Highway Code (Rule 149)

Motion to Regret

Moved by

That this House regrets the Alterations to the Highway Code (Rule 149) because (1) of the piecemeal introduction to Parliament of proposed changes to the Code, and (2) it does not extend to handheld devices used by people on (a) bicycles, (b) e-bikes, and (c) e-scooters.

My Lords, I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to express my regret at the proposed revision to Highway Code rule 149 on using mobile phones while driving. I say at the outset that I do not oppose the content of the rule change, but I do not think that it goes far enough and I have a number of questions on which I would like to press my noble friend the Minister—I am delighted to see her in her place—for a response.

For example, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its 30th report, noted in its conclusion that

“the House has made clear the strength of its concerns about the Department for Transport’s piecemeal approach to changing the Highway Code”.

I ask my noble friend in particular: when we considered a Motion to Regret in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, some two months ago, why could not these changes have been included as part of that consultation and consideration before both Houses? It seems extraordinary that, less than two weeks after one set of rule changes came into effect, we are presented with, effectively, another. I would like to understand the department’s thinking in that regard.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee expressed its concern

“that the hard copy version of the Highway Code is so out of date.”

That was discussed in the previous debate. Can my noble friend say where we are with a hard copy and how up to date the current Highway Code is on the website?

Perhaps most importantly for the purposes of the debate this evening, I would like to understand why rule 149 as revised is not extended to e-scooters, e-bikes and bicycles. There must have been a very good reason why that was not the case. To make my point: as I was walking in from my London flat to the House today, I was midway across a pedestrian crossing and was approached by a cyclist on his mobile phone—one hand bicycling and one hand on the mobile phone—on the wrong side of the road, and it was not clear whether he was going to stop. Cyclists and those on e-scooters and e-bikes are using handheld phones inappropriately and I would like to understand why the department has not addressed this issue. That has to be a cause of concern. The ABI has expressed very robustly why there is a need for regulation, and I would like to understand why the department did not take this opportunity to include e-scooters more generally in this regard.

As the House may not be aware, I remind it that, in both the last parliamentary Session and the current Session, I have had a Bill seeking to understand why causing death or serious injury by cycling, e-bikes or e-scooters is not placed on the same legal basis as other aspects of the Highway Code, or prosecuted in this regard. I will press this in a Bill in the next parliamentary Session as well if I am fortunate enough to secure a place in the ballot.

Turning to the Explanatory Memorandum to the revision of the Highway Code rule 149, I would like to understand in particular paragraph 6.2, which states:

“The Code does not itself create legal rights and obligations; a failure to observe its provisions does not in itself make a person liable to criminal proceedings. But such a failure can be relied on as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings”.

It then refers to Section 38(7) of the RTA. So we are creating, in effect, a criminal offence, and my noble friend did indeed say that—either in the debate on the Motion to Regret from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, or in the debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in Grand Committee.

Paragraph 7.9 states that

“the Department plans to include stronger and clearer advice on gov.uk about the use of mobile phones while driving to address some misunderstandings that were evident from consultation responses for example, people wondered whether this change would affect their use of phones as sat navs secured in cradles, which it won’t.”

I would really like to understand whether this paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum was consulted on. It would be good to have a little more clarity because, subsequently, paragraph 11.1 states:

“No guidance is required for the mobile phone Rule change”—

but we have just been told in the earlier paragraph that it is.

Why is this so important? I totally accept that most cyclists are responsible, but there are some very irresponsible and reckless cyclists. Many of them do not stick to the roads and they mount the pavements, which they strictly should not do. It is of even more concern when we see what is happening with e-scooters. I understand that in the Kantar consultation that the Department for Transport did, 72% of those using e-scooters responded that they did so “for fun”. Frankly, in some of the situations that many of us have been put into, we feel absolutely terrorised by those who are riding e-scooters irresponsibly.

The Met Police has published some helpful information on the web:

“E-scooters are classed as motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Which means the rules that apply to motor vehicles, also apply to e-scooters including the need to have a licence, insurance and tax. It’s not currently possible to get insurance for privately owned e-scooters, which means it’s illegal to use them on the road or in public spaces. If you’re using a private e-scooter you risk the vehicle being seized under S.165 Road Traffic Act 1988 for no insurance.”