I move:
That Seanad Éireann recommends the immediate introduction of random breath testing by the Garda as a response to the continuing unacceptable high level of slaughter on our roads.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me an opportunity to speak. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. I am pleased he is here as I know he is committed to this topic. I was quite excited when I saw the Government amendment to my motion, as I briefly thought it condemns the Government before I realised it calls on Seanad Éireann to commend the Government. For a few moments, I was interested to see that the Government side was supporting me to an extent. I am not here to condemn anyone, however, but to draw attention to the carnage on our roads.
I wish to explain why I am testing the patience of this House by putting down yet another motion on road safety. I am in no doubt as to Members' feelings on the topic, as we have discussed it on countless occasions on the Order of Business and during formal debates. The Minister of State has been here on a number of occasions and I know his heart is in the right place. I have learnt from previous discussions that everyone in the House is appalled by the continuing slaughter on our roads. Members are disappointed and angry at the lack of progress that has been made in addressing the problem. None of us believes that enough is being done to promote road safety, or that measures are being put in place quickly enough. The Minister's attention is needed as my comments apply to his area of responsibility. His heart is in the right place, but nobody believes that we are sufficiently combating the carnage on our roads.
What is the point in raising this matter tonight? I simply wish to highlight the need for clear and simple action to show the people that the Government is committed to road safety. Three separate issues indicate that such a need exists. The first of these is the long delay in giving teeth to the national road safety strategy by passing the necessary supporting legislation. The public has been given the impression that road safety is low on the Government's list of priorities. The Minister of State will tell me that measures will be taken tomorrow, but I will return to that.
The introduction of a penalty points system, under which a driving licence can be taken away if a driver exceeds a set number of points, is a central plank of the national strategy, which was published in 1997. Two things are needed if the points system is to be put in place: legislation to underpin the scheme and a new computer system to make it work. Four years after the publication of the strategy, the Road Traffic Bill, 2001, will receive its first reading in the Dáil tomorrow. It will not matter if the Bill passes speedily through the Oireachtas, however, as I understand the computer system to operate the points scheme is not yet in place, which has given rise to further delays. I am not sure if the computer system has even gone to tender yet. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that the penalty points scheme will be in place before the five year term of the national road safety strategy has expired. The points scheme is a central plank of the safety strategy. The regrettable delays in passing legislation and establishing a computer system are reasons people are unconvinced that the Government is serious about this matter.
A second factor which demonstrates the need for clear action and which is even more regrettable is the continuing carnage on the roads. In the first two years of the national road safety strategy, we saw a significant and highly welcome reduction in the number of road deaths. The reduction coincided with the arrival into office of the Minister. We were led to hope that the target of a 20% reduction in road deaths from the 1997 level might be achieved over the five year period of the strategy. Some people thought the target was ambitious, but others felt it did not go far enough, given that our road death level is twice that in the United Kingdom. At least we had set a target and in the first two years of the road safety strategy it seemed progress was being made. The progress stopped, however, and the number of deaths increased last year. It was a small increase and I would not like to make too much of it, but the real point is that the reduction of the previous two years did not continue.
It looks unlikely that this year's road death figures will show a reduction, as there have been 360 deaths so far, even before we encounter the most dangerous period of the year. The possibility of finishing the year below last year's level of 415 deaths now seems tragically remote. We have to ask ourselves why progress stopped. There are, no doubt, many reasons, but I suggest that one of them is that people have stopped believing in the 1997 road safety strategy. There has been a lack of strong national leadership on the issue. Those who have become cynical about the Government's seriousness regarding road safety have good reason for their cynicism.
The third reason a single clear and simple gesture is needed is, paradoxically, because road safety is quite a complex subject. The problem does not respond quickly to a single dramatic gesture. A couple of years ago, I proposed that a weekend be devoted to increasing public awareness of the problem. The National Safety Council made a valiant effort, but there was no suggestion that such a weekend would solve the problem. It is a problem which needs to be attacked on many fronts and sustained over a long period. In other words, it needs to be tackled in precisely the way outlined in the national road safety strategy.
It is now clear, however, that this approach lacks one vital ingredient – an element which will catch the imagination of the public. It lacks the ability to mobilise the public and unite them in a conviction that this problem can be solved if we really put our mind to it nationally. The strategy, because of its nature and because it is being held back by foot dragging on the part of the Government, has become a dead issue with most of the people of Ireland. I am inclined to believe that if one went out into the streets tomorrow and asked a sample of people about the national road safety strategy, the vast majority would not even know what one was talking about. That is a dreadful situation, one which bodes badly for an improvement in it. While it is true that some elements of the national road safety strategy such as the provision of better, safer roads will take effect regardless of whether the public knows about it, the reality is that the ultimate success of the strategy depends overwhelmingly on the people getting behind it and making it work. At the end of the day, it is people who one must change.
