Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I welcome Dr Chris Hughes and Deirdre Gallagher from DFI. Are members content that this evidence session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Chris and Deirdre, it is great to see you again. The floor is yours to make an opening statement, after which there will, no doubt, be a couple of questions.

Dr Chris Hughes (Department for Infrastructure): Chair and members, it is good to see you again. Thank you very much for the opportunity to brief the Committee. When I was sat here two weeks ago, I said that we had had the worst start to a year regarding deaths on our roads in 18 years. That was on 22 April, and, three days later, we had one of the worst days on our roads that serving PSNI officers can remember. On Saturday 25 April, we lost five males on the roads, ranging in age from 16 to 61. The 16-year-old was a passenger, and the 61-year-old was a motorcyclist. My PSNI colleagues could not remember a day such as that: officers who serve the public had to attend four fatal collisions. I spoke to them on the Sunday morning. The situation was really bad, and it is becoming even more horrific.

That leads us to what we are talking about this morning, which is mobile phone legislation. The PSNI cannot point specifically to the cause of any collision, but it is any one of the "fatal five", one of which is mobile phones. That is what we are here to talk to you about today. The use of mobile phones while driving has been an offence since 2004, when the legislation first came into operation. The offence became endorsable in 2007, carrying three penalty points and a fine. The fact that it is an offence has had some impact. In 2011, approximately 10,000 people were caught using a mobile phone while driving. That has reduced to 1,000 at this time, so the legislation has had an impact. However, the police are still very much saying that it is one of the "fatal five".

To reflect the gravity of the offence, the penalty, which had previously been set at £60, was increased in 2021 to six points and a £200 fine. I caution that, within those figures, it is sometimes difficult for police officers to enforce the offence of using a mobile phone. Instead, they can enforce the offence of not being in proper control of a vehicle. The whole point of updating the legislation is that that current offence is difficult to enforce. Mobile phone technology has changed vastly since 2004. The way in which people now interact with their phone is not covered in the 2004 legislation. At the moment, we have primary legislation, and, through regulations, we can update the offence, as has been done in other jurisdictions. That is what the consultation was about. The idea is to make it easier for police officers to enforce the offence of using a mobile phone.

The research tells us that you are four times more likely to be involved in a collision if you are using a mobile phone. I want to be clear: the consultation offers progress but not perfection. The consultation was designed to tease that out. Mobile devices are now very different from what they were. During the consultation, that became apparent.

The offence is using the device interactively — making a phone call or looking something up. However, people could be streaming or making a YouTube video, and that would not be covered by the offence, but it would be covered by the offence of not being in proper control. A change to the legislation will make it easier, in that it will apply if you are using a handheld device. That is what will be covered by the regulations. The offence can be changed through secondary legislation via regulations. To get a more fundamental change to address the more modern, stand-alone factors introduced by devices such as smartwatches would require a change to the primary legislation, which, as we know, is a much, much slower process. Meanwhile, we know that people are dying in huge numbers, and mobile phone use is one of the contributing factors that the PSNI has mentioned.

There was strong support for the proposal to tighten the offence so that it did not apply just to using a device interactively but to using the stand-alone functions, such as browsing a video, watching something or typing an email — those sorts of things. Such actions are distracting, but they are not covered by the regulations that were introduced in 2004. There is strong support for the proposals. Some 84% support that measure.

We put in an illustrative list of offences that would be covered by the widened scope. People were proactive in asking, "What about this?" and "What about that?" which was really good, but they were asking about the kind of stuff that we cannot change through regulations without changing the primary legislation. That is because of the way in which the primary legislation is written. As I said at the outset, this is progress, not perfection. We will be able to cover a lot more of the interactive functions that people use that, essentially, distract them from driving. The offence of not being in proper control is a lesser offence and attracts three penalty points and a £60 fine rather than six penalty points and a £200 fine. We believe that that does not reflect the gravity of the offence. It is one of the "fatal five", and it leads to collisions.

Chair, I will leave it there. We welcome your views on this and are available for questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you for that summary, Chris. You will, no doubt, be aware that the Committee noted the weekend when we lost five people in Northern Ireland. Clearly, road safety is an ongoing, genuine concern for the Minister and the Committee. You outlined very well the scope of the consultation, which, obviously, we have had a look at. What is best practice? How do other jurisdictions cope with this?

