Amendment No. 15 is cognate. Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are being discussed together.
Road Traffic Bill, 1966: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Before section 28 to insert a new section as follows:
"Section 49 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after ‘the vehicle' in subsection (1) of the following: ‘and if there is present in his body a quantity of alcohol such that within 3 hours after so driving or attempting to drive the concentration of alcohol in his blood will exceed a concentration of 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood he shall be deemed until the contrary is proved to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle'."
—(Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick(Cavan)).
Acting Chairman
(Cavan): It was agreed on the last day that the point between the Minister and myself here is that the Minister wants to introduce a new offence, the offence of driving a motor car while the concentration of alcohol in the driver's blood exceeds 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, whether the person is intoxicated within the meaning of section 49 of the Principal Act or whether his judgment is impaired. That is the Minister's proposal. I had been making the case that I consider that proposal unnecessary to achieve the very laudable object behind the section, of putting the drunken driver off the road. I put forward as an alternative that the percentage of alcohol specified should be taken as prima facie evidence that the driver is intoxicated within the meaning of section 49 of the Principal Act and that the driver then should have shifted to him the onus of proving that his judgment is not impaired and that he is fit to drive.
I have heard it stated since then that the difference between the Minister and myself is a very slight difference. I do not regard it as a slight difference. I consider that there is a substantial point at issue.
Deputy Booth stated on the last day, if I remember correctly, that in effect, when the Minister's proposals become law, if a man wants to drive he should not drink because he will then be certain that the concentration of alcohol in his blood does not exceed the stipulated percentage. I agree with Deputy Booth when he says that that is the only safe course for a driver to adopt should this section become law.
I made the argument the last day that my amendment would meet the case adequately, that it would put on a person in whose blood there was this concentration of alcohol the substantial onus of proving that he was fit to drive a car, that his judgment had not been impaired, and I suggested that my proposal should be given a fair trial. I am still convinced that, if given a fair trial, it will prove adequate and satisfactory.
The Minister intervened at that stage to say that my proposal had been tried in England and had not worked. With all respect, I say that the Minister was not correct in saying that my proposal had been tried in England under the Road Traffic Act of 1962. As I understand it, the British Road Traffic Act of 1962 did not constitute any given percentage of alcohol in the blood prima facia evidence of impairment. It merely enabled the court to have regard to such a concentration of alcohol in the blood but it did not constitute that concentration prima facie evidence.
In paragraph 21, page 21, of the Report of the Commission on Driving While Under the Influence of Drink or a Drug, it is stated:
In Britain the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, became law on the 20th December 1962. Section 2 requires a court to have regard to evidence as to the proportion or quantity of alcohol or any drug in the blood or body of an accused person as ascertained from a specimen of blood, urine or breath. Refusal without reasonable cause to furnish a specimen for this purpose may be treated as supporting any evidence given on behalf of the prosecution, or as rebutting any evidence given on behalf of the defence, with respect to the condition of the accused at the material time. No specific level of blood-alcohol is laid down. Prior to the Act, urine samples and (occasionally) blood samples (taken with the consent of the accused) had been tested and the results given in evidence.
That is a very different provision. That is simply making the matter of alcohol in the blood, in the breath or in the urine, evidence which can be given in court, but it is not evidence which the court is obliged to accept. It is one of the many aspects of evidence which the British courts were required to consider, and it will be noted that no specified blood-level was laid down in the British Act of 1962.
Our proposals are very different from those. Our proposals say that the court is obliged to hold the accused guilty if his blood contains the specified concentration of alcohol unless the accused proves that he is not guilty. I want to emphasise that. That is going a very long way, and I am convinced that quite a few Members of the House do not realise just how far it is going. We had a fairly full debate on this the last day and I do not suppose there is any point in arguing indefinitely about it. I am against the Minister's section 28 of the Bill because it is an innovation in our criminal code when it is coupled with section 29. It is creating an offence which it will be impossible for a motorist in his own mind to ascertain or define. When this section becomes law, a motorist may be driving along the road perfectly competent, perfectly capable, firmly believing that his blood alcohol concentration is legal and still he will be committing an offence which will carry the penalty of a heavy fine, imprisonment and disqualification from driving a motor car.
