Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Mar 1967

Vol. 227 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Road Traffic Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on following motion:

Go léighfí an Bille an Dara Uair.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): When I moved the adjournment of the debate, I was dealing with Part III of the Bill, with particular reference to section 22 which seeks to restore to the Minister for Justice the right to restore driving licences which have been taken away by the courts. I pointed out that between 1933 and 1961, the Minister for Justice for the time being had the right to restore any driver's licence which was taken away by the courts. Experience in that period of 30 years demonstrated clearly that this was an unwise and even a dangerous power in the hands of a Minister for Justice. It was apparently realised that pressure could be brought to bear on the strongest Minister for Justice to force him to restore a driving licence, which had properly been taken away by the court, when he was not happy to do so.

The 1961 Act—very wisely, in my opinion—took away from the Minister for Justice the right to restore these drivers' licences. In doing that, it restored confidence to the general public. The general public became satisfied that, once a driver's licence had been taken away, it could be restored only in public court after an application had been made to the district justice after a period of six months or to the Circuit Court by way of appeal. I think everybody was quite happy about that provision. The experience of nearly 30 years demonstrated that the procedure whereby the Minister, by a stroke of his pen, could restore drivers' licences was quite unsatisfactory. We all remember the announcements in Iris Oifigiúil from time to time giving notice that the Minister had restored the following driving licences. That became a source of minor scandal and led, in my opinion, to the abolition of the right by the Act of 1961.

I fully realise that the Minister is not here seeking power to restore consequential disqualification orders. I know that. I know that when a man is disqualified for drunken driving under the new measure, if it becomes law, the Minister will not have power to restore a licence. I fully appreciate that. The Minister would have the power to restore ancillary disqualification orders, that is, disqualification orders made for other reasons—in cases of dangerous driving, and I suppose, dangerous parking, and so on. I do not see why the Minister should seek this power. The Minister seeks to justify this section by saying that if the Minister has not this power, an irreparable injustice may be done. A man may be deprived of his driver's licence for a period of two months or three months by some unreasonable district justice. He may be compelled to suffer that penalty and would have no redress.

The Minister knows perfectly well that there are ways out of the difficulty other than the undesirable one of going back on a practice which was in operation here for 30 years and which the general public believe was abused. The Minister says that a district justice might refuse to suspend the operation of an ancillary disqualification order pending an appeal and that, as a result of that refusal, an accused person of my colleague, the Minister for Local would, in certain circumstances, suffer the full disqualification before his appeal came on for hearing in the Circuit Court. The Minister knows perfectly well that there is a simple way of remedying that situation. He can write into this Bill a section to the effect that, in the case of an ancillary disqualification by a district justice, a district justice shall, on request made to him, suspend the coming into operation of the ancillary disqualification order pending an appeal. In that way, no injustice can be done. Indeed, the Minister could say that the coming into operation of an ancillary order would automatically be suspended on the lodgment of notice of appeal. I think the first method I have suggested is preferrable, that is, the one that the district justice would be obliged to suspend the ancillary disqualification order on request, pending appeal. I think that is the simple way out of the difficulty to which the Minister referred. It is one which would be welcomed by the public and it is one which would take a bad appearance from this part of the Bill. That is all I want to say about that section; I shall have more to say about it on Committee. I shall certainly put down an amendment but it is clear, beyond doubt, that it is not necessary to restore to the Minister the power to revoke a court order in order to get over the difficulty of the short suspension of a driver's licence.

I should like to say a word or two in a general sort of way about section 19 of Part III. This is a section which makes it obligatory on a person, on an application for a driver's licence, to undergo an eyesight test at the same time. The section operates like all the other sections of the Act, partly through itself and partly through regulations which the Minister will make. Reading between the lines in the section and the explanatory memorandum, I get the impression that it is the intention of the Minister that the driver-tester, a mechanic, skilled in the driving of a motor car, is the person who is going to carry out this eye test. If it is, if that is the position, I think it is certainly going very far. If it is not the position, I hope the Minister will say so when replying to this debate. I could not agree for one moment that a person should be refused a driver's licence on the ground that his eyesight is unsatisfactory on the word of a driver-tester, who, as I say, is a mechanic without any experience at all in the art of testing eyes and who has no medical qualification.

Mark you, if I understand the section correctly a person who is refused a licence by a driver-tester will have to appeal to the District Court against the decision of the driver-tester that his eyesight is not good before he can get a licence. I certainly think that a member of the public should not be put to that expense. If he is to be refused a driving licence on the ground that his eyesight is bad it should only be done on the certificate of a properly qualified doctor. It is rather difficult to follow what exactly is meant by section 19 because you are thrown back on these regulations but on referring to the explanatory memorandum, I gather that the person who will test the eyes of the applicant is the driver-tester.

The controversial part of this Bill is Part V which deals with driving offences with particular reference to driving or attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired due to the consumption of alcohol or a drug. I want to make it perfectly clear at this stage that I fully appreciate the seriousness of driving or attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicle while a person is impaired due to the consumption of alcohol or the taking of a drug. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am prepared to give the Minister all reasonable powers to deal with the drunken driver and that I believe that the Minister should have such powers as are reasonably necessary to ensure that drunken driving is discouraged and that people who are guilty of that offence will be brought to justice and put off the roads. At the same time, we could allow our concern for the harm that can be done to people and property by drunken driving to blind us to the necessity for safeguarding the liberty of the subject and the rights of the individual. That is the danger I see in dealing with something about which people can get so concerned and so "het" up as about the question of driving.

