I thank the Chairman for the invitation to come before the joint committee, to which we have submitted documentation. I will summarise my submission and ask the committee to bear with me as I edit what I have prepared. I am looking for its help in removing the single biggest block to the Government's road safety strategy achieving its full potential. That is my purpose.
Approximately 380 people will die on our roads this year. We also estimate that approximately 3,000 will be seriously injured. That is 144 deaths and 1,200 serious injuries more than should occur. We know exactly what we should do to prevent this as it is clearly set out in the Government's strategy document. Not alone that, but doing so would also deliver economic and social benefits to the Exchequer, the Government and the community. The question is why we will not invest the resources in a planned and timely manner to achieve this aim.
Governments can work successfully. I have set out some examples such as the smoking ban, as well as the smokeless fuel ban in Dublin which was introduced from a health point of view in the early 1990s. In these cases policy was focused on the desired outcome and made to work but the same cannot be said of the Government's road safety strategy, although what has been implemented has saved lives and reduced the number of serious injuries. However, it is nothing like as successful as it should be.
The success has come from a sequence of actions which I have set out for the committee which have been put in train in recent years. These have resulted in a 20% to 30% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries and consequently significant gains for the health sector and other areas.
Within this success lies spectacular failure. This, however, is not an exercise in blaming or criticising the Government alone. The failure in this case is more serious because it challenges every elected politician. It is a chronic failure of process and a fatally flawed approach which results in things not getting done. It is an ineffective and inefficient process. I highlight the issue of road safety because it requires an investment programme. In budgetary terms, one is required to invest money up-front through the Departments of Transport, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The benefits flow later to the Departments of Heath and Children, Social and Family Affairs, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Finance. However, there is no process that will recognise this. Road safety is treated simply as an annual cost. There is no budget for it, no one measures the benefits or joins up the thinking, and no one is responsible or accountable. There is simply no will, management or process. There are many examples of this, which I have set out for the committee. The lack of a process is why 140 people will die needlessly on our roads this year and why 1,200 will suffer serious injury.
On 13 July this year the Government announced it would set up a road safety authority. This will be good as that authority will assume responsibility for a range of road safety-related activities. It has the potential to improve radically the management and implementation of the Government's road safety strategy, but for this to happen it must operate in a radically different legal and operational context, specifically in regard to its governance, autonomy, funding, staff and systems. In other words, the process that will support the authority will have to change if it is to be successful. I see no evidence that this change will occur.
I would be failing in my role as chairman of the National Safety Council and failing to use the experience I have gained in the past six years in this area if I did not put this matter clearly before the committee. The risk is that the road safety authority will simply become another administrative construct, very much as the National Safety Council is today, trapped in a failed and fatally flawed process which in itself is corrupt. Just as one would describe a computer programme as corrupt, it does not do what it sets out to do — it has no integrity.
I am seeking the help of the committee to remove this block because it has the authority and ability to do so. My remarks are not a criticism of the Government alone. The process failure is something which every elected politician is aware of and tolerates or supports either by silence or acquiescence. It is the failure that results from good people doing nothing. It is a flawed process that lends itself to the game of political football and point-scoring. In so far as it has been used in respect of road safety, it is wrong. If elected members continue to do as I have outlined, they will be playing politics with the lives of people, some of whom will die as they play. They are part of the problem and part of the solution.
I express these views today because the Chairman and committee members are agents of change. They have the authority and ability to effect change. For a road safety programme to be successful, we need a budgetary process that is investment-based and not regarded as an annual cost; a multi-year capital and current budget that matches the delivery term of the policy project; a point of individual responsibility and accountability that recognises the cross-departmental costs and benefits; a decision-making structure that recognises that no single Minister has the authority to deliver the complete road safety policy; an evaluation process that recognises and accounts for both costs and benefits, both monetary and social; and an effective audit process. If the committee provides all these, specifically in regard to road safety policy, it will save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of serious injuries. Benefits will flow directly to the Exchequer, the Government and the community.