I am against this section because I do not think it is necessary in order to rid the road of drunken drivers. If I did, I would agree to it. I am against the section because, as I say, coupled with section 29, which is the compulsory blood testing section, it is running contrary to the whole criminal code known in this country since the foundation of the State. It may not be repugnant to certain other continental criminal codes which are far different from ours, but ours has worked very well over the years and has produced, by and large, a law-abiding community.
Those are in a nutshell my serious objections to the section. If I were asked what my strongest objection is, I would say it is that here an offence is being created which it would be impossible for a motorist to define in his own mind. A situation is being created in which a law-abiding motorist will not know whether he is within the law or without the law, unless he has a test carried out every time he drives a car if he has drink taken, which of course is absurd.
I do not think this House wants to lay it down, in the words of Deputy Booth, that if a man drives, he should not drink or, to go further, if a man drives, he may not drink. I do not think this House wants to do that, but, in effect, that is what is being done in this section, because there is scientific evidence to show that a person may be impaired on drinking as little as 2¾ pints of stout socially or four small whiskeys socially.
I do not know whether the Minister is taking a stand on this section, a stand on the basis that it is absolutely essential, that he is not prepared to listen to argument or to think again about it. There are several well-conducted, law-abiding, highly respectable social functions held in this city from time to time, and if this section were law and enforced and breathaliser tests and blood tests carried out, there would be wholesale and unnecessary disqualifications.
There is a lot of truth in what Deputy Fitzpatrick has been saying. Let me repeat what I said on the last occasion this matter was before the House: I deplore the drunken driver. I believe no mercy should be shown to him if he is proved to be guilty. However, we have a situation here in which it is possible—and it has been admitted by the Minister—for a man to have 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and still, while not a safe driver, be deemed not drunk. This man can be convicted because there is no way out for the court. Even though the police testimony bears out the fact that, while this man had 125 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood, he was, in the opinion of the police, not drunk, the court will have no discretion to accept the police evidence There will be no way in which this can help the man who was not drunk on this amount of alcohol, although there may be only one or two cases of this sort.
Another matter which has been brought out in this debate is the fact that there are no statistics available to show how many fatal accidents are due to drunken driving. A recent investigation in Germany has shown that the vast majority of accidents occur in the case of people who have been driving less than five years and there are far fewer accidents in the case of those who have been driving longer than five years. The report goes on to say that suspension of driving licences is, therefore, not a good thing in the case of a man who has been driving less than five years. We have not done any research and we have no statistics to show how many accidents are caused by drunken drivers. My own opinion is —I have no evidence to support it, but I am sure other Members of the House support it—that a great number of accidents are caused in the group which has been driving for less than five years. A great number of accidents are also caused because of mechanical defects and the cars are so badly wrecked there is no way in which one can detect why the drivers had this head on collision, sometimes on a straight stretch of road.
I believe the Minister should accept the amendment and leave some way out for the odd driver who may go before the court to prove that he was not drunk. It is no use the police saying that, in their opinion, he was not drunk if he had 125 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood. I would strongly urge the Minister to leave some loophole, not to enable the drunken driver to get away but to ensure that the driver in the genuine case, the case in which the driver has a high absorption rate, will not be convicted unnecessarily. Anybody who drives immediately after drinking enough to put 100 milligrammes of alcohol in his bloodstream is asking for trouble. I should be pleased if the Minister would say over what period a man can build up to this amount of alcohol and for how long afterwards can this alcohol content in his bloodstream remain a tolerable amount, an amount which will enable him to drive safely.
This is a difficult problem and I am certain I am the only person in the House who has had to make a decision as to whether a person was or was not capable of driving a car. In a matter such as this, one must naturally recall personal experience. I recall one particular case in which a man was charged with being drunk in charge of a car. The evidence in his defence was that he had lost a great deal of sleep over two nights and had driven a long journey. He was on the point of reaching home when he was apprehended by the gardaí. His defence was accepted by the court. In another case a man was charged with being drunk in charge of a car. He was involved in an accident. His defence was that he had received a head injury during the accident and, as a result of that, his conduct following the accident was due to concussion and not to drunkenness. This case was contested at some length and eventually the court accepted that he had been suffering from concussion and he was acquitted.
These are cases in which I, as a doctor, would be very glad to have some test of an objective character to help me in reaching a definite opinion. I have no doubt such a test would be of great help to the court also. This is, I think, the situation Deputy Fitzpatrick is more or less trying to present. The test would be an ancillary one and the court would use it with the other facts to adjudicate as to the capability of the driver. That would be a reasonable approach.
