The main point of the amendment is based on the fact that the existing clinical tests are relatively useless and the second point is that we are not really concerned so much to find the hopeless drunk as the person who is incapable of driving a car. Finding the former does not need either a clinical or a scientific test. We are concerned with the person who has taken alcohol in moderation, if you like, but to the extent that his judgment is impaired. As a number of Deputies have pointed out, that is the really dangerous driver, the person who walks out of the public house apparently stone cold sober to whom the publican, with the best will in the world, is not in a position to say: "That man is a danger to the public." He cannot do it; neither can the Garda or the doctor. I do not completely agree with Deputy Declan Costello's suggestion that a Garda should not be allowed to give his opinion on the question of drunkenness, because I think the Garda's opinion is as good as that of anybody else in that it is just as fallible and just as useless. I am including the doctor in that, not being critical but believing that these tests are relatively useless.
I would much prefer if the question of the present blood tests had been put forward in the White Paper. I would much sooner have the benefit of public opinion as the Minister has suggested, but that is not our fault. We must do the best we can with the information at our disposal. I do not consider I am in any way out of the ordinary in relation to public opinion. My attitude would be the attitude of very many ordinary people.
As Deputy Larkin has said, none of us wants to stop people enjoying or amusing themselves. None of us wants to stop people drinking if they want to drink, if they must drink, or drink to excess. The only time we feel we should step in is when that person becomes a danger to the public. The fact that he is being unfair to himself or to his family, and so on, is none of our business. Where that person becomes a danger to the public, that is our business. I hold that with the existing clinical tests, you simply cannot tell with any degree of reliability whether that person is a danger to the public—the person short of being an incapably drunk person. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for the many innovations and valuable proposals in the Bill, but it would be completely wrong if it went through the House and we neglected to include this most valuable instrument for the use of the police and the judiciary.
As to the feasibility of a test of this kind, I proposed that test specifically because it appears to be a very simple examination to carry out. A blood test is a very simple procedure. It is one which every doctor can do readily. Subject to the couple of errors to which I referred earlier and which are remedial, it is as near as can be to a reliable test of the assessment of the amount of alcohol in the blood. In passing, I want to say I may have confused Deputy Booth in his question about the use of alcohol before taking the blood and the fact that that might alter the content of alcohol in the blood. The simple remedy is to use a different cleansing agent. It is an error which is remediable.
It would be quite easy for a standard taking set for blood to be made available to medical practitioners. That means you would have the standard taking set for blood to be taken in a particular way in conformity with the procedure laid down. The test will be sent in to the Public Analyst. A specimen would be kept by the person himself, if he so wished, by the Public Analyst and the Garda. Before the Garda can make any charge under this section, presumably they will have to call a doctor to justify it. Therefore, there is no alteration in the present procedure. The only thing is that instead of being asked to carry out a number of relatively asinine procedures —picking up matches from the floor, walking along a chalk line, trying to put your finger on your nose—the person would be asked to carry out a highly scientific test in order to ascertain the amount of alcohol in the blood.
That is all we are doing. We are not trying to find out whether the person is drunk or not. We are trying to find out if that person's judgment is impaired by the amount of alcohol in his blood. If his judgment is impaired, he is then a danger to the public, if he drives a car. Consequently, he must be penalised by any sanctions laid down by the House. That is the simple issue. We have accepted the principle in the previous section of the penalisation of somebody who is a danger to the public as a result of some defect of which he is aware. I do not see why we cannot accept the same attitude of mind towards the person who goes out and drinks and in that way makes himself liable to become a danger to the public.
There appears to be some confusion about the quantities. I am sorry if I have contributed to that confusion in any way. If one drinks a pint of beer— I do not know what relationship that bears to a pint of stout—according to the tests in Britain, it creates the position in which the alcohol content is under 50 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millimetres of blood. If one drinks a second pint of beer, then the level goes from 50 milligrammes to 150 milligrammes. If one drinks more than that, it goes above 150 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millimetres of blood. From 0 to 50 milligrammes, a person can drive quite safely. From 50 to 150 milligrammes, a person is a danger to the public in driving. From 150 milligrammes up, a person should not be driving a car because he is incapable of driving—virtually unable to drive. Those are the three positions. The comparison with the pint of beer is two small whiskeys; over that, a large whiskey; then two double whiskeys, and so on.
