When the debate was adjourned, we were dealing with the amendment in the name of Deputy Dr. Browne and I was putting to the House the view that this matter, like many other matters involved in this measure, is one on which, if possible, I think we should avoid a division by way of a vote in any way we can, in order that there should be no divided opinion either inside or outside the House on the entire measure. We are dealing with the matter of blood tests and also, as suggested in the amendment, with the setting of an arbitrary figure for the percentage of alcohol in the blood, a figure beyond which would imply incapability due to taking intoxicating liquor.
As I said earlier, my view is that the reliability of tests as carried out in other countries at present is not as complete or absolute as one would like it to be if these tests were to be introduced here. Further, the setting of an arbitrary figure for the allowable alcoholic content of the blood is something which I think would give rise to discussion, division of opinion and controversy, no matter what figure might be decided on. In view of that and because of consideration given to the Bill before it came to the House and before this amendment was tabled and from the information available to me and to the Government, it is our belief that blood tests and the setting of an arbitrary figure are matters which we would not be wise to include in the Bill at this juncture.
The view expressed, particularly by Deputy Dr. Browne and supported by many others, is that this amendment should in fact be carried and that the tests and the arbitrary figure should be named in the Bill. Not wishing to have any division of opinion here, if it is possible, my view and the view of the Government is that this matter can be kept under review and dealt with when we feel that the evidence from the operation of the blood and other tests for alcohol and drunkenness in other countries is sufficiently complete to indicate that these would be useful, conclusive and fair tests. We would then intend to bring some amendment to the House.
It is also my opinion that because of the difficulty of arriving at conclusions in regard to this rather highly technical matter of the formula or calculation arising from the blood test or breathaliser or anything of that kind, the matter could possibly be better dealt with by a committee or commission which would go fully into all aspects of the matter and consider all relevant evidence ascertained or ascertainable. Such evidence will be ascertainable to a greater degree in the future as a result of experience elsewhere. That method of arriving at a solution to the problem raised in this amendment would be far better. Such a committee or commission, I consider, should represent the technical and medical people and the Garda Síochána and should take evidence from the public or anybody interested. In regard to hearings, whether by committee or commission, they would give notice to the public of their intention to do something on these lines and thereby give the public an opportunity of indicating what they feel should be done.
As I said before, this matter has not been published in the White Paper circulated with a view to sounding public opinion, and the lack of any publication is one of the reasons—not the only reason—I should be very reluctant to go ahead and accept an amendment in the form now before us. I suggest that the House should go with me in the view that this matter could be better dealt with by a committee or commission. I believe that would be the better and the wiser course. Ultimately, we would have a better all-round Bill than if we were to insert at this Stage this amendment which is very far-reaching in its effects and would be a most controversial insertion in the Bill, particularly as the public have not been given due notice of it as they were given of the other intended proposals in this measure as appeared in the White Paper.