As I understand the Minister's case —it has not been controverted—the justice, on having the facts presented to him that the blood alcohol content of the accused was over 125 milligrammes, has no choice in the matter and I understand he must also take away the man's driving licence. That is going too far. If two-threequarters is the standard amount of beer which will produce this blood level and a man finds himself in a group in which he has to stand the fourth round, and he wants to partake himself in that round, that may easily bring about the undesired result. The same would apply if he is standing the fifth round of whiskey. In such circumstances, we would, I think, be going too far in taking away his driving licence.
I said on the last occasion that it would be most unlikely that a man would be charged with just this one offence. The gardaí would probably have an idea that the man is already drunk and not capable of driving his car and he will go before the courts to face two or three charges in all probability. The justice should be in a position, as he finds on the different charges, to place the penalty accordingly; in other words, he decides that the man was not drunk in charge of his car but he took a chance in allowing his blood alcohol content to go above a certain level. In that case the justice should, instead of removing the driving licence, be in a position to impose a fine.
Has anyone adverted to the recently reported case in London in which a man was arraigned before the court after one of these tests and it was subsequently discovered that the tests on which he was arraigned related to somebody else? There had been a slight crossing of wires in the administration. I believe the man was convicted but, on appeal, it was established that the machinery had broken down and the tests related to another person. From the debate so far it is obvious the House is finding it difficult to disentangle section 27 from section 29. The possibility of the evidence getting confused under section 27 is relatively unlikely as compared with the probability that will arise under section 29.
Everyone dealing with this Bill has emphasised the necessity, recognised by all, of controlling and preventing the driving of cars by inebriated people. I wish to remind the House once more that ten years ago I told this House that, if we wanted effectively to reduce the accident rate on our roads, we must control drunken driving and, until we do, there will be no effective reduction in the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise. Therefore, I do not believe there is any difference amongst the Members of this House as to the desirability of taking effective measures to prevent people under the influence of drink from driving. However, I want to renew an appeal which has been made by a number of Deputies. In our desire to attain that end, let us not go clean crazy. Unless we can carry with us the general consent of society as a whole, legislation passed by this House will not be effective and, in fact, may do more harm than good.
I approach with great reserve the section which provides that a member of the Garda Síochána may approach anybody who is driving a car——
(Cavan): Section 28.
I suppose we must take sections 27 and 28 together. I approach with great reserve the section which provides that a member of the Garda Síochána may approach anybody who is driving a car and require him to submit to the breathaliser test. When that was discussed on Second Stage, I said that, with very great reluctance, I was prepared to go that far but I thought it was a very extreme limit to the discretion which we ought to confer on the Garda.
I am not so sure that, on the general question, which I understand the last speaker was discussing, I am not prepared to go farther in the direction of the Minister's view than he is prepared to go. I understand that the argument he makes is that a man may have 125 milligrammes of alcohol, or whatever it is, in his blood but is, in fact, not drunk and it is unreasonable to withdraw his licence when, in fact, he is not drunk but is only committing a statutory offence. In this Bill, we are not legislating against the drunken driver. What, in fact, we are saying is that the problem of drunken driving has become so complex and difficult to control that we have made up our minds to determine the statutory limit of alcohol content in the human blood over which nobody may drive a car, even though he is as sober as a judge because there is no other way of getting a satisfactory definition of statutory drunkenness, for the purpose of this Bill, except by taking a wholly arbitrary level.
Recognising the extreme difficulty of this situation and its adequate control, I do not see how else the Minister can improve the situation except by saying: "I admit that 20 per cent of persons with this alcohol content in their blood might not be drunk or might not be incapable of driving a car but I am certain that 20 per cent of the total number of persons with that level of alcohol in their blood would be incapable of driving a car and the other 60 per cent, between these two extremes, would, to say the least of it, be doubtful and we are asking everybody, in order to suppress this very manifest evil, to accept the self-denying ordinance that they agree that if their blood alcohol content approximates to this level, they simply will not drive."
I said on an earlier stage that, so far as the young are concerned, I think one must be reasonable but provide them with a rational liberty. I have no hesitation in saying to young people: "There is only one safe guide for you. If you drive, do not drink and, if you drink, do not drive. If you are going to a party, one member must go on the wagon and stay on the wagon. The next night you are going out you can choose some other fellow and let him go on the wagon and you on the spree but let there be one person in the car who does not drink at all." I think that is a reasonable stipulation to make on the young.
