You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard


14 Jan 2010 : Column 601



14 Jan 2010 : Column 601

House of Lords

Thursday, 14 January 2010.

11 am

Prayers-read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Transport: Mobile Telephones

Question

11.06 am

Tabled By Viscount Tenby

Lord Aberdare: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tenby, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): My Lords, using a mobile phone while driving became an offence in 2003 and the penalties were increased in 2007 to the same level as for speeding. For the first two years since then, surveys have shown a remarkable 35 per cent reduction in the observed use of mobile phones by drivers. Figures showing an increase in the past year apply to London only; but they are clearly a cause of concern, and I have asked that further measures be considered as part of the forthcoming road safety strategy for the next 10 years.

Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would he agree that a change of attitude among drivers is needed, similar to the one that has made drink-driving socially unacceptable? With that in mind, would the Government consider mounting another advertising campaign similar to the helpful one some years ago on the theme of, "Think! Switch it off before you drive", or exploring ways of ensuring that employers actively seek to prevent the use of mobile phones-whether hand-held or hands-free-while driving by their employees, to whom they may have provided both the phone and the vehicle?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, all of the noble Lord's points are well made. There have been two "Think" campaigns specifically directed at the use of mobile phones by drivers. A number of employers have policies that specifically prohibit their employees from using their mobile phones while on the road-although, of course, it is the responsibility of individual motorists to ensure that they do not use hand-held mobile phones while driving.

As for changes in public attitude, there has been a very significant change in practice. Before the 2007 change in the law, research by the Transport Research Laboratory estimated that 1.7 per cent of those drivers whom they were observing were using hand-held mobile phones. The last national figures we have show that 1.1 per cent were using hand-held mobile phones. So

14 Jan 2010 : Column 602

there has been a very significant reduction, but of course that is not a big enough reduction, and we need to be prepared to consider all measures, including renewed advertising campaigns, to bring the figure down further.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many fatal and how many serious accidents there have been involving the use of mobile phones, as we read alarmingly about them in the press all the time?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am afraid that we do not gather statistics on that basis, but there has been a very significant fall in the number of those killed and seriously injured on the roads. The latest data for 2008 were that there were 2,538 deaths on the roads. That compared with an average between 1994 and 1998 of 3,578, so there has been a 29 per cent decrease overall, but we do not have the figure specifically in respect of accidents caused by drivers being on mobile phones.

Lord Bradshaw: Building on what the noble Baroness said, in the forthcoming road safety review, will the Minister consider that when an accident is shown to be caused or contributed to by somebody using a mobile phone, that offence should be considered as dangerous driving, rather than careless driving?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, it is entirely up to the police what offences they choose to prosecute for. They can, of course, prosecute for either of those offences.

Lord Filkin: Can my noble friend tell the House whether the level of compliance has met the standard that the department expected when it legislated? Secondly, can he tell us whether he thinks the public believe that the legislation is working?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we expected to see a significant reduction in the number of drivers using hand-held mobile phones. The evidence is that we have seen such a reduction, but we cannot be satisfied with the fact that there are still significant numbers of drivers using hand-held mobile phones. Public attitudes are changing. I believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said at the beginning, people are coming to see using mobile phones while driving as being in the same category as drink-driving. As we get public attitudes changing, we will be able to bear down on it more successfully.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, would the Secretary of State tell us the means of enforcement for hand-held mobile phone offences? Is it just left to the police to go off on a motor bicycle after them? How does the enforcement take place?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the police, but the big change in the law in 2007 was to bring in not only a £60 fine-doubling the previous £30 fine-but, crucially, to treat the offence in the same way as speeding so placing three points on the licence. Three points on the licence appears to have had a big impact on the attitude of motorists. When it

14 Jan 2010 : Column 603

comes to reviewing the progress of the legislation, I am certainly prepared to consider whether the three points should be increased in future.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: In the investigation of serious and fatal accidents, has any consideration been given to communicating with the mobile phone companies, which should be able to track from where masts have been used for calls whether a person was on the phone at the time of the accident? Then it would not be very difficult to see whether the car had been fitted with a hands-free set.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, when accidents occur, the police assess all the available information and evidence about the causes. That includes the use of mobile phones.

Viscount Simon:My Lords, in order to resolve this problem, is there any possibility of getting car manufacturers to put some sort of microchip in all vehicles so that phones cannot be used when the engine is switched on, except when phoning the emergency services?