Mrs Deirdre Gallagher (Department for Infrastructure): The legislation in GB was similar to ours until, in 2022, it made a similar change to the one we are discussing. The change that we hope to bring in has already taken place there. It is slightly different in the Republic of Ireland because it is in primary legislation. The offence there is the holding of the device, whereas we are looking at holding and using. The offence in the Republic of Ireland is the holding or supporting a phone with another part of the body, such as the head or shoulder. It is, therefore, slightly different.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): In the South, you have to have the phone in your hand.

Mrs Gallagher: The legislation there applies to holding the phone; here, it will be holding and using. That is the difference.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. What about how you split off technology? This is more for my knowledge, but it would be OK to talk into a phone, for example — I am sure that one of my kids could show me how to do that. Am I right in saying that it will still be OK to leave your phone on the passenger seat and talk as you drive ,or to use hands-free technology? We all might do that, given that all of us probably have hands-free phone kits in our cars. Will that still be OK? You will still be able to do that under the new proposals.

Mrs Gallagher: This consultation just considered handheld devices. It did not look at anything beyond that. A phone should be secured in the cradle or through the car system. You can talk on the phone as long as you are not holding the phone.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): So, you can still use a cradle or, like me, set the phone on the passenger seat and take calls by pressing a button on the steering wheel. Just for clarity, is that sort of stuff still OK?

Mrs Gallagher: Yes, it is deemed hands-free.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. I am sure that there will be a range of questions. We will kick off with Stephen. The floor is yours, Stephen.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for your detailed presentation. Welcome back. I concur with others on the very sad news that we have received since we last met. I know that you are committed to making improvements, as are many agencies. I will lead with the PSNI. What level of engagement have you had with it on the issue? Is it on the same page as you on this?

Dr Hughes: The PSNI is completely on the same page. It is very supportive at the most senior levels. It is very keen for the legislation to be in place.

Mrs Gallagher: We have engaged with the PSNI throughout the entire process, and we know that it is an issue for the police. Our contacts in the police service have gone out and spoken to traffic officers on the ground, and the issue of enforcement and determining whether somebody is using their phone interactively is a real problem for them. For example, some people have been convicted of the offence of not being in proper control: they may have been suspected of the offence of using their mobile phone, but there was no evidence for that.

Mr Dunne: Is there any data on the link between mobile phone use while driving and accidents?

Dr Hughes: If you are using a mobile phone, you are four times more likely to be involved in a collision than if you are not.

Mrs Gallagher: As to whether it is the principal causation factor in injuries or fatalities, the last figure that we had was that it was in 3% of fatalities. I think that that may be going back a number of years. However, one of the problems is determining the offence and having evidence.

Somebody could be suspected of having committed that offence, but the police might not have enough evidence for that. One of the issues is that, sometimes, after an accident has happened, the phone may have disappeared or been switched off. It is usually only after there has been a very serious offence, such as a fatality, serious injury or accident, that the police have powers to seize the phone.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that.

Dr Hughes: The police would say to us that, if you drive on the roads or commute on a bus, you see people on their mobile phones. It is difficult then to establish whether somebody who has their head down and are slow-moving or not moving along in traffic are on their mobile phone. However, proving that to a level where they could be convicted in court of being interactive at that very point — they could have been doing something else — is difficult.

As I said, there is evidence that you are four times more likely to be involved in an accident if you use your phone. The police are hugely supportive of a change, and it would give them extra flexibility in addressing the offence. I believe that, because of the nature of the offence, it is under-represented in the figures, so I add that caveat.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that. I will go back to the best practice question. You mentioned some parts of the UK. For clarity, are England, Wales and Scotland all on the same page on the 2022 change?

Mrs Gallagher: Yes.

Mr Dunne: What about beyond the UK, in Europe and globally? Is there any evidence about what works or does not work there?

Mrs Gallagher: I do not have that with me. Here, we have the "fatal five", and it is the same everywhere. It is about distracted driving.

Mr Dunne: I presume that parts of Europe have laws on the issue.

Dr Hughes: I would need to get back to you on that.

Mr Dunne: I would be interested in finding that out, if you could get back to us and provide a summary of the laws in Europe. Given that we have similar cars and similar mobile phones, we all face the same issue, and, ultimately, we all want to make our roads safer. Thank you, folks.