When we come to mature citizens of the State, we must then ask ourselves if it is reasonable, faced with the problem which faces us, that we have to put down a statutory definition of incapacity to drive a car which is 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Admittedly there are individuals in whose circumstances that does not amount to drunkenness at all. However, in order to deal with the problem, we have to ask people who have strong heads to forgo the right to drive a car in certain circumstances in order that we may control those for whom an alcohol intake of this kind constitutes a danger.
I find it very difficult to discuss this particular section—section 28—which lays down a definition without having in the background of my mind the attendant sections—section 27, which has just been disposed of, and section 29 which follows immediately afterwards. I have the kind of feeling that anyone who comes part of the way to meet the Minister in his understanding of this problem, to try to help him to resolve it and to encourage people to accept the restrictions he prescribes is gradually slipping down the slope towards acceptance of the principle in section 29 which I think so revolting and horrible that my natural instinct is to attack the whole scheme. I have resisted that inclination and continue to do so and say, for the record here, that I am prepared to accept the breathaliser test as something which I hope we shall be able to get rid of some time, sooner or later.
While it is necessary to meet the urgent situation of the rising death rate on the roads I am prepared to accept the statutory definition of drunkenness as set out in section 28, but I earnestly hope that when we come to section 29 the Minister will see his way to make some gesture towards those who feel as deeply as I do about the constitutional rights of citizens which appear to me to be most grossly outraged by the proposals contained in section 29.
I want to make just one point on the section. There is the question of the lack of statistics in relation to drunken driving. We are asked to make up our minds about accepting the level of 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The House is somewhat hog-tied in relation to lack of statistics on drunkenness as a contributing factor to road accidents. I want to pay a tribute to the work done by the Garda over the years in preparing abstracts and statements with regard to road accidents generally. I think Deputy Fitzpatrick and all other practising lawyers in the House will know what I am speaking of here. I should have thought it would be simple to arrange a study of some particular area, in an informal manner, to discover to what extent drink does contribute to accidents.
I suggest something like this: in the case of every accident, the investigating officer would make a finding as to whether drink was involved, whether it be the case of a pedestrian, a pedalcyclist, a motorist, or a motor-cyclist. It might be that there would not be sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution but the experience of the Garda would help in getting some statistical information by which we could make up our minds when a matter of this nature and of this seriousness comes before us in the House. I would urge the Minister to set up a study session of road traffic accidents in a particular area. The findings and the information from the investigation would be very valuable to us and to those concerned with road safety in general. The problem, as I say, of making up our minds on section 28 is caused by the lack of statistics and therefore I would ask the Minister to consider setting up a study area either in the city or country.
In this section we are prescribing a most rigid code in an effort to deal with the problem of drunken driving. It is with certain reservations that I support the section. I appreciate that some norm must be found to determine when one is incapable of driving by reason of the alcoholic content, or the drug content, as the case may be, of one's blood. However, it seems to me that the regulation laid down here is very severe. It means that a man who has taken more than 2¾ pints of beer or stout will be regarded as being incapable under this section. Likewise, the man who partakes of two glasses of spirits will be deemed to be drunk and incapable of——
Is this two full glasses?
Two glasses.
I would be cross-eyed if I consumed that amount. I would not even be able to drive a perambulator.
The Deputy is only one.
Yes, but I have to be catered for.
I am afraid that Deputy Treacy is accepting what Deputy Fitzpatrick said and which is completely without foundation. This is only on an empty stomach and when consumed in a very short time, which is not the normal way of drinking. It would take a lot more in the normal way.
Four half-ones.
I am glad the statements made by Deputy Fitzpatrick and by reputable people in the liquor trade——
(Cavan): I met a few fellows last night who were able to do it.
I was afraid that would be raised.
People are on record as saying that 2½ pints of beer or stout, or two glasses of spirits, are sufficient to provide the 125 milligrammes to the 100 millilitres. Like Deputy Dillon, I would be inebriated after two glasses of whiskey and I would certainly not chance driving a car, but there are many who can enjoy two or three pints of stout and still be quite sober and competent.
Are we on the amendment?
On the section.
We are on the amendment in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick.