I am prepared even to agree to break new ground with the Minister and to provide scientific tests, but in doing so, I believe that we should be careful to ensure that a person remains innocent until he is proved guilty, and I believe, too, that we should respect the code of criminal law that has been in operation here for many years and that we should not too easily or too readily go abroad to the Continent of Europe or elsewhere and take a part of a continental criminal court and bring it over here and put it into operation, without being sure that it is suited to our conditions here and without being sure that it is suited to our tradition.

We had an example of that some very few years ago in another field of law reform when the Minister for Justice sought to transplant a continental form of succession law in this country. A Succession Bill was introduced by the Minister—I fear without giving it very much thought—but it soon became apparent that it was quite unsuited to our conditions and that it would not have been accepted by the people as a proper system of succession, so much so that on Second Reading the Minister, who introduced the measure, or his successor, ran away from it. Indeed, he did not even wait until the Second Reading speech because I think he held a press conference and disowned the whole thing. I shall not go into this in any further detail, beyond saying that when the Succession Bill became law, its own father would not know it. It was a completely different measure and an infinitely better measure which by and large does its job and at the same time, respects the wishes of the people, respects the traditions of the country and respects the circumstances of Irish family life.

I hope that when Part V of this Bill becomes law, it also will have been amended to such an extent that, while it will still give the Minister the authority he seeks to deal with the drunken driver, it will still respect the liberty of the individual and will preserve the fundamental rights of accused persons.

I agree with the introduction by the Minister of a breath, blood and/or urine test with qualifications, subject to what I will say afterwards. I believe that these scientific tests, and the results of them properly placed before the courts as evidence, can be of considerable help. Therefore, I am, broadly speaking, in agreement with the sections of this Part of the Bill which introduce for the first time in this country, in the detection of the offence commonly known as drunken driving, the breath test and the blood test with the alternative of a urine test.

Where I differ from the Minister is in the weight the court is to attach to the result of these tests. Experience in the courts in this country over the past 30 years or so shows that, where a person is accused of drunken driving and is acquitted, he is usually acquitted because a prima facie case has not been established against him and because he is not called upon to enter the witness box.

One does not like speaking of one's personal experience in one's professional capacity, but I do not mind going on record as saying that I have represented in my professional capacity as a solicitor dozens, and I suppose, maybe many more than dozens, of persons charged with drunken driving, and I suppose I succeeded in having a percentage of those persons acquitted, but in nearly every case they were acquitted because a prima facie case was not established against them, and because it was not necessary for them to call a witness to rebut any evidence called by the State. That is my personal experience and I feel it must be the experience of other advocates who have experience of this type of case.

The Minister gave us a figure of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood as indicating that the person concerned is considerably impaired. As the Minister says, he could either have made the presence of that percentage or any given percentage of alcohol evidence to be taken into consideration by the court in trying the person charged, or he could have made it prima facie evidence imposing on the accused person the onus of proof that he was fit to drive; or he could have made it absolute evidence that the person concerned was impaired to such an extent that he could not safely drive. The last is what the Minister has done here. He has made the presence of 125 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood conclusive evidence of unfitness to drive. I say that that is going much too far.

Our object and, I am sure, the Minister's object in introducing this Bill, is to put off the road people who are unable to drive due to the consumption of excessive amounts of alcohol. That is what is behind this part of the Bill. The Minister has not made a good case for making 125 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood conclusive evidence. The Minister in a few places in his opening speech used expressions like, "the great majority of such people are unable to drive". He said:

The Commission's own view that, at a blood-alcohol level of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres, the driving ability of the great majority of persons will be seriously impaired would seem to justify a provision making that level proof of guilt rather than prima facie evidence as they recommended.

I noted here and there through the Minister's opening speech that admission and I do not think the Minister is making the case to the House that everybody who has that percentage of alcohol in his blood is impaired or is unable safely to drive a car and on those facts the Minister's case must fall.

I am quite prepared to accept that percentage if we agree to it later on in Committee—I am not binding myself here to agree to that percentage, but, whatever percentage is agreed to—I am quite prepared to accept that as prima facie evidence imposing on the accused person the obligation of going into the witness box or otherwise satisfying the court that at the material time he was capable of driving the car, and that is what we are concerned with here.

I am not alone in my views that the presence of a given quantity of alcohol should be prima facie evidence only, As the Minister has stated, the Commission on Driving While under the Influence of Drink or a Drug was set up to deal with this very subject. That Commission consisted of a number of distinguished persons. The Commission included Mr. Justice Cahir Davitt, President of the High Court, Professor Maurice Hickey, State Pathologist, Very Reverend D. P. Kennedy, S. J., President of the Safety First Association, Dr. Sean McCann, general practitioner, Superintendent McGonagle, Traffic Section, Garda Síochána, Dr. Desmond McGrath, Psychiatrist, Mr. Dermot O'Clery and Mr. R. O'Donohue, representing motoring associations, Mr. O'Donovan, Chief State Solicitor, District Justice Rochford, Mr. Sheehy, Department of Local Government, and Mr. Total of the Department of Justice. Those gentlemen were asked by the Minister's predecessor to consider this whole question and report to him. I want to take this opportunity of joining with the Minister in expressing the thanks of this House to the members of that Commission for the expenditious manner in which they dealt with the task entrusted to them and for the very considerable amount of work which they obviously put into it and the trouble they went to.

