Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The fact is that if one wants to go to Carraroe, or to Dingle in Kerry I presume, after 6 p.m., one has to take a taxi, walk or drive because the Minister has done nothing to provide commuter services late into the evening out of the any of the major towns or cities, not to mention the very rural areas of Ireland. There are 20,000 people living in south Connemara. Does the Minister imagine that all the young people are expected to go home at 6 p.m. or to use a car? The Minister, Deputy Ross, is the most ineffective Minister so I am sorry that I must take back my congratulations on the Luas. That was all decided long before the Minister came along. He was just the lucky man who was there with the Taoiseach to pull the ribbon the other day.

This issue goes to the nub of this Bill. I believe that any death on the road is one death too many. I am sure the Minister agrees with me. However there are places we will not go to stop road deaths. We would not set a speed limiter to 5 km/h or 10 km/h in every car to ensure that no car could go faster than that. Technically speaking, it would be very effective, but in the real world we would not go there because it would be disproportionate when measured against the convenience of a car. It is an exaggerated example, but such examples are quite good for pointing out fundamental principles, in this case the principle of proportionality, which we all accept in our day-to-day lives.

The reality is that, if we want to cut down on road accidents, the first thing we should look at is the vehicles themselves. One thing has greatly decreased the level of mortality caused by cars in the past 30 or 40 years. There were twice the number dying of people every year 20 or 30 years ago when there were far fewer cars on the road. The reason for the decrease is not really that people have become safer or slower drivers. We should not cod ourselves that all of these driving tests have made drivers much more skilful. The safety features of the vehicles have had the biggest impact on road mortality. Crumple zones, seat belts, airbags and all of these things mean that, thankfully, people survive accidents they would not have survived 30 or 40 years ago.

The Minister and I come from the same part of the world so he will know Raglan Road. He will know the song of the same name which goes, "On Raglan Road on an autumn day..." When I was a child, there was a winking willy on Raglan Road and Elgin Road. In other words, there was a traffic light which showed a red light in one direction and an orange light in the other and which winked. It was one of the few roads in Dublin at the time which had such a device. It was put there because there had been a car accident there at some time in the 1950s in which somebody had been killed because both the person coming from Elgin Road and the person coming from Raglan Road thought they had the right of way. It would be fair to say an equivalent type of accident happening nowadays would be very unlikely to kill anybody. Neither car would have been doing more than 25 mph, 30 km/h or 35 km/h.

The first thing we should look at is technology. It is very important that we examine the possibilities for reducing accidents using technology in cars. The Minister will point to all of the changes which have taken place, including others which I have not mentioned. There are two very obvious changes which could be introduced, however. The first is that a device could be built into every car which would prevent ignition if the driver was over the legal blood-alcohol limit. That could be mandatory for all new cars. It might add a little bit to the cost of a car but it would reduce the insurance considerably. The second measure would be to link a governor in a car to a GPS system, as is done with trucks. This system would have all the speed limits in the country recorded within it. This would make it impossible for a car to exceed the speed limit.

Sometimes, however, I think people do not like such solutions because they do not get to punish anybody. It would be not much fun if the problem was solved without punishing people. I think that people sometimes have a sadistic wish to punish people, rather than solving problems and making things safe. If the Minister really wants to cut down the number of car accidents, let us look to technology first of all.

It is very interesting that one of the safest ways to travel is by aeroplane. One of the reasons that aeroplanes are so safe is that most of the time the pilots are not flying the planes. They are not even landing the planes nowadays. It is done by computer because the computer does not take days off, it does not get tired and it tends to be consistent. The Minister will point to the occasional accident in which the computer might have been the problem, but in more than 99% of cases it is much more reliable than a human being. Therefore, all the precedents are there to show that if we want to cut down accidents, the first thing that should be looked to is technology and enforced technology.

The next issue we must look at is the number of fatal accidents, or of accidents in which there was serious injury, which occur because people do not wear seat belts. Is it more than the number of accidents which occur because people have a blood-alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml? If it is a higher figure, that issue should be dealt with. Again, there is a technological solution. A car should not be able to move off unless all the people sitting in it are wearing seat belts. I have personal reason to appreciate the importance of seat belts. As was well reported at the time, I was in a car which was involved in a serious head-on collision. I have no doubt that the technical knowledge, experience and training of the driver saved our lives. He did something which not many lesser trained drivers would have. This particular driver was top of the range. When the car went straight for him, he took it on the nose. I queried him afterwards and he said that he was trained to do so because cars are designed to crumple from the front. Notwithstanding my experience, a head-on accident is potentially fatal.

In spite of the fact that he had braked and was almost stationary, the other car hit us at a significant speed. I have no doubt that the fact that each of the three people in the car was wearing a seat belt saved our lives. This House should deal with the issue of the non-usage of seat belts, which accounts for far more fatalities than the people targeted by the Bill, those driving with an alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml. There are many things on which we agree and on which we would like the Minister to act.