Mr Harvey: Dr Hughes, you mentioned twice that this is progress, not perfection. What would perfection be?

Dr Hughes: Perfection would be people not interacting with their mobile technology when driving and being fully focused on their driving.

The issue here is that, whenever you use a mobile phone, it is a conscious act, so that is something to consider. You do not accidentally lift your phone when you are behind the steering wheel and interact with it. People's speed might drift slightly over 30 mph so that they are doing 31 mph or 32 mph, but lifting a mobile phone is a conscious decision. Whether you are doing that or using a smartwatch or other interactive technology that people were asking about, until we address the mindset, we will see all of that. Perfection is probably when drivers are fully focused on the act of driving and taking care. That is probably what perfection, such as it might be, would look like.

Mr Harvey: While still allowing hands-free, perhaps, but that is it. Is that right?

Dr Hughes: Yes. Perfect is not doing anything that distracts you, but hands-free technology is there and is not within the scope of this. If we can get people to not lift and use their mobile phones, we will make huge advances in road safety.

Mr Harvey: Were you content with all the responses, or could there have been others?

Mrs Gallagher: We really welcomed the responses. We are happy that there is so much support for what we are doing. People also raised some interesting issues that we will need to take away and look at. Although we will not do so for the purposes of this particular change, they reflect the fact that people are really interested. Most people have mobile phones and are engaged. It also reflects the fact that technology has moved on, and people who took the time to respond had thought about it, so the responses were very welcome, actually.

Dr Hughes: "Thoughtful" is how I would describe the responses. They came across as thoughtful and supportive.

Mr Harvey: Good answers. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Does the change apply to drivers in car parks?

Mrs Gallagher: If you are using a handheld phone?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yes.

Dr Hughes: While driving?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yes. Well, you are parked in your car. You are in a car park. Would it apply?

Dr Hughes: Do you have your mobile phone in your hand?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yes.

Dr Hughes: There is the one exemption.

Mrs Gallagher: There is an exemption there for remote capability. It has already been legislated for that people are using —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): What does that mean?

Mrs Gallagher: Basically, it means that people have an app on their phone that is compatible with their car or that their car has a function whereby they can step out and the car can be parked remotely.

Dr Hughes: It can parallel park for you.

Mrs Gallagher: No.

Dr Hughes: I do not have a car like that. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I did not know that a car like that existed.

Dr Hughes: If you are on private land — many car parks are — and you commit the offence of having a mobile phone in your hand, the PSNI would be able to deal with you for having a mobile phone in your hand.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK, so, if you are parked in your car and you have your mobile phone in your hand, even if your car is on private land, it is still an offence.

Mrs Gallagher: Yes, if the public have access to that area. We looked at that issue, and the police have indicated that they would investigate. For example, if, later in the day, that area was closed off to the public, it may not be an issue for the police, but, if the public have access to and are using it, it would be.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Can you commit the offence in your driveway at home?

Dr Hughes: I do not think so.

Mrs Gallagher: I do not know whether that constitutes a public road, so —

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Maybe to tease that out —.

Mrs Gallagher: — I do not think so.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Neither do I, but I would want clarity around that. If, when reversing out of my long driveway in the morning, I pick up my mobile phone and start texting at the same time as a police car drives past or is parked outside my house, is that indictable?

Mrs Gallagher: Are you on a public road?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I am on my driveway.

Mrs Gallagher: OK.

Dr Hughes: We could ask the PSNI. I suspect that the police would offer you advice, but —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): It is just that, when we are making laws, these things are really important.

Dr Hughes: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Perhaps we will write to the Department to get further clarity around that.

Dr Hughes: That is really welcome. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): In your paper containing answers to possible questions, question 4 references start-stop engines. Peter, I will bring you in in one second, if that is OK. How does the Department define "in control of a car"? For example, if I am using my phone while parked with my engine off somewhere where there is on-street parking, that is fine. If I am in a long queue for the Odyssey and have a car that switches the engine off — I do, and it does my head in — I am sitting there, not going anywhere, and the car is off, I can still be indicted for that offence in those circumstances. Is that right?

Mrs Gallagher: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Why?

Mrs Gallagher: You are still in control of the car. You are still driving on a public road.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I will play devil's advocate: I am not driving anywhere, and my car's engine is off.