That Commission unanimously supports the case I am making. That Commission recommended to the Minister that 125 milligrammes to 100 millilitres of alcohol in a person should be prima facie evidence and prima facie evidence only of an impairment. What does the Minister do? He takes the very same figures, 125 to 100, and seeks to make it conclusive evidence. If the Minister does that, he will not have the support of the country; he will not get public opinion fully to support him, and the Commission in their recommendations pointed out that it was necessary to have public opinion behind any proposals to deal with drunken driving. The figure of 125 milligrammes is represented apparently by anything more than four pints of stout consumed over two hours, under social conditions. That means that as far as the law is concerned, if this Bill becomes law, if a person has consumed 4½ pints of stout socially over two hours, then he is drunk, and he will be convicted and his driver's licence will be taken away, and there is nothing he can do about it.

I quite concede that a person might be drunk after the consumption of that amount of alcohol but it must also be conceded that very many people might not be drunk and would be quite capable of exercising proper control over a car. I want to emphasise again that I am not making the case for the drunken driver. I am making the case for the driver who is not drunk and who is capable of driving a motor vehicle but who is going to be caught up in this scientific test and is not going to be allowed to have any answer. A sub-committee of this Commission travelled to Europe and visited a number of countries such as Norway, Sweden, Austria, perhaps Denmark, but certainly they visited five or six European countries in which this test is conclusive evidence. In those countries they spoke to the police officers charged with the task of enforcing this legislation which we are now seeking to enact; they spoke to medical practitioners and they visited the courts and they came back and recommended against what the Minister is now seeking to do in this Bill.

I had marked to read in full the very section which the Minister read in full, the section of the Commission's Report which recommended that the blood alcohol level should be taken as prima facie evidence only. As I say, I am convinced that the making of this blood alcohol test prima facie evidence will achieve the Minister's very desirable objects and will at the same time preserve our standards and our tradition that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty. I will go further and invite the Minister to give it a trial and if he is satisfied after a number of years that it does not work out, then he can come back to the House with amending legislation going the whole hog, if he can convince the House that this is necessary.

The Minister seems to think that something happened since the date of this Commission's report. As far as I can ascertain, from public pronouncements, made from time to time, if this Commission were asked to recommend or advise today, they would recommend exactly as they have already recommended. Speaking as recently as 28th November last at the presentation of safe driving awards to CIE drivers, Father Kennedy, S.J., who is president of the Safety First Association, and who was a member of this Commission, re-affirmed that the Commission had recommended that this blood test be made prima facie evidence only and he seemed to be rather alarmed that the Minister had not accepted the recommendation of the Commission. I am sure that nobody can accuse Father Kennedy, S.J., of not being concerned for the safety of road users or of not being concerned to put the drunken driver off the road.

In my opinion, the Minister has not made a strong case, or any case indeed, to justify making the presence of this amount of alcohol in the blood conclusive evidence. I disagree entirely with the Minister when he seems to think that the implementation of the Commission's recommendation would not materially improve the position in relation to the detection and prosecution of offences involving drinking and driving. Once you shift the onus to the accused person of proving that he is able to drive, once you shift the onus from the State to the accused, you make it much more difficult—and I have no hesitation in staking my reputation on this—for the accused person to get off. You are putting a very substantial onus on him.

The Minister seems to distrust the courts and seems to think that because the penalties provided for drunken driving are heavy, the courts would lean over backwards in order to let the accused person off, and would be easily satisfied on the discharge of the onus of proof which he suggests should be imposed on the accused person. That is a very wrong approach on the part of the Minister. Over the past 50 years nearly the courts have proved that they accept their responsibilities seriously, and that they convict where they should convict in accordance with the law, and acquit where they should acquit in accordance with the law.

I strongly urge on the Minister to accept the recommendation of the Commission which his predecessor set up and which reported as comparatively recently as 15th May, 1963, and recommended without qualification and without any reservation that this evidence should be prima facie evidence and prima facie evidence only. So far as one can know, the individual members of the Commission, so far as they have spoken, are still of the same opinion.

The remaining controversial sections of this Bill also deal with offences of driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol so as to impair the driver's judgment. It is sought to make it an offence for such a person not to submit to a blood or urine test. It is sought to make that an offence punishable by the same penalties as the actual offence of drunken driving, to use the expression broadly. I think it is going too far to make it an offence for a person to say: "I refuse to submit to a urine or blood test". I say it is the right of an individual to refuse to submit himself to that test.

He may have various reasons for doing so. He may be doing it on principle, on the ground that he is not drunk. He may be doing it for personal reasons. It is wrong to impose on the accused person an absolute obligation to submit to a blood or urine test. I know that the section of the Bill says that it is not an offence to refuse to submit to a blood test, if the person has a reasonable and substantial cause for refusing. The onus is on the person concerned to establish that substantial cause. It is wrong in principle to impose such a heavy obligation on a motorist.