I should be glad to hear the Minister elaborate on the point he has made that Deputy Fitzpatrick and others are wrong in suggesting that this minimal amount of drink is sufficient to put people outside the law under this section. If what is being said is true, that something like 2½ pints of stout puts one outside the law, we are obviously going to make life miserable for a large section of our people who enjoy driving and who enjoy having a few drinks—unless we expect everyone to stop drinking altogether and become Pioneers. If what is said is true, one would be better off giving up drinking. However careful one might be about one's drinking habits, there will no longer be any enjoyment in drinking if one drives and one will no longer be able to relax in the publichouse or hotel.
I am with the Minister all the way in implementing the most rigid regulations to control drunken driving but I am concerned that we might destroy the enjoyment of so many people who like to have a few pints with their friends after work. If you keep to something like three pints of stout as being the number of drinks which is sufficient to render one liable under this section, it will be a great source of worry and anxiety to every man who enjoys a few pints. However, if no other way can be found, I would have no hesitation in supporting the measure but, as I say, with certain reservations. There are some people who can take two glasses of spirits and still be competent and there are many more of us who on this small amount of liquor would most probably feel incapable of driving or of performing any useful function.
This boils down to a battle of the small ones, the number one can take without reaching the statutory limit, as indicated by Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon was most reasonable in his approach to the problem. He indicated that there was a need for some limit. I am sure that no matter what limit was set by the Minister, there would be objections from some quarters. Everything should be done to free the roads from drunken drivers. It is a good day's work when any action of ours keeps these people, who are a hazard to other road users, off the road.
If I had my way possibly I would go much further than the Minister. We have had suggestions about leaving loopholes; we should not leave any loophole for drunken drivers. If we decide on a limit, as in the case of any other limit, it must be enforced as a limit. I believe this limit is reasonable and I fully agree that the Minister should implement it without leaving loopholes. I think some Deputy spoke about fellows taking a chance, then the public are at the mercy of people who drink to excess and take chances. Far too many people are taking chances at present and we have far too many accidents as a result of drunken driving.
Deputy Andrews spoke about statistics but statistics will not give a clear picture of the situation in regard to drunken driving. Recently, I sought information regarding the number of traffic accidents at Walkinstown Cross and was told that one accident took place there in a month. I myself know that at least two accidents a night take place at this cross and in this period in which I was told there was one accident, I was a witness myself of four accidents taking place. From people who live close by, including some members of the clergy and others who attended people knocked down at this crossroads during this period, I know that at least two accidents a night take place there. The statistics in regard to drunken driving do not give the complete picture. People involved in such accidents are very clever and will pay any price to cover up the facts when they know they are at fault and have been drinking to excess. This happens day in, day out. We must have some reasonably strict line where a decision can be made as to whether a person has consumed too much alcohol.
Nobody wants to deprive anybody of the opportunity to enjoy a drink with his friends at night after work. There are plenty such opportunities without creating a hazard on the road on leaving the public house or other place where drink is consumed. This Bill is not intended to deprive people of the opportunity to enjoy a drink with their friends but there is the question of limiting the amount one can consume when one is driving a vehicle. There must be some limit. For that reason I strongly support the Minister and I trust that this measure will contribute to reducing the number of accidents and to putting off the road drunken drivers and people who have no sense of their responsibility to others. Far too many take chances and far too many lives have been lost as a result of drink.
I am sure that the results appearing after investigation do not always reveal the true position. I was a witness of two accidents and in one case the driver, in my opinion, was very drunk but by the time the matter was fully discussed in the court he was seen as an archangel—he had not got a drop. The man was unable to stand when he got out of the car. He had to be lifted from the car and put sitting in the ditch. He was incapable of standing and yet we were told that man was fit to drive, or that was the opinion of the judge who tried the case. In this Bill we are defining clearly how far one can go and still be within the law.
(Cavan): After listening to Deputy Dowling, it is necessary to repeat that the House appears to be unanimous on the necessity to put drunken drivers off the road. I do not think anyone here is an advocate of the drunken driver or approves of drunken driving or of impaired driving which is a much lesser offence. Neither in the Act of 1961 nor in this Bill are we talking of the socially drunk. We all agree that a person who is socially drunk should be off the road: take his licence from him. Within the limits of these two measures we are speaking of a person whose judgment is impaired due to the consumption of intoxicating liquor and we agree that such a person should go off the road.
He can be just as dangerous.
Or even more.