Lord Adonis: That idea has not been put to me before. There is the issue of hands-free mobile phones, which it is not illegal to use. I am not quite sure how my noble friend's suggestion would be compatible with that perfectly legal means of using a mobile phone in a car.

Lord Colwyn: Can the Minister remind the House whether it is illegal to use a mobile telephone while stuck in a long traffic jam?

Lord Adonis: It is. Provided you are in the car and it is on the public highway, you are not allowed to use it.

Baroness O'Cathain: Can the Minister tell us whether any progress has been made on the suggestion made many years ago in this House that all new-build cars should have the ability to have a hands-free phone? I have been told that there will be similar contact points for all mobile phones, no matter what sort they are, and the same charger will charge all mobile phones. If we could get that into all new-build cars, at least people who need the security and safety of having a mobile phone available, particularly in rural areas or when driving late at night-I recommend that all women should have them in cars-would have no temptation to have the mobile phone in their hand.

Lord Adonis: It is fairly simple and straightforward to install a hands-free mobile phone in a car, so I am not immediately persuaded that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to start insisting on mandatory arrangements. However, I will bear in mind what the noble Baroness said.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will my noble friend ask the police whether they are using that material as evidence?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, they take appropriate account of all evidence when deciding on prosecutions following accidents.



14 Jan 2010 : Column 604

Intercept Evidence

Question

11.14 am

Asked By Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, the difficulties arise out of the need to reconcile fair trial requirements with the operational requirements cited in the Privy Council review. The amount of interception conducted directly affects how much must be retained and reviewed under an intercept-as-evidence regime. Less interception would ease the burden of retention and review but would mean missing out on significant amounts of intelligence that are vital for protecting the public.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Government's intention was to lay a further updated report before Parliament before Easter. Is this timetable still on track? Will the Minister give the House some idea of how many outstanding serious criminal cases are not being prosecuted as a result of the inability to admit such evidence?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I will come back in writing on the report, because I am not sure exactly where we stand on that. As the House will be aware, we have looked at the nine points that were raised by Chilcot and that need to be ticked and cleared before we can go down this route. The answer is that we have not been able to meet all nine points, which is why we are now looking at further work with the advisory group of privy counsellors.

On the point about cases not being conducted because of this, I would prefer to put it another way; at the moment, this evidence can be provided if it needs to be. So far in the past year, we have had just under 1,500 arrests, picked up 146 firearms, helped to prevent the loss of 20 lives and picked up 4 tonnes of class A drugs. These are the sorts of things that we can do because of our intercept ability. It is certainly a jewel in the crown when it comes to alerting us to real threats of terrorism to this country.

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's initial Answer, will he say whether the intended outcome of the intercept modernisation programme is that it will assist in allowing intercept to be used as evidence in court?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the two are not really related. The IMP is there because of what is happening in the world and because there are new methods of communication. This is being driven by the telecom companies for the very good reasons of efficiency and cost, which makes it extremely difficult

14 Jan 2010 : Column 605

for old methods of interception to work, so we need to look at new ways of collecting primarily communications data. In the case of letters, for example, we are talking about addresses and things such as that. Such communications data are used dramatically by our law enforcement services and are extremely valuable in very serious cases such as terrorist cases. The IMP issue does not relate directly to the intercept-as-evidence issue.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this is one of very few countries, if not the only country, in the developed world not to use intercept as evidence. There must be other countries that have adversarial systems, as we do, rather than inquisitorial ones. How have they solved the problem of protecting the security services while pursuing prosecutions?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the Privy Council review, which is cross-party, made it absolutely clear that comparisons with other countries are of very limited value for a number of reasons, including different legal reasons and operational environments. The particular features of our legal system, including very demanding disclosure requirements, are not necessarily the same as those in most of those countries, and foreign models could not really be replicated. Also, because of some of the requirements, a number of those countries miss out on the very close interagency co-operation, which in some ways we lead the world in and which has enabled us to keep this country safe.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, what are the differences between the United States, Canada and ourselves in our legal systems which allow them to use intercept evidence but not us?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I had hoped that I had answered that to an extent in terms of the legal processes. Although there are a lot of statements about stuff being used, I know very well that most intercept evidence used in America is what I would call phone-tapping, which is used by the FBI and others. It does not use stuff that NSA collects in the same way. I do not think that it is the same. There are differences, as was said by the Privy Council review.