I am prepared to go a bit of the way with the Minister. I am prepared, I think, to give the Minister sufficient powers to enable him to ensure that if a person does not submit to a blood or urine test he will find himself in difficulties. I believe it should be in order for the prosecution to tender in evidence the fact that the accused person refused to submit to a blood or urine test. That should be acceptable evidence. I will go further with the Minister. I say it should be evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of impairment on the part of the accused person, and that an accused person who has refused to submit himself to a blood or urine test shall have shifted on to him the onus of satisfying the courts that at the material time his judgment was not impaired due to the consumption of alcohol and that he was capable of driving within the meaning of the Act. I say with all confidence that that is going as far as this House should be asked to go at this stage. The Minister will have sufficient power to discourage drunken driving and to detect people who take the risk of driving with considerable quantities of alcohol in their blood.

There are only a few points of principle in this Bill proper for discussion on Second Reading. First, there is the suggestion that we should have a new Bill embodying the 1961 Act and this Bill. Then there is this awful business of the regulations. Everything is done by regulation. I dealt with that. There is the unsound proposal to confer on the Minister the right to restore driving licences. That is a matter of principle to which we intend objecting very strongly. There is the proposal to have people's eyes tested by people who are in no way qualified to test them. Then there is this Part V dealing with serious offences of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

My proposals are, to repeat them, that the given percentage of alcohol in a person's blood should be prima facie evidence only, shifting the onus from the prosecution to the accused to prove that he is capable. Then there is the section making it an offence to refuse to submit to the tests. I am against these provisions on principle, and in substitution for them, I am prepared to give the Minister a section which will make it prima facie evidence if an accused person refuses to submit to the tests. Once that evidence is given, the accused person will have to prove that he was not impaired, that he was sober within the meaning of the section.

We propose to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do strongly urge on the Minister to consider seriously the points I have made on behalf of this Party in all good faith and in a serious effort to go far enough with the Minister to give him a useful measure that will serve its purpose and do the work he wants it to do, but at the same time, will respect the code of criminal law which has worked so well here since the foundation of the State, will respect the liberty of the individual.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that if the Minister could not attain his desired objectives in this Bill without the sections to which I object he should not have it, but I am convinced that in order to make the roads safe, in order to put the drunken driver off the road, it is not necessary that the Minister should go to the Continent of Europe and come back with the sections which he has put into this Bill. There are many sections in the Bill which will need attention in one way or another on Committee Stage. I propose to reserve any further remarks in detail on the subject until that Stage.

Mr. Larkin

Like most Deputies here and most people outside, I do not hold that the only people involved in serious motor accidents are those who have drink taken. I do not anticipate that the Bill being passed in the particular form in which it is presented, and with the penalties being brought into operation against those found to have drink taken, will in itself cure the growing slaughter on the roads. With each year that passes, the number of people killed or horribly injured is multiplying. A big percentage of those accidents may occur in cases where no one has taken any drink. They may occur because of the tendency of human beings, normally kindly people, who when walking along the street will step to one side rather than bump into another person, almost to change their nature when they are behind the wheel of a motor car. This can occur in the case of persons like myself who have never taken a drink in their lives. It can affect teetotallers and other people who take only a very small amount of drink. Therefore, this Bill should not be taken as a cure-all for this great problem.

At the same time, this Bill is overdue. The evidence that it is overdue is that since 1960 statistics of the number of people involved in accidents in which drink was a factor have not been kept. Part of the reason, I submit, is that the situation has developed over recent years to the point where it has been found almost impossible to secure conviction for drunken driving. The prosecuting Garda superintendent would almost have to have the accused fall down flat in the court in the presence of the judge before he would be found guilty of driving under the influence of drink.

How many cases are not taken because the guard in charge is satisfied that by the time the various methods of evasion that can be used are availed of, the person will almost have become sober? The examination by a doctor in the barracks has, I think, with all due respect to my learned colleagues in the legal profession, become almost a joke because the accused invariably takes advantage of the situation by insisting on having his own doctor. Delay naturally ensues and sometimes hours may elapse before he is examined by his own doctor. Time after time one reads cases in the paper in which the police doctor describes the accused as being under the influence of drink and incapable of controlling a mechanically propelled vehicle, to be followed immediately by a challenge which results in the evidence on the other side practically negativing that already given, and invariably the case is dismissed.

Our primary concern is not with the procedures involved but with protecting our citizens on our public roads, whether they be car drivers, cyclists, pedestrians or passengers in cars. These should have a reasonable guarantee of being able to proceed about their business with a reasonable degree of safety. What is the main problem in all this? The evidence adduced by the Commission, by international investigations, by the OECD, all goes to support the contention that the consumption of alcohol can have certain effects and that people who show a certain alcoholic content in their blood are not capable of exercising full control. Their judgment is warped. Their vision may be affected. The Minister described it in his rather lengthy speech as a "position of critical impairment." I do not think it is any harm for a person to know in advance that if he consumes a certain amount of alcohol, he is liable, if found driving a car, to be guilty of an offence.