I do not agree with drink-driving. I was part of a Government that introduced the 50 mg to 80 mg limit. I have no problem with the principle of it being totally unacceptable for a person to drive with an alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml in their blood. That is not the issue. It is no more acceptable to do that having left a rural pub than it is to do so having left an urban pub. That is not the issue because if it is illegal, it is illegal. Nobody has proposed that it should be made legal; all Members agree it should be illegal. The issue is the proportionality of the penalty. Speeding results in three penalty points and using one's mobile phone incurs four. A driver is not disqualified for using his or her phone even though it is highly dangerous but we are not saying it is legal. A person is not automatically disqualified for speeding. Perhaps that should be the case for those driving at higher speeds because that is a massive cause of accidents, as can be seen from the statistics. However, that has not been done. Perhaps there should be a differentiation and a driver should receive two points for being less than 10 km/h over the speed limit but three points for being between 10 km/h and 20 km/h over the limit and so on. It sometimes seems ridiculous that a driver would receive the same fixed charge notice for driving at 90 km/h or 120 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. That is disproportionately weighted in favour of a person driving far in excess of the limit compared to a person who might have slid over the limit. All Members know of people who have received a sanction while driving on quiet rural roads through small, sleepy villages with no pub. I know a village that has no pub or shop but, rather, only a primary school that I assure the Minister does not open at night. I have seen a Gatso van in that village and good luck to them. It will catch people doing 59 km/h. If one is caught, one is caught.

Let us take the example of a person who is caught driving with an alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml and put off the road. That person may live and work in the city and not need his or her car for work and his or her children may go to a local school or a location to which there is a bus or train, as is standard in the city. If the person is disqualified for the appropriate period, it is an inconvenience to him or her but not a huge cost. It might be a cause of embarrassment but life goes on. When I come to Dublin, I often leave the car in the Oireachtas, whether I am staying in the city centre or in south County Dublin. I use shank's mare or the DART. It is far quicker and more convenient and I can get anywhere in the city that I wish. If all else fails, I can get a taxi at 2 a.m. at a modest cost.

Proportionality of penalty is a fundamental principle. Let us now take an example of a person who lives in west Kerry or west Galway and is similarly caught driving with an alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg and put off the road. I note that unfortunately Deputy Danny Healy-Rae has left the Chamber. We could take the example of a person working in Galway. That reminds me of the night a television compère complained that I had been driven home to Cornamona. He asked me why I had not taken the train and I told him there is no train to Cornamona. He asked me why I had not taken the bus and I explained that there is no bus to Cornamona. How the hell was I meant to get there? If one takes the licence of a person living in my area of Galway, as opposed to a person in the city, he or she would have to pay to be driven to and from work and for their children to be driven to and from school because the Government has cut the school transport system and if ten children do not live on the road on which one travels to school, a bus will not be provided. Many schools in rural Ireland have no school bus service. A driving ban would make day-to-day life impossible for such a person in terms of work and ferrying his or her children to all the events that children must attend. The Minister should start doing the sums. If such a person has to pay a driver every day, how much would it cost per week? Our argument is not against the offence being illegal but, rather, against the disproportionality of the penalties in terms of the impact on different communities. If a penalty were to be introduced that would disproportionately impact upon those living in cities and who have access to transport, we would never hear the end of it because we are told that a system cannot disproportionately penalise one group of people over another.

To show our good faith and intentions on the issue, Fianna Fáil believes the Minister should accept the compromise we have suggested, which is that five penalty points should be given to a person with an alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml. A person with seven penalty points would be disqualified on receiving such a sanction. Habitually risk-taking drivers would be disqualified. Most people in rural Ireland would become very careful in order not to get caught again if they had received five penalty points for drink-driving because a speeding infraction would add another three penalty points and it would not take many more points to accumulate 12 and be disqualified. The Minister must be rational and appreciate that I am not justifying drunk driving but that the penalties are disproportionate in terms of the impact on rural and urban dwellers. There is a good proposal here. We should see if it will have an effect and we should do all we can to reduce fatalities on the road, rather than become obsessed with one tiny little cohort of the causes of fatal accidents. An easy issue to address is that of seat belts. It should not be possible to drive a car without all occupants' seat belts being fastened. That would save many lives.

It is time to think it out again. Nobody in their right mind condones a person driving while impaired through alcohol. It is also fair to acknowledge that a person can inadvertently be caught with an blood-alcohol limit of between 50 mg and 80 mg. It is an uncertain science and results are affected by body weight and so on. A person may have had a night out and could be caught the next day with a level of 50 mg or 55 mg despite thinking he or she was safe to drive. That could affect people with families, jobs and so on who would find their lives tumbling apart not because of the fine or social inconvenience, but because they could not do their daily tasks without a car.

Finally, in my last 40 seconds, I wish to say I cannot understand why the Minister has not yet moved on the funding imbalance in favour of urban bus services as against rural bus services or why he has not modernised bus services in rural Ireland if he really wants to provide for a better quality of life. He has been totally inactive on policy. Every time we ask him about policy, all he says is that it is a matter for the National Transport Authority, NTA, or Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, or someone else. The Minister is the Minister. Policy is his remit and only his. Will he start making policy?

See this speech in context