Honour-related Violence

Question

11.20 am

Asked By Baroness Cox

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, in recent years, the Government have taken a range of measures to tackle so-called honour-based violence, which are likely to have encouraged more victims to report incidents of honour-based violence. For example, a series of

14 Jan 2010 : Column 606

Home Office awareness raising road shows were held in 2008-09 to stimulate local action to protect victims and in February 2009 the police adopted a risk assessment tool-kit to assist officers handling cases of so-called honour-based violence.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his encouraging reply. Is he aware that the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Human Rights Organisation is dealing with four times more complaints of honour-related violence associated with religious fundamentalism than it dealt with just two years ago? According to an excellent report by the Centre for Social Cohesion, some women who had fled their communities to the authorities for safety were returned to those communities by police or by local taxi drivers, or had personal details divulged to their families by local authority personnel. Does the Minister agree that there is nothing honourable about this form of violence? What are the Government doing to identify, protect and support these victims?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the noble Baronesses raises three questions. I absolutely agree that there is nothing honourable in this at all. It relates to power, ownership of a chattel and other things, but the people involved see it in terms of honour and a reflection on them and perhaps their masculinity or whatever. I think that it is totally abhorrent and I see nothing honourable in it at all.

I am aware of the Iranian-Iraqi issue. We are working very closely with Iranian and Kurdish women's rights organisations to look at how we can best support this. Some of that work includes an appropriate consular response to British nationals facing forced marriage or violence in Iraqi Kurdistan. We are trying to map out developing police links and are working to integrate the forced marriage and honour violence within our broader political work with women's rights in Iraqi Kurdistan, and we are launching specific projects in Kurdistan.

The issue of the police and community advisers returning people to their families is very difficult. This is really a case of having to teach people the full implications of that. The Forced Marriage Unit is leading on work to engage with communities and the people involved to ensure that that does not happen. But it is very difficult and complex. Of course, very often, it involves very young women who are children almost. They are within a family and people are not willing to report things. We are increasing this awareness, but we have to do more. It is very sad that these things happen and it is something into which we have got to put even more effort.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, what proportion of this problem arises in the Islamic community, within Islam? What proportion arises among the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists? Have the Government made that calculation?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I do not have details in exactly the way in which the noble Lord has raised them. It is fair to say that a recent Crown Prosecution Service pilot to identify and monitor this, because we want to get more information and data on

14 Jan 2010 : Column 607

it, found that of 35 cases, there were 33 victims, 18 of whom were female and 15 were male. All the defendants who had done this were male and the majority were of Asian ethnicity. That is about the maximum detail that I can go into.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, is the Minister aware of guidance issued by the Foreign Office entitled Handling Cases of Forced Marriage? It effectively states that the FCO is obliged to ask the person or their trusted friends to find the cost of repatriating a forced marriage victim. In exceptional cases it will provide them with a loan. Is the Minister aware that that loan is subject to the victim handing over her or his passport and being allowed only a single journey back to the UK? Is that the most appropriate way to deal with forced marriage victims?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I have to say that I was not aware of that detail. It does not sound to me the most attractive thing. Perhaps I may take it away and come back to the noble Baroness in writing. If it is the case, it is something that I should like to look into.

Baroness Afshar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is absolutely nothing in Islamic teaching which condones honour killing? This kind of killing is a matter of culture, not religion, and is banned by most Islamic countries, as well as being unacceptable in this country.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, that interjection by the noble Baroness is extremely valuable. I was aware of what she has said, and indeed there is nothing in the Koran which says that this sort of thing should happen, so she is absolutely right. It does take place within certain groups and there are cultural aspects to it, but that does not make it any less diabolical. It is the most appalling thing and we have got to put all our effort into it. Historically it is possible that we did not do as much as we should have. We are now getting a flavour of the scale of it. The Metropolitan Police Service is reporting the statistics and we intend to make sure that that is done in other parts of the UK as well. As we get a grip and realise the full scale of it, we shall have to do more and more in this area.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I am certain that the House welcomes my noble friend's strong condemnation of these practices-

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords-

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, there is plenty of time. Why do we not let my noble friend speak and then hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lester?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page