Deputy Fitzpatrick talked about tradition. The tradition seems, unfortunately, to be one of encouraging drink. No one objects to anyone drinking if he does not interfere with other people. No one suggests anyone should not be allowed to drink within reasonable limits. But, surely, no one should encourage a situation, one which has persisted here year after year, in which people coming out of publichouses and hotels, falsely believe, as a result of the consumption of alcohol, that not only are they able to drive but that they are even better drivers when they are half drunk than they are when they are sober. Alcohol has the effect of creating the illusion that one is a better man drunk than one is sober. That is the condition in which the drunken driver takes control of a vehicle weighing anything from half a ton to a ton or a ton and a half. His judgment is impaired; his vision is affected. He is not able to exercise proper regard for the safety of other road users.

The Minister, in fixing the level at 125 milligrammes to 100 millilitres of blood, is not really improving the present situation because the Minister indicated in his speech that the Commission expressed the view that a person who had 125 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood will be critically impaired. I take that to mean impaired from the point of view of his judgment, his mental capacity, his vision and the speed at which he can react if an emergency arises. This critical impairment affects apparently light drinkers, moderate drinkers and heavy drinkers. Determining whether a person is capable of driving a car by means of a breath test, a blood test or a urine test has been widely accepted, and some European countries in which the citizens, like so many Irish people, are fond of drink have established a very sound practice. If they are going somewhere where they think they might be inclined to take a drink, they either leave the car at home or they make sure they have somebody who is not drinking on that occasion to drive home. This occurs in places like Sweden because the punishment for driving under the influence of drink is swift and severe.

In considering the Road Traffic Bill, we have to consider the increased number of accidents. We have to consider the increased number of accidents in the hit and run category. People going about their business on the streets and roads of our country are being struck, knocked down and left lying on the side of the road. It may not be correct to say that in all cases these unfortunates were the victims of people driving under the influence of drink, just as it would not be correct to say that every accident that occurs is a result of somebody being under the influence of drink.

The statistics quoted by the Minister show that of 40 per cent of all accidents where a fatality occurred from 1958-60, two per cent were cases in which drink was involved.

Mr. Boland

In which it was known to be involved.

Mr. Larkin

I am glad the Minister has pointed that out because of the fact that earlier the term "known to be involved" not only means that somebody knew but that it came out in evidence in court that drink was involved. Out of a total of 294 accidents in the year 1960, 88 were cases in which drink was taken. Since 1960, the statistics are not quite clear. Some time ago I endeavoured in this House to get information and I was given an answer which in general terms indicated that the Government had given up endeavouring to get reliable statistics.

The question will naturally come up for discussion as to whether the tests —breath, blood and urine—should be used for the purpose of proving an offence or whether they should be used to support a prima facie case. I feel the Minister's approach in the light of the desperate situation facing this country is the correct one. It is essential that by every means we try to reduce the number of fatal and other accidents on our roads. It is essential that the roads be properly engineered, that they be properly lighted, and that vehicles on the roads be kept in proper condition and inspected regularly. One factor has been clearly demonstrated. In regard to drivers of vehicles who are under the influence of drink to the extent that their judgment is impaired, it is essential that action be taken to try to prevent that situation continuing.

Much can be said about the rights of the individual. He may be charged with being under the influence of drink when driving a car. It is being accepted that if the blood test shows a certain level of alcohol, a person's judgement is deemed to be impaired. If the level reaches the point of 125 milligrammes to 100 millilitres his judgment and capability to drive a motor car are critically impaired. Surely the proper thing to do is to take action at that stage because the rights of other individuals in the community are at stake, the rights of the innocent victims of drunken drivers?

Recently I read in a digest that in Canada doctors in hospitals treating patients who are victims of road accidents decided, in co-operation with the authorities, to record on film the type of injuries suffered. They took a number of these films in colour and showed them. The injuries shown to be suffered by these victims were so terrible that persons in the audience who were looking at the pictures actually fainted. It was decided, although originally the purpose envisaged in taking these films was that they would be used as part of a campaign for road safety, that because the effect on the ordinary viewer was so devastating, to show only this type of film to persons who had been involved in a serious accident, or were in some way connected with the accident, or were held to be responsible for it.

We know that the medical profession have in recent years been demanding, and rightly, that special arrangements should be made to deal with persons who have been involved in road accidents. At one time it was thought sufficient to have an ambulance out, have a doctor on the spot to give first aid, and have the patient removed to hospital. With the development of the motor vehicle and the changes taking place as far as the nature of the injuries is concerned, the medical profession are now crying out for almost the highest skilled medical treatment to be available at the earliest moment. Any of those interested who care to make any investigation will find that the injuries appear to be growing more serious and more complicated than ever before. In fact, the person who is killed might be described, in certain circumstances, as being the lucky one, because there are increasing numbers of those who are crippled for life, of those who have been involved in road accidents who will go through the remainder of their lives handicapped in some way, many of them suffering pain.

I think the Minister will be doing a good job at least in one restricted field by the introduction of a test in an offence, as set out in this Bill. It will not solve the problem on the roads but any effort to cut down the pain, suffering and loss should be welcomed. Consequently, while the Minister has, in his statement, a certain amount of needless repetition with regard to the question of the introduction of a new offence and tests, there are other matters which require comment.

