P J Sheehan (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I oppose the main provisions and the detail of this Bill. The Minister has been driven around for far too long and he no longer has his feet on the ground. I hope he has retained his driving licence because he is going to need it before long. The sooner he requires it, the better it will be as far as I am concerned. I remind the Minister that there are now 22 ex-Ministers supporting the Government. I am not here to represent the publicans or drink-drivers but to represent common sense and to be the voice for my constituents in Cork South-West to oppose the Government's usual policy of reaching the lowest common denominator.

The Minister is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in this case by reducing the permitted blood alcohol from 80 mg to 50 mg and further to 20 mg in some cases. The Minister is going further than what safety organisations of world renown have sought. He is claiming this as a major road safety issue but the statistics produced by the HSE do not support him. A HSE study of road deaths in the period from 2003 to 2005 produced figures which showed that in accidents involving road deaths 165 drivers had consumed no alcohol whatsoever; 18 drivers were between 50 mg and 80 mg; and 103 drivers were between 80 mg and 160 mg.

We are bringing forward this legislation because of the behaviour of an average of six drivers a year. Moreover, the HSE reported that 65% of all road deaths between 1990 and 2006 were unrelated to alcohol, and we have no knowledge of the other factors involved in these road deaths. We have no knowledge of the driver's age or experience; the type of vehicle of the driver; the weather conditions at the time; whether the deaths happened during daylight hours or in darkness at night; whether the road was wet or dry; or even which month it was. How can we make these new laws with such a dearth of information?

The Minister thinks he knows best and because he has the numbers in this House he thinks he can bulldoze the Bill through. However, the Minister must prove his case and I have a few questions I hope he will address. I am sorry he is not here but the Minister of State will convey them to him. While most of Europe may have reduced to the proposed limit most of the English speaking world, that is the UK, the USA and Canada, and ourselves up to now have not reduced the present limit. Might I also state that most of the beer drinking world has a limit of 80 mg while the majority of wine consuming nations have chosen to reduce the limit to 50 mg? This might be due to daytime drinking among the wine nations of Europe which may continue into the evening as opposed to countries which have more of a habit of night-time drinking. If the Minister's primary intention is the reduction of road deaths and injuries then there are a number of other actions he could have taken prior to introducing this rushed and ill-considered legislation a year before he can provide for its enforcement. I ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill until he can provide for its implementation.

Why has he not rolled out the speed cameras which for years have been provided for in legislation? Is it another case of premature legislation? Why has he not rolled out the full penalty points scheme? Why has he not brought forward legislation forcing cars to have their dipped headlights on at all times, or at least, as in the practice in some parts of the United States, that if one's wipers are on then at least one's dipped headlights must also be on?

I was intrigued to read the recent audit of local authorities which mentioned water wastage, staff absenteeism and other issues but made no mention whatsoever of road safety measures or the role of local authorities in providing safer roads and the removal of well-known accident black spots. Where is the joined up thinking? Do I need to mention the Slane Bridge which has cost many more lives that this measure will ever save?

The National Roads Authority report for 2009 issued last week claimed that 373 road safety remedial schemes which have been completed showed an overall reduction of 97 fatal collisions, 73 serious collisions, and 253 minor injury collisions. This means that for 373 improvements we have a reduction of 423 collisions. I could mention 500 locations in my constituency that could benefit from such works. If the Minister really wanted to save lives he would be putting his efforts into these schemes rather than going for the quick cheap solution. This legislation will not remove one of these black spots.

I also wish to discuss the comments by Garda Chief Superintendent Gabriel Mclntyre of the Garda traffic corps who stated that an average of almost five people have lost their lives on the State's roads on every October bank holiday weekend over the past nine years. Last year, Chief Superintendent Mclntyre stated a predicted sudden end to a warm spell, switching to wet roads and early morning mist or fog could have lethal consequences for unprepared drivers. He appealed to drivers to be especially vigilant when the clocks went back that Sunday, as it would get darker earlier in the evening. Over the past nine years, 43 people lost their lives on roads during the October bank holiday weekend and almost one third of them were vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. As that is approximately the same number that this legislation is supposed to protect, why do we not we abolish the October bank holiday? It would make as much sense as this legislation because it does not take into account the other factors which Chief Superintendent outlined.

What is the Minister doing to improve road safety over the October bank holiday weekend? Is the Minister aware that according to latest Hibernian Aviva safety report on motor accidents involving its clients that December is the most dangerous month of the year and December 20 is the most dangerous day, with 223 accidents reported to the company on that day? Does the Minister know that 92% of pedestrians involved in accidents between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. were intoxicated? The fact that this period covers the darkest wettest days of the year and that the peak accident date for many years coincides with the shortest day of the year is not a statistic that can be ignored. What is the Minister doing to improve road safety during the month of December? For many years, we have had more Garda checkpoints during the month of December than the rest of the year put together but we still have more accidents in December. Will the Minister tell me that his policies up to now are working? That more accidents happen on one of the shortest days of the year has to be examined in greater detail. Will the Minister consider, in the interests of road safety, that we move to central European time so that we can have an extra hour of daylight every evening of the winter from October to the end of March? This measure would be welcomed by everyone in the country and would probably save ten times more lives than the Bill would ever claim to do.

