Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions on this matter. It is a little strange that one of the most useful modern implements in both business and personal life has also tended to cause many road accidents. It is a quite wicked introduction to the car. Deputy Lahart asked what is my philosophy on this and I do not know, but I believe there is a lesson to be learned. The incidents referred to by Deputies Kevin O'Keeffe, Eugene Murphy and John Lahart involved people using their mobile telephones recklessly and regardless of the law. That is quite alarming. It indicates a general attitude among many in the population that if they break the law in their cars, they will get away with it. They believe they will not be arrested, charged or even discovered. That appears to be the case not just for mobile telephones, but also for the other elements that cause fatal road accidents, the main ones being speed and drinking. People think they can drink or speed and that they will not be caught. God knows, but they might be correct. We do not know the number of undiscovered people who are drinking and driving. We only know about the ones who were caught. The same is the case with speed and mobile telephones. Those are the three main culprits for causing road fatalities. The fourth one is not wearing a seatbelt, which is a slightly different issue.

This must be looked at in terms of attitude. I am not sure that I always share the view that it is a matter of personal responsibility. It is also a matter of parliamentary and political responsibility, as well as a matter for the Road Safety Authority. I find it striking that it is difficult to get up-to-date statistics, and I am determined to do something about it. I have said this in the House many times previously but I will continue to emphasise it. The statistics on drink driving, for example, are totally out of date. They show very alarming figures and changes in attitude towards drinking and driving, particularly among young men, but they are from 2012. One can get some anecdotal information but the statistics are from 2012, and they are alarming up to that point. We have a duty to get more information and data. It was odd that the insurance companies, which we referred to already, did not have up-to-date data when we wanted it. It appears that the Road Safety Authority, perhaps not through its own fault, cannot get up-to-date statistics on drinking and driving, and it seems that the situation might be worse since the last statistics were issued rather than better. That is a reality we must face. It is also a responsibility. Rather than say it is all the individual's fault, we, as legislators, have it in our power to take tough measures, if we must, to stop people killing other people with their cars.

What Deputy Broughan has addressed here is useful. I have no wish to find flaws in the amendments. It has been my wish throughout to accept amendments, as I see no political benefit otherwise. Unfortunately, however, there is a difficulty with the amendment. I appreciate that Deputy Broughan wishes to strengthen the law in this regard. The criminologists have different views on whether increased penalties make that much difference. Sometimes, obviously, the chances of being caught act as a greater deterrent. However, that has been debated for centuries. While Deputy Broughan wishes to strengthen the law with this amendment, in fact, accidentally, this is not what the amendment would do. It is a drafting matter. The amendment provides for a fine of €160 for holding a mobile telephone while driving. The current fine is a maximum of €2,000. The problem appears to be a confusion between the fixed charge, paid on receipt of a fixed charge notice from the Garda, and a fine which, in law, is the penalty imposed by a court. This is quite technical but it is the way it would be open to interpretation. Where a person is taken to court for holding a mobile telephone, the fine is a maximum of €2,000. The effect of the amendment would be inadvertently to reduce it by over 90%. The amendment also provides that the person convicted of holding a mobile telephone while driving should receive a disqualification of six months for a first offence. This would mean no disqualification for a second or subsequent offence.

I am sure the Deputy does not mean to slash the fine for holding a mobile telephone while driving or to set out harsher consequences for a first offence than for repeat offenders, but that would be the effect of the amendment. That is the reason it is impossible to accept it.

See this speech in context