One of the things I should like to comment on—and with the same feeling of support as I have expressed with regard to this overdue provision dealing with drunken driving—is the provision in the Bill to restore to the Minister for Justice the power which he lost at an earlier stage to restore licences. The restoration of this power, in the eyes of the general public, can tend only to create a feeling that certain people who may have had their licences withdrawn may be able, by approaching the Minister for Justice, to have them restored, and any Minister for Justice may then be placed in a position of doing something which, in my view, he should not have the power to do. If it were considered that the period for which the person was disqualified, six months, in certain circumstances should be altered, it can be altered and, if there is a view that an appeal can take too long, surely there could be provision for hearing it more speedily than is the normal procedure?

But, if the courts are to operate and impose disqualifications, surely it should be left to the courts to determine that and to determine an appeal against a disqualification? At least what the courts do can be seen. I am afraid the same is not always true with regard to the Minister for Justice. I would suggest that the Minister should examine further this provision in the Bill and be very careful before he restores a position found to be unsatisfactory when operated previously, because whether or not the Minister likes it, the suggestion will be that those with certain political influence and contacts are those who will get the disqualification lifted by the Minister, just as I am sure Deputies will be aware that from time to time, in certain cases, the Garda have felt that to issue prosecutions was merely a waste of their time.

Part IV of the Bill deals with speed limits. I would suggest to the Minister that the time has come to impose an upper speed limit on every road in the country, irrespective of what it is. There was introduced last year in Britain, on roads like the M1, the 70 miles per hour speed limit. There was a lot of controversy about it at the time, but I think it has been accepted as making some contribution towards safety. There are certain stretches of the roads in this country which could in the future—and the not too distant future—become equally dangerous, because, in times of reduced visibility —light mist or fog—dual carriageways are no safer than any other roads. If one drives down the dualcarriageway to Naas, one will observe many cars exceeding 70 miles per hour. So far, there have not been too many crashes, but whatever the speed limit, be it 70 miles per hour, 65 miles per hour or any other speed, there should be an upper limit even on those fast trunk roads or dual-carriageways. I ask the Minister, when he comes to deal with this, to consider the advisability of introducing such a general speed limit. Speed limits in the city of Dublin and outside it have been imposed, but they should be tightened up in many cases. In other cases, delays in getting speed limits imposed result in accidents occurring before the necessary regulations are made.

Like Deputy Fitzpatrick, I cannot understand how it is possible to impose a sight test on a driving licence applicant unless the tester is a qualified person. There is a very good case, therefore, for reconsideration of this very important matter.

According to the Minister's statement, a special staff will be recruited to relieve the Garda of the task of fining motorists who are guilty of technical offences such as overparking. He indicated that the experiment will be carried out in Dublin for a start. I agree with the Minister wholeheartedly that gardaí in the city appear to spend an inordinate amount of time chasing motorists from pillar to post, much to the neglect of their important duties in the protection of the lives and property of the citizens. Perhaps the revenue from on-the-spot fines is of importance to the Government in their financial need at the moment. I have on occasion, in a street like Abbey Street, very wide and with little traffic flowing through it, seen a garda concentrating on making sure he gets somebody for 10/- or a £1, while just around the corner at the same time somebody may be breaking into a shop or an office.

I have no complaints about the Garda and the manner in which they carry out their duties in regard to dangerous places like street corners, but they seem to be particularly active in places where there is no particular danger, such as one-way streets. They seem to go along with their little books saying: "That is 10/-; that is £1". I do not know whether they are on bonus for it or something, but they seem particularly anxious to collect these fines, while at the same time other streets are jammed with traffic, with nobody appearing to care whether it is going backwards or forward. One can read in the papers any day of places being broken into, property damaged, glass broken, with no garda around. If they are there I do not know, but they seldom appear to be where they are wanted and they are always to be found on the spot when a motorist may park for half an hour to go into a shop. They are there with their pencils and their books.

If the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Justice, is to have the Garda recruit special traffic personnel, I hope they will not imbue this special personnel with the idea that their only function is to collect the greatest number of fines possible from the greatest number of motorists. I hope the Garda will not regard as their first line of duty the instruction of these people in how to get the most money from the motorists in this way. The Minister said such special traffic personnel will be on a part-time basis and that their duties will be mainly concerned with peak-hour periods. I wonder if he will be like some of his colleagues who talk about productivity, if he has the idea of putting these people on bonuses, payable for the largest amount of fines possible.

I agree with the Minister that legislation cannot solve all our traffic problems, as I agree with him that the Bill will not necessarily cure or prevent accidents due to drunken driving. Possibly we should all consider more seriously the advice of the Reverend Denis Kennedy to the effect that what is required is that each person who drives a car should do so with care, thoughtfulness and realisation that a mistake or an instance of bad judgment or selfishness on his part may involve an innocent person in death or in injury which will affect the victim for the remainder of his life.