Mrs Gallagher: OK, but you are not parked. You are not stationary; you are in a queue of traffic.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I am stationary, and my car's engine is off.

Mrs Gallagher: Your engine is paused, is it not?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): No, it is off. The new technology turns off the engine. I am in a queue, but the car is not moving, and the car's engine is off.

Dr Hughes: That is a really useful point. We welcome all this because we are still at the stage of seeking views. We can take that away to clarify it. That is really helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): In the Q&A stuff at question 4 of the paper, the Department's answer is:

I think that the Department's view is more or less what Deirdre is suggesting, but I would like to know why. That is not because I do not agree. That is not our job; our job is to scrutinise what is there. If a car with a start-stop engine is in a long queue for the Odyssey, the car is not moving, the engine is off and the driver checks their phone, that is currently indictable. I would like to know the reasons behind that. I am sure that there are some.

Dr Hughes: Let us start with the fact that lifting your phone is a fairly egregious thing to do. That is not OK if you are doing it when surrounded by moving vehicles. If you are a stationary object when other traffic is moving around you, that is clearly a danger. People behind you, around you and in front of you will be travelling. Forces are involved. I think that it is an offence to be stationary and causing a blockage. I am not entirely sure exactly what that offence is, but you would be causing a blockage. You are on a public road, and you are distracted. I am not quite sure what the nuance is.

Mrs Gallagher: You are still in control of your car.

Dr Hughes: You are in control as soon as you touch the accelerator.

Mrs Gallagher: There are a number of exemptions in the current legislation. That is not one of them.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Probably not, because that stuff had not been invented when the legislation was drafted.

Mrs Gallagher: No, and that is reflected.

Dr Hughes: That is really useful feedback for us. Being clear about that is really helpful. The point that I was making is that the technology keeps moving. If a police officer were to see you with a mobile phone in your hand while you were in a row of traffic, I suspect that they would have a word with you.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): They would, and rightly so, Chris.

Dr Hughes: All of those things are welcome because they help to clarify issues, which is the point that we are at, so thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you.
Peter is next.

Mr Harvey: Just —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Is this on the same point?

Mr Harvey: Yes. Just to clarify, do you mean if you are sitting in a lane of traffic and the car has stopped but is not turned off?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Or stopped and turned off. My car turns itself off. The point that I was making was not to justify said behaviour; it was to clarify the intent of the future regs and how they cover off those more specific issues. You could be in a queue of traffic with your car not moving: the engine is turned off, so you cannot actually move your car —.

Dr Hughes: Interestingly, just thinking about that, your ignition is on. Your car engine is not running, to save petrol, but your car is not deactivated.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That could be the —.

Dr Hughes: That could be the difference. I am enjoying myself here. [Laughter.]

Mr Harvey: As far as I can recall, the engine must be off and the keys must be out of the ignition, even if you are sitting in a lay-by. Is that right?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): It could well be.

Dr Hughes: I know that you are deemed to be in charge of your vehicle if you have your keys in your hand and open the boot.

Mr Harvey: It is interesting.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Sorry, Peter. Thank you for your patience.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Chair. I am really supportive of the proposal, as you will both know. I sit on the Policing Board, so I hear the stats from the police. It is why I started the all-party group on road safety.

What is the timeline for the introduction of the proposed changes, flowing on from the consultation?

Dr Hughes: This is the final stage of the consultation: seeking the views of the Committee. We will then prepare advice for the Minister, who will then make a decision. Given that the regulations are subject to negative resolution, if the political will is there, the changes could be brought in within this mandate.

Mr McReynolds: Political will from —?

Dr Hughes: It is just a question of whether the time and support are made available and all the processes are gone through.

Mr McReynolds: OK. That is good to hear.

You mentioned the "fatal five", Chris. I will loosely broaden that out a bit. I have previously asked this of the Minister: is there any talk in the Department about changes to drink- and drug-driving penalties and increased penalties for speeding? I am on the Policing Board, and that issue has come up there a number of times over the past year or two. Is that still being kicked around?

Dr Hughes: I am glad to say that it is being more than kicked around. Unhelpfully, there are six elements to the "fatal five", legislatively speaking. One of the "fatal five" is driving when impaired by drink or drugs. We have to legislate separately for those two. In the road safety action plan, there is a commitment to launch a consultation on drug-driving, with a target date of June. All being well, that will come to the Committee within the next number of weeks. That is for drug-driving, and we are working our way through the targets in the action plan for drink-driving.

