HL Deb 15 April 2002 vol 633 cc675-8

2.41 p.m.

Lord Astor of Hever

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they will follow the example of numerous other countries in banning the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, the Government are satisfied that current legislation provides the police with sufficient powers to enable them to prosecute irresponsible drivers. However, in accordance with our road safety strategy Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone, we are keeping the need for the introduction of a specific offence under review.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with RoSPA's research—I declare an interest as a former president—which indicates an increasing number of deaths and terrible injuries caused by drivers using hand-held phones while driving, despite all the safety advice and publicity campaigns? If he does, can he tell the House why the Government objected to the Bill prohibiting drivers using hand-held phones, in the other place last Friday?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, the Government agree that using a hand-held mobile phone—or any form of mobile phone—in a car is potentially dangerous. Without going into detail, there is now fairly clear evidence of that from both the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The only difference between us is that the Government's position is that the police consider that they have adequate powers and we are intent on pursuing advertising and promotion to try to ensure that the public, many of whom recognise the danger, adjust their behaviour voluntarily.

However, we have undertaken to keep the question of creating a specific offence under review. If we are unable to persuade drivers that they should not use a mobile phone while driving, we accept that new legislation may have to be introduced.

Baroness Boothroyd

My Lords, will the Minister explain the position in relation to cyclists who use mobile phones? I have witnessed a horrendous incident in which a cyclist had one hand on the handlebars and the other hand holding a mobile phone, dicing with death around Hyde Park Corner. I confess to having taken the matter into my own hands by using my horn so loudly that the cyclist had no alternative but to drop the telephone. I am sure that the House would like to know the rules and regulations relating to cyclists, who cause great trouble and difficult circumstances by the use of mobile phones.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I commend the direct action of the noble Baroness, and am delighted to hear that the phone, rather than the cyclist, fell off. I share her desire that the House should know exactly what are the regulations under which cyclists are prohibited from using mobile phones. I am racking my brains to remember whether cyclists are covered by the Highway Code—actually, they must be. The advice in the Highway Code is that one must have proper control over one's vehicle; a bicycle is a vehicle; therefore, cyclists could presumably be prosecuted by the police for failure to have adequate control over their vehicle. If my conjecture is wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that "keeping a matter under review" is one of the least satisfying responses that any Member of the House ever receives? Does he further agree that to speak on a hand-held telephone at the same time as driving comes near to defining the offence of driving without due care and attention?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that that would be one of the least satisfactory responses that one could give if it were weasel words, not a genuine commitment. But the Government have made clear that next month there will be a further publicity campaign to promote the cessation of the use of mobile phones while driving and two research studies are under way to try to narrow down the risks involved in so using mobile phones. The Government are genuine in what we have said: if we are not able within a reasonable period to persuade the public to shift their behaviour, we shall have no option but to legislate.

On the noble Lord's second question, which, if I remember it correctly, was about the use of hand-held phones being an especially pernicious and dangerous activity—

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

No, my Lords, it was about due care and attention.

Lord Filkin

Indeed, my Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Under powers given over those who do not have proper control of their vehicle, the police are already able to prosecute. For example, one police force mounted a campaign and imposed fixed penalties on two-thirds of those whom they had stopped having observed them holding a mobile phone while attempting to control a motor vehicle. So the police demonstrated that they could convict people in those circumstances without much difficulty.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, I declare an interest as the current president of RoSPA, and am delighted to follow a distinguished former president. Is my noble friend aware that this October the Irish Republic will join more than 35 other countries in banning the use of mobile phones while driving, with a rigorous system of fines backed up by the threat of imprisonment and penalty points? Road safety campaigners are mystified why the Government do not accept the existing evidence, including the most recent evidence from the Transport Research Laboratory, that using a mobile phone is as dangerous as drinking and driving.

Is it not time that the Government thought again, bearing in mind that in February my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer wrote to me as follows: If drivers cannot be persuaded that they should not use mobile phones while driving, then we will consider the introduction of new legislation". How long do we have to wait before it is quite clear that drivers will not change their habits?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, the short answer is yes and no: yes, I was aware of the Irish position. The recent Direct Line research produced a most interesting report. The Government thought that it was a valuable contribution to the debate. Evidence clearly measured the increase in reaction time demonstrated by drivers when using mobile phones—about half a second—and how serious that could be. That is quite clear, so there is no doubt about the risks involved.

Neither my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester nor RoSPA are in any doubt about what is the Government's position. In my earlier answer, I said clearly that the matter is under active review. If we do not have evidence that the public are shifting their behaviour, we will legislate. I should have expected a degree of rejoicing about that statement, rather than intemperance in terms of the question.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the Minister said that the use of any form of mobile telephone in a car is potentially dangerous. Does he regard hands-free telephones—one sees people bellowing into their dashboard—as potentially dangerous, or does he regard that use of a mobile telephone in a car as acceptable?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, the Government's position—and the Highway Code—is explicit on the matter. Hands-free mobile phones are also dangerous. The evidence for that, in the UK and elsewhere, is clear. There is a popular misconception that because you are not holding the damned thing, you are, in some way, safer. In practice, it is the mental distraction that causes the problem, just as much as holding the phone in the hand.

I apologise to the House for using somewhat unparliamentary language. I shall leave it at that.

Lord Jacobs

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the fact that two drivers were observed driving buses down Oxford Street with one hand on the steering wheel and one hand holding a mobile phone, the present legislation is not adequate?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, the essential debate is not whether such action is dangerous or whether the public generally believe it to be dangerous—they do. The debate is about whether we can shift public behaviour without legislation. The Government's hope has been that enough publicity and enough common sense would remove the necessity for laws and regulations in all cases. However, if the practice were to persist in a way in which many noble Lords would feel is unsatisfactory and we were unable to shift the public's view, we would have to consider the matter further.

It is grossly irresponsible of public service vehicle drivers to behave in that way. They should know their responsibilities better than anybody else.