Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Feighan for what I believe is a very balanced approach to this Bill. I can see the argument about it being anti-rural and the majority of the opposition to it seems to be coming from rural areas. It is quite understandable. We all know the reasons for that. The pub is such an integral part of rural life and such a centre of the community, more so than in urban areas, and people feel that any anti-drink-driving legislation is an attack on that. First of all, that is not the purpose of this Bill - quite the opposite. Rural life and rural communities are priceless and we must do nothing that damages them. I mean that quite genuinely. I pointed out in my opening remarks, as did Senator Feighan, that this is not an urban-rural divide. The Behaviour and Attitudes polls from which I quoted show that over 90% of people in rural areas are behind this type of measure. In fact, the figure is slightly higher in rural areas. I do not know why but my guess is that this is because more people in rural Ireland are touched by deaths caused by drink-driving than in urban Ireland. I do not distinguish between any human life. The loss of one is utterly appalling and tragic but the fact is that statistically speaking, if and when this Bill is passed, it will benefit rural Ireland more than urban Ireland because more people are dying in rural Ireland than in urban Ireland as a result of drink-driving. That is the answer I have to give. I know that a lot of the opposition to this Bill, the extent of which I do not know, comes from rural areas but it is misplaced. According the scientific evidence we have, which is forensic surveys, people living in those areas are behind the legislation even if many of their representatives are not.

The vintners are a lobby group and I understand why they oppose it. They serve alcohol and that is why they oppose it. I would challenge them. They have a vested interest and do not make any bones about it. They are utterly wrong to oppose it. I wish the vintners would play a constructive role in the reduction of road deaths - not by opposing this but by organising publicans to arrange transport home for people who come to pubs, as many publicans do, and help to preserve the rural community in that way in order that people do get to the pubs and have a drink but also to make sure they go home and do not drive. I am not surprised by their intense lobbying but it is naked self-interest, which one can only expect from business groups. Although it is not up to me but to the committee to decide, the Senator's suggestion that they should come in here is a very good one. I think the vintners should be heard but they should not just be heard but challenged. This is what would be useful if it does not delay this Bill because it is urgent. More people are dying all the time and this Bill aims to prevent that. I think inviting them in is a very good idea because if they are challenging some of the figures I have laid before the committee, it is good because we can stand over every single one of them. They are not provided by any flawed sources. They are provided by reputable bodies like the RSA, the World Health Organization and the AA. If the vintners want to challenge them, they should be given that opportunity and I would welcome it. The committee should invite them in but I ask members to challenge them because one of the great myths about this Bill is that we are changing the levels. We are not changing them; the levels will remain the same. We are simply changing penalty points for disqualification. We are sending out a message is that if people drink and drive, they will be disqualified. I would have thought that the vintners would agree with that, which is why I am puzzled that they do not seem to agree with the principal point in this Bill. Was there anything else?