. In some cases, customers may not be able to have their vehicles tested before their current MOT certificate expires. I know that that is an issue of concern to Members. In such cases, I ask them to encourage their constituents to book the earliest available test appointment for their vehicle. That may mean travelling to another test centre instead of their preferred location. The DVA has consulted the PSNI and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to make them aware of the current position.”