At the same time, as has been accepted time and time again, the level of alcohol in the blood impairs the judgment of an individual. It is clearly time that we here took some steps to ensure that if individuals wish cold-bloodedly to continue with personal actions, which they know will impair their judgment to the point of their becoming a danger to themselves, members of their families and other human beings, if they persist in doing that, it is essential that the community as a whole take some steps to try to protect the innocent against them. With that we are prepared, in general terms, to support the introduction of this measure and with the right to make amendments on Committee Stage which we feel are necessary to improve the Bill.

Mr. Coogan

I should just like to refer very briefly to a few points which come to mind during this discussion. Something which interests me is that these tests will be conclusive with regard to guilt. If may be that to a degree they could be conclusive. As I see it, there could also be the case where you could prove a drunken man sober as well. I would point that out as my opinion.

Like the previous speaker, who said he never took drink in his life, I can say the same. Suppose the two of us were to go down and have two glasses of whiskey or a glass of rum, we would probably be seeing pink elephants, rats and everything else in the course of our driving. We could be pulled in and put to a test. It could be proved that we were sober by virtue of the fact that we had only one drink, whereas a man who had, say, six, and could be a lot more sober than we were after the amount of drink we had taken, would be charged and proved guilty. This is the point I see in this. It is quite unfortunate that either Deputy Larkin or I should get away with it and the man who maybe took the extra drink is found guilty.

Another thing which struck me is whether it is possible to test a man who is unconscious in an accident? We come along and we find a man in his car who has had an accident. That man is unconscious. He could pretend he is unconscious and he could recover in an hour or two afterwards when the drink has worn off him. Could that man be put through a breathaliser test to see if he had such a content of alcohol in his system as would prove him conclusively drunk and to have been the cause of his own accident? As I already said, Deputy Larkin and I could get away with murder. We would be proved to be as sober as some of the judges and possibly we might be as drunk as some of the lords. That is the side of this test I should like to have examined fully.

I see reference here to speed limits. One thing which strikes me coming up here to Dublin is that one sees some of the speed limit signs overgrown with foliage. Unless one knew where to expect some of those signs, one could run into them and get the ticket very easily. I should like to know who is responsible for seeing that those signs are not covered up by foliage at times and that the driver is protected in so far as he sees where he is going to commit the offence.

Another point is the importance of trying to ease this glare from, if I may say it, the flashing on of a light in country districts. Rural electricity has come and these unshaded lights can cause quite a lot of blinding to a driver at night. When a driver rounds a bend in the dark in the country, he suddenly finds lights flashing out of houses and there is no shade over them. I should like the Minister to see if anything could be done to protect such drivers on the roads. We are asked to dim our own lights when we are driving but those unshaded lights in houses can cause a lot of trouble.

Reference has been made to public service vehicles. There has been reference to malicious damages and injury caused to public service transport. This Bill refers to road traffic and I know it is another Minister who deals with CIE, but if there is a law for one, it should be for both. It should be equally as grave an offence to damage the seats and carriages of a train as it is to damage road vehicles. There is a lot of that kind of blackguardism which should be stamped out.

I do not know whether you can do anything about this under a Road Traffic Bill. Something should be done about damage to railway carriages. This needs to be looked into very urgently. That is all I intend to say but I would be very interested in knowing what would happen to Deputy Larkin and myself if we got just nicely drunk and knocked down Nelson Pillar again? We would get away with it and the unfortunate man who might have just the half-one over the six would get himself into trouble. I would like the Minister to look into those two points.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Dillon

It is some considerable time since I first mentioned in this House my conviction that if we were to make any real impression on our deplorable record of road accidents, we would have to deal with the problem of the drunken driver. I venture the estimate, with no statistical basis other than my own observation of what is going on around us, that if we effectively control the drunken driver, it would not be unreasonable to hope that we could reduce road accidents by 50 per cent. I remember the time I first submitted that view to this House. It was regarded as a somewhat extravagant estimate. As not infrequently happens, Dáil Éireann discovers ten years after I have told it something, that what I told it is true. One of the regrettable results of that reluctance on the part of Dáil Éireann to face facts in good time is that when they are brought face to face with the truth of the situation, the tendency is, particularly when we are afflicted with a Fianna Fáil Government, for the Government and the Party supporting them to get hysterical. We are at present floundering about in a wild climax of hysteria in which the Black Maria is plying between every county in the country and Mountjoy Jail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That scarcely arises on this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Hysteria is the general theme, Sir. That is merely one manifestation of the hysteria in a Government who do not know how to govern. We are also floundering about in the pandemonium created by the hysteria of a Government who do not know how to consolidate the law. The Council of State has been in session. Dáil Éireann has been passing emergency legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that has no relevancy to the Road Traffic Bill.

Mr. Boland

He was only sent in to waste time.

Mr. Dillon

By the time I have finished, I will not have wasted time. The Minister for Local Government has the reputation of being a tough, but there is no use being tough with me because I can dispose of him as I would of an old shoe.

Mr. Boland

You did not dispose of much.

Mr. Dillon

I would like the Minister to keep quiet and try to behave as a Minister ought to behave, to keep his mouth shut until the time comes to conclude the debate. I know that will be an effort on his part, but he should make the effort. That is what he is paid for.

Mr. Fanning

I do not think he should take it from you.