(Cavan): We agree on that. I understand it is common case that we are not even considering the socially drunk. Neither of these pieces of legislation even seriously consider him. We go further and agree that a person whose judgment is impaired as a result of the consumption of intoxicating liquor should not drive a car. There is even something to be said for one of the statements made by Deputy Dowling if taken away from the remainder of his extravagant remarks, that is, that there should be no loopholes left to a person whose judgment is seriously impaired when driving a car. I respectfully say to the House that if my amendment is accepted, there will be no loopholes because a person in whose bloodstream there is a concentration of 125 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood or a person who refuses to submit himself to a blood test will be deemed to be unfit to drive until he satisfies the court by satisfactory evidence that his judgment was in fact unimpaired at the material time. That is my amendment in a nutshell.
If I may say so with respect, this morning's debate was very constructive and helpful. We have been told from time to time that the courts have no proper yardstick by which to decide when judgment is impaired. We are giving them a yardstick in my amendment and we are saying that a man's judgment is impaired until he proves the contrary. Take the case mentioned by Deputy Briscoe this morning. The evidence will have to be satisfactory evidence—I should prefer to have the evidence of a doctor but I do not want to write that into the Bill—by a doctor or a member of the Garda.
As at present.
(Cavan): It will have to be evidence that he was fit to drive. The evidence of the medical practitioner and the garda will have to be so satisfactory as to rebut the onus which I propose to put on the shoulders of the accused person, that is, as against the attitude of the Minister that where the defendant refuses to undergo the blood test, he will be deemed to be unfit.
Deputy Briscoe gave me food for thought when he said that you could have a case where a member of the Garda is satisfied that the person was perfectly normal, perfectly able to drive a car and that his judgment was not impaired, but because his blood test shows 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood his driving is impaired. He is convicted; he is fined and his driving licence is taken away for 12 months. That will be the position.
We had Deputy Gibbons giving us two cases of which he had experience. One excuse was that the man was up all night and he got off; another man had concussion and he got off. If my amendment becomes law, the district justice will say: "Oh, well, if there is doubt as to whether the man's condition is due to fatigue, loss of sleep or concussion, I have a yardstick here: there is a concentration of 125 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood in his blood. At the moment a great many people are not satisfied with such a concentration and therefore I am afraid I must come to the conclusion that the onus of proof placed on the accused has not been discharged." As the law stands at the moment, if a doctor goes into court and says that he examined the accused and that his condition could be due to the consumption of alcohol or to fatigue, there is doubt in the mind of the district justice as to whether the man's condition is due to the consumption of alcohol or to fatigue. The man must get the benefit of this doubt.
At the moment if a doctor comes into the court and says that this particular man got a head injury, that he bumped his head against the car and that he is behaving a bit funny, that could be due to the fact that he cracked his head against the car or could be due to the consumption of alcohol. As I understand the law, that creates a reasonable statutory doubt in the mind of the district justice. Under the law, as we understand it, the accused person is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
There is no question of a doubt if my amendment is accepted. If there is a concentration of 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood the man is presumed to be guilty of a statutory offence. If the doctor comes in and says that the man's attitude could be due to alcohol or fatigue, there is then again a doubt in the mind of the district justice but the onus of proof that the man is fit has not been discharged. I hope I am making myself clear. If the doctor merely comes in under the law, as I want it to be, and says that the man's condition could be due to alcohol, fatigue or concussion, the accused has not discharged the onus of proof and will be convicted under this section. I say that that is going far enough and is putting a strong enough weapon into the Minister's hands to rid the road of impaired driving. I am not going to refer any more to drunken driving. When we talk about drunken driving, we are creating a wrong impression. My amendment gives a strong enough weapon to the Minister.
When I say I am fortified in my argument by the Report of the Commission on Driving while under the influence of Drink or Drugs, set up on 14th September 1961 and which reported to the Minister on 15th May 1963 that what I say is desirable and what the Minister proposes is wrong and undesirable, I think I am on very firm ground. When I quote from an address, which was criticised here last week, by the President of the Safety First Association of Ireland to bus drivers in November 1966, a few months ago, who confirms he still believes—he was a member of the Commission—that the Commission are right, that I am right and the Minister is wrong, I think I am on very firm ground indeed. The Minister, having heard arguments from all sides of the House this morning, should have another look at this section and should give it some further consideration. He may have been influenced by the fact that he thought my proposal was given a fair trial in England but I hope I have convinced him this morning that it was not given any trial in England and was never the law in England.