Mrs Gallagher: The target date for the consultation on reducing the limit for drink-driving is December 2026.

Dr Hughes: We are also looking to prepare a consultation on the fines for speeding — sorry, I am digressing a bit. Currently, if someone speeds, the fine is £60, and, if someone is parked badly, the fine is £90. By and large, people are not killed by parked cars — that is not one of the "fatal five". The police, including Sam Donaldson, have been strong advocates for addressing that, and it is in our action plan to look at the speeding fine. That will also come to the Committee.

I have covered drink, drugs and speeding. We are here today to talk about mobile phones. The other one of the "fatal five" is driving without attention, which includes advertising, the graduated driver licence (GDL) and other things like that.

Mr McReynolds: When you mentioned the fines, it triggered a memory. Are the fines in GB double or treble what they are at present in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Gallagher: The fines for —?

Mr McReynolds: The fines for drink-driving, drug-driving and speeding.

Dr Hughes: I will need to get back to you on that. I have enough to soak up.

Mr McReynolds: That is what Sam said. As a fine, £60 is nothing.

Dr Hughes: Yes, absolutely. It is £60 and three penalty points. The fine for a mobile phone offence is £200 and six penalty points, and the fine for parking badly is £90.

Mr McReynolds: We are massively lagging behind GB on that, so it is great to hear that the consultation will take place pretty soon.

Dr Hughes: Yes, there will be a range of actions.

Mr McReynolds: It was worthwhile hearing that. Thank you.

Mrs Gallagher: The penalty for the mobile offence is the same as the penalty in GB.

Mr McReynolds: OK. The Highway Code is mentioned in the papers in our packs. I chair the all-party group on active travel. Four years ago, I think, there was a change to the Highway Code in GB in relation to turning left. That change has not been translated across to Northern Ireland. Are you aware of that? Has that been discussed?

Dr Hughes: What specific Highway Code offence is that? Is that to do with —?

Mr McReynolds: It is to give priority to pedestrians when vehicles turn left. Those changes were made in England, Scotland and Wales but they have not translated across to here.

Dr Hughes: I will need to look at that and get back to you. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.

Mr McReynolds: It would be brilliant if you could, Chris, thank you. I appreciate it.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Chris and Deirdre. It is obvious that you are moved and upset by the fatalities on our roads this year. There were 29 in the first four months, a figure that has more than doubled from last year.

Dr Hughes: Yes, it has. There were 14 last year.

Mr McNulty: You spoke of the weekend, just two weeks ago, when five people were killed in four separate incidents. That takes a toll on the police. We all think of the police as droids, but it is important to remember that policemen and policewomen have feelings as well. It must have been horrendous to have attended those accidents, and it must be horrendous to attend such accidents regularly as part of their jobs. I am thinking about them, and I commend the Minister for standing shoulder to shoulder with the police shortly thereafter and speaking about the importance of road safety. That is very important. How do the numbers here compare with the European context?

Dr Hughes: Part of the issue is that, because of the way in which the offence is defined, it is probably undercounted. As I said to Stephen, we will look at the international figures and get back to the Committee with a comparison. In many ways, we have done what we have on this because there is an existing offence that the police have told us is difficult to implement and that has not kept up with technology. If I were coming here with something new, I would cast my net more widely. I will certainly look at the international figures, however. It may be the case that those figures are different because they are defined differently. We know that there is an issue with how they are recorded, or, rather, with what progresses through a court or attracts a fixed penalty fine. Other options are easier to enforce because of the evidential threshold that is required, and those incur a lesser fine and a lower number of points.

We are doing this because the police here and in the South are clear that mobile phone use is one of the "fatal five": it causes collisions. I will look at the situation internationally, and, if it would be helpful for members, we can provide that information for context.

Mr McNulty: It is an important piece of work that you are taking on. Best wishes with it. As a Committee, we will support you all the way.

Mrs Gallagher: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I have not had any other indications. Chris and Deirdre, thank you for coming to the Committee. It is a really important step forward. You have had positive feedback from the Committee, and we will keep an eye out for the legislation.

Dr Hughes: Thank you, Chair and members.

Mrs Gallagher: Thank you.