Safer roads can make a difference, safer cars can make a difference but ultimately only safer driving will make a real difference. It is only by changing people's attitudes and changing their behaviour that we can ever hope to get the level of road deaths down to the level in Britain – and in Britain they think they have a problem. Because people are disillusioned, disappointed and even cynical about the issue, the problem must be addressed.
Above and beyond all the complex and worthy elements of the national road safety strategy, there is a pressing need at this time to send a clear message to the public. We need to say, first, that we are serious about tackling the problem and, second, that the people themselves must start taking the problem much more seriously too. Third, we need to say that as a nation we must face up to the fact that alcohol is perhaps the biggest single factor in fatal road accidents. It is for this reason that I suggest the best way we can send a clear signal to the public is by the introduction of random breath testing.
The reason we need random breath testing is very simple. It is to increase the chance of being caught if one drives when over the breath test limit. At present the reality is that one's chances of getting away with drinking and driving are very high indeed. That is exactly my point. The deterrent effect of the consequence of being caught is diluted precisely by the chances against getting caught at all.
Under the current system the chances of being caught are very low indeed. One need only look at the situation in Scandinavia to see the truth of this. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will be aware of the situation in Scandinavia. The likelihood of getting caught there is very high and the consequences are swift, certain and drastic. The result is that people in Scandinavia do not drink and drive – it is as simple as that.
Of course I am not arguing that just by introducing random breath testing one can change overnight the attitudes or, even more importantly, the behaviour of a nation. Such a change involves a shift in culture and that would take some time to achieve, but random breath testing would be a step in the right direction and, I believe, a highly useful step.
Many Members will remember that in a sense we have actually been here before. A few years ago there was a major pre-Christmas crackdown on drink driving. It was well publicised in advance and it was very instructive to see how people reacted. We all remember it well. People gen uinely felt they would get caught if they drank and drove and that year they changed their behaviour, but only until they realised that the chances of being caught had not really changed much at all. While the chances had increased, it was not by so much as to create a high likelihood that the offenders would be caught. As soon as people realised that, they began slipping back into their old ways.
I want to make two further points in favour of the motion before commending it to the House. The first is about the argument that the real offenders where drink driving is concerned will not be affected by any changes of this kind. That, I am sure, is the first argument which will be made. The people who get killed are not a broad cross section of the population but they are a sub-section of it. To a large extent, they are young and inexperienced drivers and if we want to reduce road deaths, we should target those people directly, not the whole population. Whether or not it is a problem restricted to a small segment of the population, to young people – and particularly younger males – it is the entire population who must change it. The young people who recklessly drink and drive do not do so in a vacuum. They do so in a society which is scandalously tolerant of that kind of behaviour. The young people behave that way because they are part of a society which tolerates such behaviour. If society as whole changes, so will the behaviour of young people.
The second issue I want to address is what I would call the civil liberty argument. This is the contention that random breath testing would be a serious and unacceptable invasion of our personal rights and personal freedoms. It is a contention which is often made, not in its own right but as a cover for the vested interests such as the interests of the alcoholic drink industry itself. This is my response to that argument. First, any diminution of our liberties involved in random breath testing is far outweighed by the benefits the community would derive from it in lives saved, injuries avoided and costs which would not have to be borne. Second, random breath testing is accepted in many other countries where it does not seem to have significantly diluted the general level of personal freedom. Third, and perhaps most pointedly, how is it that we do not seem to have any problem with the Garda carrying out entirely random checks of road tax and insurance documents and of driving licences? I am regularly stopped to see if I have got insurance. While driving without proper road tax or insurance or without a valid driving licences are offences under the law, such offences, compared to drinking and driving, are far less likely to cause an accident. How is it that random checks are acceptable in the case of relatively trivial offences such as those to which I referred but suddenly become unacceptable when it is a matter of life and death?
I really believe this is the opportunity the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, can grasp which will make an impact on the nation as a whole and draw the attention of people to the horrific figures we see week after week – I will not touch on any particular case but there have been one or two accidents recently which were just so horrific. It will draw our attention to it and make us say that we must do something. Here is the dramatic step we can take which will actually be a step in that direction. I commend this motion to the House.