I thought we had fairly well dealt with this section and with this amendment last week. As far as I can see, we can go on with the process of repeating the arguments for and against forever. This morning so far it has simply been a review of what was said here last week. Deputy Fitzpatrick maintains that if we accept his proposal to make this prima facie evidence, putting the onus on the driver of proving his fitness to drive, the position will be satisfactory and we will have power to deal with this type of driver. I maintain that it is quite obvious if this is only to be prima facie evidence—in other words, it is only the district justice who justifies the State in bringing the matter to the obvious conclusion—that the argument as to whether the driver is impaired in his driving ability or not will continue as at present to revolve around the evidence of a clinical nature, the evidence regarding the driver's behaviour. It is on this type of evidence that the case will be decided in future, as at present.
This is not sufficient for what I want to establish in this Bill. The scientific test which I am proposing in this section will be largely irrelevant if we accept the amendment. We will be to all intents and purposes back to the present position of relying on evidence as to the man's behaviour and for clinical evidence as to his condition. This is not satisfactory. I am satisfied that the public in general accept that this position is not satisfactory.
Deputy Fitzpatrick says that we all want to put the drunken driver off the road, and not alone that but want to put the impaired driver off the road. I maintain that his proposal here will make it impossible for us to do this successfully because of the position that exists at present.
I disagree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that the proposal to make this scientific evidence as to the blood-alcohol content conclusive evidence of an offence is contrary to our legal code in that it involves the presumption of being drunk until proved otherwise. The offence the driver will be convicted of is the offence that his blood-alcohol content has been raised to this level. A person will be guilty of this new offence if he raises his blood-alcohol content to the level specified in this section. That can only be proved by a scientific test as proposed in the Bill. It cannot be established by the clinical evidence or by a person's behaviour. A person's behaviour in carrying out other actions other than driving a car may be perfectly normal and his ability to act while driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle may be impaired, even though his behaviour otherwise is beyond reproach.
The only way it can be established that a person has raised his blood-alcohol content to this dangerous level is by some scientific test as proposed here. The two tests we are proposing are a blood test or a urine test. Unfortunately, the breathaliser test has not been established to be sufficiently reliable as to be taken as conclusive evidence. So, at present at any rate, these are the only two really scientific tests that are available. There is no other way of establishing whether a person has committed this offence, which I am proposing to create, of driving after he has raised his blood-alcohol content to this level. If we establish it by these scientific tests, then there is no reason to assume a man guilty. He is guilty if he is driving, and if we pass this legislation, this offence will be committed and there is no use in assuming something that has not been proved.
With regard to Deputy Fitzpatrick's suggestion to give his amendment a fair trial, my stand on that is that this will be very close to the present position. Surely this has had a fair trial and it has not been successful in reducing the rate of accidents, and the public demand something else.
Deputy Fitzpatrick at one stage referred to the new offence which I am proposing to create as a lesser offence. I do not agree that it is a lesser offence and I think Deputy Fitzpatrick went back——
(Cavan): The Minister misunderstood me.
The Deputy at one stage said it was a lesser offence but he corrected that later and admitted that it is not a lesser offence. In my opinion, it is not a lesser offence and, in fact, a person's ability to react responsibly in times of danger and stress while driving is impaired, and a lot of people would say that such a person is a greater danger than the person who is really drunk and practically incapable, as we understand it at present. The person who is stimulated by alcohol and whose confidence in himself is exaggerated rather than the reverse, is, in fact, a greater danger on the road than the person who is practically incapable due to the consumption of alcohol and who is obviously so incapable.
Deputy Briscoe, I think, takes a completely unrealistic approach to this whole matter. He deplores the drunken driver. We all deplore the drunken driver. That is not enough. I am not interested in the drunken driver here. The present position with regard to drunken drivers will remain. It is a different person I want to get at— the person who is not drunk but who is not fit to drive a car. It has been scientifically established that people reach the stage of being unfit to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle on the public road long before they become drunk. This continuous reference to drunken drivers is completely irrelevant here. The question at issue here has nothing whatever to do with that. This is a question of ensuring that people will not take the terrible risk of driving cars when they are unfit to do so.
(Cavan): That they will not drive with this percentage of alcohol in their blood, whether they are fit to drive or not.
