Drink-driving measure - An IT fiasco too far, minister

THE credibility of the Government, the gardaí, the justice system, all our high-minded campaigns against drink driving and the process through which we organise our society have all endured another unwarranted, unnecessary humiliation.

A sensible piece of drink-driving legislation introduced two years ago with the usual self-congratulation and promises of unflinching application has not been implemented. All the good intentions have not made one whit of difference to the death toll on our roads or the running of our courts. Neither has it made a whit of difference to the careers of those who introduced a measure that had no prospect of success because the state’s infrastructure could not support the legislation.

Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 2006, signed into law in July, 2006, by the then transport minister, Martin Cullen, was designed to free up the courts by allowing some drivers who committed minor drink-driving offences to avoid court by accepting a 300 fine and six-month disqualification.

This practical proposal remains no more than that because complications with Garda and Government computer systems make it impossible to implement.

Section 5 focuses on drivers who have not incurred drink-driving convictions in the previous five years. However, it appears that all the powers of the state could not provide an easy and foolproof way to establish if a driver had such a conviction.

Did someone not sit down with a pencil and map out how this simple proposal might work before it was introduced? Surely someone did a dry run before Mr Cullen straightened his tie, stood up on the podium, smiled for the cameras and told us how wonderful it would all be? Apparently and amazingly not.

This fiasco comes to light just a day after it was announced that about 40% of the fines imposed by courts were not collected last year. This sordid little two fingers to all of us came to light as the courts service announced that fines can now be paid via an internet service. It is unlikely that anyone who really intended to pay a fine was prevented from doing so by the system. In reality this 40% is a double whammy of indifference to society: first, the offence that incurred the fine and, second, ignoring the penalty imposed.

As a parable for our times it is apt enough. Commit the crime and ignore the penalty secure in the knowledge that nobody from the state will call to collect.

These minor and tragic farces hold the state up to ridicule and show great disrespect to the great privilege we have of electing our peers to legislate on our behalf. The farce and the tragedy are deepened by the fact that nobody seems moved enough by these kind of failures to offer their resignation. However, as in nearly every farce, there is a subplot that offers a fleeting opportunity of redemption.

It is to be hoped that Mr Cullen had some IT boffin check to see if the computers he bought for electronic voting might satisfy the needs of Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act. If they did he’d have a masterful piece of recycling and a great victory to record on his curriculum vitae. As it stands all we have is what should be a second career-ending blunder.