It is possible for us to tell the public: "This is the situation. If you go into a public house and drink this amount, you will come into a certain position in relation to the blood test. If you drink more than a pint, you are in danger of being subjected to certain sanctions, if you are involved in an accident, if you hit another car or kill someone." It is possible to tell them that, so that if they drink more than that minimal amount, they know they are doing it with their eyes open. In my view, therefore, they are creating the position for themselves in which they are, to their own knowledge, a danger to the public. That is the phrase used in Section 48 which we decided was sufficient to subject people to sanctions and send them to prison. I do not see why we should not accept it in relation to this question also.
Deputy de Valera asked about the question of the delay in taking the blood test. I do not think there is any difficulty about the time between the sending of the blood by the Garda and its receipt by the analyst, because the alcohol content is constant. But the question of the delay between the taking of the blood and the accident is inevitable, because one must call in a doctor and one is dependent on the speed with which he turns up. But that is not any different from the present situation. There is a loss of alcohol during that time, because alcohol is lost in the breath and is excreted in other ways. Consequently, there could be less alcohol in the blood at the time of the taking of the test than there was at the time of the accident. That militates in favour of the defendant and I suppose none of us would begrudge him that slight advantage.
On the Minister's main case about the reliability of the test, I must say I was lost in admiration for the remarkable plausibility with which he defended what I believe to be a very weak position. I cannot understand how he is able to swallow the absurd and grossly inaccurate tests like walking a line and saying: "The Leith police dismisseth us" or whatever these tests may be, and yet he is unable to accept the scientific test which has been so widely accepted. We are not pioneers in this; we are not breaking any new ground. We are, as, regrettably, in so many aspects of our legislation, following a well-beaten path. Many other countries have tried it.
The Minister seems to give the impression he is not anxious to act too hastily. He would like to give these other countries more time and see how far they get before we come to a decision. As I said, Norway has had this since 1926. That is a very long time. How long more must we wait? He also suggested, with Deputy Russell, that there might be a better test round the corner. There may be a better test round the corner. There may be a more reliable test round the corner. I hope there is. Surely that is not a good enough reason for deferring the use of a test which has found favour in different countries varying very widely in outlook from the socialism of Sweden to the Americas, Canada, Denmark, Holland—all sorts of societies—and Great Britain with an ultra Tory Conservative Government who are not likely to do anything in a hurry? They all accept this test.
I do not think there is a great case on that score for not accepting the test at this stage. If a man is faced with, say, cancer, and has nothing but radium and the present treatments, it would be absurd to say to the patient: "We think something good will turn up in a couple of months' time or a couple of years' time. Would you mind waiting around until we get it?" We are concerned with drinking and driving and with the consequences. We are concerned that people can be hurt, maimed, disabled for life, that unfortunate children are killed. Not alone is there the incapable drunken driver but there is this new entity which the clinical test cannot begin to reach, the person who, because of the amount of drink he has taken, has his judgment impaired.
Somebody spoke about public opinion. I do not know what public opinion is on this but I am not unusual in my views on it. If the Minister is taking the severely practical, political point of view—and, in his responsible position, he must do that—he might bear in mind that only a minority drive cars. Most of the people of the country do not have cars. Most of his electorate are people who are the victims of the car drivers and who are the victims of the people who drive after having taken drink. Most of these people are mothers who are very frightened that their children go to school along busy roads.
I suspect there is a majority in the country—nobody can know—who would welcome the determination of the Minister, demonstrated by this hard and fast test, this rule of thumb, this line over which they may not move. They would be glad if the Minister would show his belief in their good sense to realise they are no different from the Canadians, Americans, Swedes, Danes and British who have imposed this sort of self-discipline on themselves in the interests of the common good.
I do not think our people are any less concerned about this question. If they are asked to make this relatively tiny sacrifice—if you drink do not drive, if you drive do not drink or, if you drink do so in complete moderation—they will appreciate its value. If a pint of stout is too little for them, that is a pity but they can drink as many pints as they like and not drive. It is a small sacrifice to attain the great advantage attained in many countries, particularly Sweden, where they have had a spectacular reduction in the number of accidents, particularly where alcohol is involved.