Mr. Dillon

He is paid for doing that, too. So is the Deputy, although he is rarely present to discharge that duty. I was speaking of the hysteria that underlies the Government's legislation when Fianna Fáil are in office. Fianna Fáil have suddenly awakened up to the fact that drunken driving is a serious problem in this country. Of course, it is. But serious problems should not result in hysterical remedies. You were surprised, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to hear me refer to recent meetings of the Council of State and consequential legislation in this House. It is not so irrelevant as might first appear to your ears, because there is great danger of this Bill ending up in the Council of State.

Mark you, this House should not get into the habit of passing legislation which is declared null and void, on the ground that it conflicts with fundamental provisions of the Constitution. Our purpose is effectively to keep the drunken driver off the roads. But to do that effectively, we must pass law that will conform with the requirements of the Constitution. We have to bear in mind that, for good or ill, this country enacted a Constitution. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, has the Clerk a copy of the Constitution on his desk? I think it is Article 40 of the Constitution.

Mr. Boland

I think you were brought in too soon.

Mr. Dillon

No. This document I have in my hand is not so dear to my heart that I know it off by heart. I have known people in this House who knew "The Prince" off by heart and could quote it from memory. This is a document which I have had very recent occasion to consult but I had not occasion to commit it to memory. Article 40 deals with rights and subsection (3) 1º reads as follows:

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2º The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice, done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

It is important to bear that provision of the Constitution in mind when we come to read section 29 of the Bill at present before us. It says:

Where a person (in this section referred to as the arrested person) arrested under section 49 (4) of the Principal Act or section 27 (3) (a) of this Act has been brought to a Garda station....

and it is important to note that it is to a Garda station

the member of the Garda Síochána then in charge there may do either or both of the following—

(a) require the arrested person to provide in the prescribed manner a specimen of his breath by exhaling into an apparatus designed for showing the concentration of alcohol in the breath or blood or into a receptacle designed for preserving the specimen for subsequent analysis,

(b) require the arrested person either to permit a designated registered medical practitioner to take from the arrested person a specimen of his blood or, if the arrested person so opts, to provide for the designated registered medical practitioner a specimen of the arrested person's urine in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Subsection (2) goes on to provide:

Notwithstanding subsection (1), when an arrested person who opted to provide in accordance with the prescribed procedure a specimen of urine fails to do so, he may be required by the member of the Garda Síochána in charge of the station to permit the designated registered medical practitioner to take from the arrested person a specimen of his blood.

Subsection (3) says:

An arrested person (other than a person who has provided a specimen of his urine in accordance with the prescribed procedure) who, following a requisition under this section, refuses or fails to permit a designated registered medical practitioner to take from the arrested person a specimen of his blood shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or, at the discretion of the court, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

Subsection (4) states:

An arrested person who refuses or fails to comply with a requisition under subsection (1) (a) shall be guilty of an offence.

Subsection (5) states:

Section 1 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, shall not apply to an offence under this section.

I ask Deputies do we consider it appropriate to enact a law which empowers a member of the Garda Síochána to take a person who has been involved in a car crash to the nearest Garda station and there require that person to provide a specimen of urine or submit to a doctor taking a blood sample. All these things sound relatively simple but I ask you to consider the position which this section could produce and to reconcile it with the section of the Constitution which I have just quoted.

Take a young woman driving on a country road. She is involved in a crash. The member of the Garda Síochána comes on the scene and forms the opinion that the young woman is suffering from the effects of drink. Remember we have defined statutory incapacity to drive a car as a result of the ingestion of alcohol which is something quite different from drunkenness. I think we are right to define the maximum blood level content of alcohol which, for convenience sake, I shall refer to as the statutory definition of drunkenness for the purposes of this Act. This young woman is brought by the garda, not to the nearest hospital, not to the nearest casualty department of a hospital, but to the Garda station and she is there required either to pass urine in a form prescribed by the Garda Síochána or to submit to having a blood sample taken by a registered medical practitioner.

There are a great many, shall we say five per cent, of persons who, if they attend a hospital fully equipped and have a blood sample taken under the most rigorous hospital conditions suffer considerably because they are a section of the population who find themselves gravely distressed by that experience. I do not deny that I myself find, under the most rigorous hospital conditions that the taking of a blood sample from myself is a matter of the acutest personal distress. I know people in whose case it involves fainting immediately. Can you picture a person who may, in fact, be suffering from concussion and whose concussion contributes to the garda's belief that he is under the influence of drink as defined in this Bill, and who is in urgent need of medical attention being brought, not to the hospital but in a state of profound shock resulting from physical injury, to a Garda station where he is required either to submit to giving a blood sample or a urine sample and there told that if he refuses one or the other injunction, he has, by that refusal, committed a statutory offence for which the penalty is six months in jail?

Does any Deputy seek to reconcile that procedure with the appropriate section of the Constitution I have read out? It is just possible to say that if they refuse to blow in a bag, it is reasonable to say they have gone beyond the limit of reasonable remonstrance but I think that such blowing in bags should be undertaken in the nearest hospital where the person under threat of charge is at least under competent medical observation so that a doctor can come along and say: "Instead of having this person blowing into bags, you should have him in bed to protect him from the consequences of concussion after an accident."

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th March, 1967.