I was intrigued when SuperFreakoconomics received publicity for its claim that statistics proved one would be safer driving home drunk than walking home drunk. However, we now have Irish statistics that 92% of pedestrians involved in accidents between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. were intoxicated. This is an alarming statistic. This Bill will drive more pedestrians on to dark unlit country roads with no footpaths in the middle of the night. Has the Minister considered that this Bill may actually kill more people in my constituency of Cork South-West than the lives he claims it might save? Do I need to mention the absence of dual carriageways in my constituency and not a single kilometre, not even a metre, of motorway? Does the Minister know the effect this legislation will have on a constituency like Cork South-West, which is full of dark country roads with no public lighting and which lacks public transport of any description?

The Minister might be too young to remember the legal notion of a bona fide house, in that those who had travelled more than three miles had the right to purchase drink until a later hour. This legal principle was abolished by the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1960, which was long before I entered this House. Perhaps this notion should be revisited and the principle reversed by allowing those travelling less than three miles to be permitted a higher blood alcohol level than those travelling more that three miles from their homes. The Minister has indicated that all the breathalyser machines in the country will require replacement and I ask that the replacements be digitally calibrated to show motorists the exact reading when they are tested to ascertain whether they have consumed alcohol. At present, breathalysers will give a zero, pass or fail result but not the reading itself.

I will give the example of two Members of this House who consumed similar amounts of alcohol according to themselves. However, one was fractionally over, while the other was fractionally under, the limit. If the Minister wishes to educate drivers, he must play fair. In the aforementioned two cases, analysis of the samples revealed that one was over and the other was under the limit although the same amount of drink was consumed. The Minister also should inform the House as to the exact level to which breathalysers are set at present and what degree of tolerance is allowed. In addition, the Minister also should state the percentage of persons who, having failed the breathalyser test, were found to be under the limit when their sample was examined at the Garda station or by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety.

I wish to take up the issue that taxpayers' moneys are being used for propaganda. The Government for years has spent taxpayers' moneys on trying to curtail consumption of alcohol and tobacco. In another example of the Government throwing away the taxpayers' money, these sums have been wasted as this direct objective has not led to a reduction by a single iota of a single percentage point in the consumption of alcohol or tobacco. The most recent surveys have shown a significant increase in tobacco and alcohol consumption in Ireland. I stated that this constituted propaganda, which I believe to be the case in that it is being used to allow the Government to remove resistance, even among its backbenchers, to even more restrictive legislation on every occasion it wishes. I wonder what would be the Supreme Court's verdict, were a case put before it on similar grounds to those stated in the McKenna judgment that restricted the Government's ability to use public money to advocate its own case in referendums.

While the present advertisement for one of the road safety bodies states that one can never drink and drive, I know of no law that allows for a zero level of alcohol. Does this not constitute another example of propaganda softening up public opinion before lowering the limit from 80 mg to 50 mg? Is this the reason the mighty mouths on the other side of the House now appear to be punch drunk and are quietly supporting this Bill while assuring their publican friends that they would oppose it to the hilt? I also advise the Minister to proceed with caution on this issue. I am aware of at least three cases in which a judge, who had heard cases involving drink-driving, had his rulings appealed on the basis of the legality of his appointment. The appellant won and the judge retired. I am not aware that such steps have been taken by those convicted of murder or any other crime.

According to the Drinkaware website in the United Kingdom, as many as 33,000 people there die from alcohol-related causes each year, which is ten times the number of people who die on their roads annually. I presume a similar ratio would apply here. Where is the Government's policy on education of alcohol abuse that kills ten times more people than are killed on our roads, drunk or sober? The Minister has caused massive confusion throughout the driving public by creating the term, "professional driver". While this does not exist in law, the Minister has tried to legislate for it by specifying certain categories of driving licences. However, life is more complicated than that. To which limit is a driver who is driving his company van home from Mass on a Sunday morning to be tested?

I now wish to consider the detail of this Bill, in which the Minister has proposed a new lower limit of 20 mg for first-time drivers, as well as taxi and other professional drivers. I presume, having carried out extensive research before introducing this Bill before the House, the Minister for Transport is aware that the limit he proposes of 20 mg is half that set for airline pilots carrying 300 passengers across the Atlantic in a €40 million aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, sets a limit of 40 mg. In other words, the Minister is setting a limit that is half that for a pilot flying a commercial jet with 300 passengers across the Atlantic trying to land on a runway one quarter the width of his or her aircraft at 180 mph. Has the Minister gone off the rails completely, is his head in the clouds or is he lost at sea? Under the FAA's rules for pilots, Federal Aviation Regulation 91.17, which deals with alcohol and drugs, states "no person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft ... While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen". Given his lack of research, the Minister should outline how he knows so much better than a body such as the FAA. It is the largest safety organisation in the world with a budget of $9,336 million, which is approximately 160 times what the Minister wasted on another item of premature legislation, namely, electronic voting. This safety organisation is charged with the safe transit in the air of more than 4.5 million passengers every day. This organisation's mission statement states its mission is to provide the safest and most efficient aerospace system in the world. However, this Minister knows better, albeit with very little research and a head bigger than a balloon full of hot air. Can the Minister explain the reason drivers who drive home bingo buses and who can barely go above 40 km/h because of the potholes in the nation's county roads must adhere to restrictions twice the standard of the commercial pilot flying overhead with hundreds of lives in his control?

See this speech in context