Mobile Phones: Use by Motorists (Hansard, 1 November 2004)

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Department for Transport carries out regular surveys of mobile phone use by drivers. The survey carried out in September this year found that the use of hand-held mobile phones by car drivers had dropped by over 25 per cent since September 2003.

§ Viscount Tenby
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful reply. However, is he 5 aware—I am sure that he is—that independent reports from all over the country show that this law is being flouted by motorists on a massive scale? I can only confirm that from my daily personal experience. Is that because the law is unenforceable or is it due to lack of police resources as more and more officers are transferred from traffic to other duties?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, why people do not obey the law is a matter for conjecture, but the issue with regard to penalties is important. In a memorandum to the Select Committee on Transport in the other place, the Government made it clear that when legislative time permits, we should increase the penalties for the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving, making it an endorsable offence carrying a £60 fine and three penalty points. However, the regulation has been in place for only nine or 10 months. We have concentrated our efforts on providing information for the public and issuing warnings about the fact that this is an offence.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that research into the effectiveness of a similar ban in New York demonstrated that the use of hand-held phones by car drivers fell by 50 per cent in the first year, but that by the end of the second year, due to the absence of proper enforcement and publicity, such telephone use had returned almost to its original level? Is not the answer to this problem the one he hinted at in his response to the noble Viscount: if this offence is endorsable and subject to penalty points, which we hope it will be through the implementation of a new road traffic Bill, the problem of enforcement should be largely overcome?

§ Baroness Fookes
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Order.

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says about the experience in New York during the second year regarding offences of this kind. However, we have had only one year of a ban and we are pleased that it has had some effect. However, the improvement has not been as good as we would have hoped and we are bearing in mind the research referred to by my noble friend. That is why we have indicated that, at the first available opportunity, we will take legislative measures to make the punishment for this offence more severe.

§ Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, does the regulation banning the use of hand-held telephones also apply to the use of hand-held dictaphones and even the eating of hand-held bananas?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is the case that a driver may be committing an offence if, in the eyes of a police officer, he is not in full control of his vehicle. That may be due to the use of a hand-held telephone, 6 but it might be as a result of eating a banana or some other comestible. Let us be clear: the driver is expected to be in full control of the vehicle. Any activity carried on in that vehicle by the driver which gives rise to the suspicion that he may not be in full control leaves him open to prosecution.

§ Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, does a bicycle constitute a moving vehicle under these regulations? Daily I see cyclists taking their lives into their hands by having one hand on the handlebars and the other holding a mobile telephone. Is any action being taken in regulations to control this type of activity?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, this particular offence applies to the use of hand-held mobile telephones while driving, but cyclists too must be in control of the machines they are riding. If their actions could lead to loss of control of the bicycle at a crucial moment, which could result in a potentially serious accident, they too are potentially committing an offence.

§ Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. Since the regulation came into force we have been prosecuting approximately 180 people per month. But is the Minister satisfied that the present penalty regime is sufficient? New fixed penalties for dropping litter, for letting off fireworks, for shoplifting and for a number of other offences are coming into force today, but police resources will not permit the collection of small fines. It really is essential that, through regulation, we move to increase the penalties very seriously.

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Because we see difficulties with regard to enforcement, and because the improvement in driving behaviour has not been as marked as we would have hoped, we have indicated that in due course we will make this an endorsable offence. Drivers are concerned about penalty points being attached to their licences.

§ Baroness Fookes
My Lords, I apologise for earlier jumping the gun. I do not see the point of increasing the penalties in any form if drivers are not caught in the first place. What action will be taken to improve enforcement in that sense?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, enforcement regarding this offence depends on the person committing the offence being observed doing so, and therefore requires a police officer to have seen the offence being carried out. However, the same applies to the wearing of seat belts and we all appreciate that drivers' behaviour regarding the use of seat belts has improved enormously, with very few drivers breaking that law. The situation regarding the use of mobile phones has not improved to the extent we would like, and therefore in due course we 7 are setting out to increase the level of punishments as well as encouraging police officers to monitor the position with care.

§ The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, does the Minister agree that losing one's livelihood is a little severe for answering just four telephone calls?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, nobody will lose their livelihood for a first offence. The indication is that we would increase the fine from £30 to £60 and put three points on the licence. As the noble Earl recognises, four such offences would have to be committed before a licence was withdrawn and livelihood threatened. Of course, repeat offenders do risk that happening, and so they should.