It is doubtful if anybody, even the most hardened and practised drinker, is fit to drive when the blood-alcohol content has been raised to this level. I suppose it is impossible to establish that every individual would, in fact, be impaired at this level. It may be that there are some exceptional individuals who can raise their blood-alcohol content to this level and still be fit to drive. If there are such people, they are exceptional; they are in a small minority. Even they can never be sure that they will retain this facility throughout their lives or that they will retain it in all circumstances. We all know that a person's capacity to consume alcohol and still retain his faculties varies according to his physical condition, according to when he had his last meal and how fast he can consume alcohol, and other such considerations. There may, conceivably, be people who will not be impaired in their driving ability at this blood-alcohol level, but if there are, they are few and far between. They are exceptional, but it is in the public interest to ensure that people who are affected will not be allowed to drive and that they will commit an offence if they drive. There is no other way of establishing it than by scientific tests. The whole object of these sections is to safeguard the public from those people who at present endanger themselves, their passengers and other members of the public with impunity.
Deputy Briscoe makes the fundamental mistake of thinking that what we are trying to deal with here is the drunken driver. I am asking the Dáil to give power to control a different problem altogether, the person who is very probably a greater danger to the public and a more prolific cause of accidents. I thoroughly agree with Deputy Gibbons that other factors cause accidents and may, in fact, cause more accidents, such as a person suffering from loss of sleep, great tiredness, mechanically defective vehicles, and so on. These things also cause accidents and people who drive in those circumstances are also dangerous to the public. All possible steps should be taken to safeguard the public from that type of person as well.
The fact that there are those other causes of accidents is no reason why we should not try to deal as effectively as possible with the particular cause which is relevant to this section. I want to point out again to the House that the quantities Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned as giving rise to this level of alcohol content are applicable only to certain types of people and to alcohol being consumed in certain conditions. The reference to 2¾ pints of beer is applicable only to a person weighing 11 stone who drinks this quantity on an empty stomach and does so in an exceptionally short space of time— drinks it practically in the one continuous action. People who drink in the normal way, under normal conditions, may conceivably consume more without committing the offence I propose to create.
The fundamental point which some Deputies seem to be ignoring, and it does not seem to be possible to get them to understand, is that this is not a question of dealing with a drunken driver. The proposal is to create this new offence. Therefore, the issue involved in this simple offence is very simple indeed. It is purely and simply whether or not we create the offence of having 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. If we decide to create the offence, there is only one way to establish that this level of blood-alcohol content has been reached, and it is something which cannot be established either by clinical opinion or by lay observation.
With regard to the suggestion by Deputy Andrews that we should wait before we tackle this problem until statistics are available, I do not know how anybody can imagine that we could compile statistics of accidents caused by people who had raised their blood-alcohol content to the level of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres without having the exact powers asked for in this Bill. I can see no possibility whatever of compiling these statistics. With regard to the question of statistics of accidents caused by drink, I dealt with that on Second Stage. I pointed out that such statistics as are available at the moment or such statistics as could be compiled are entirely valueless. Deputy Dowling gave us some of the reasons why this is so. Accidents are ascribed to drink only where it is the belief of the gardaí that it would be possible to establish legally they were, in fact, caused by drink. Obviously, that is the vast minority of such cases, cases which were either caused by drink or were contributed to by the consumption of alcohol. Certainly in the case of a serious accident in which a driver is injured it is impossible to test the driver, which is the normal thing. I am satisfied that the compilation of such statistics would be a complete farce. They would be valueless and I am not in the least interested in embarking on what I regard as the nonsensical operation of trying to compile such statistics.
Deputy Treacy, while supporting the proposal in the main, thought that possibly the level of blood-alcohol content which we are proposing here might be rather severe. The probability is that the level might be higher than it should be. In Great Britain the level adopted is 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres and we are going a considerable distance beyond that. I might remind Deputy Treacy that when the 1961 Act was being passed here, a Labour Party Deputy proposed a level for this offence of 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. All the evidence is that, if anything, the level proposed here is too high and it is more likely that in future this level will be reduced rather than that there should ever be a proposal to raise it.
Any further discussion here is largely irrelevant, because it is purely and simply a question of whether or not we create this offence. If we create it, it can be established only by scientific test and in no other way. It is a question of whether or not the blood-alcohol content has been raised to this level and clinical observation or evidence as to a person's behaviour or any evidence to prove that he is, in fact, fit to drive, although he has done this, would be completely irrelevant. A decision based on such evidence would be in regard to a completely different offence from that which I am asking the House to create.
I shall be very brief. I do not think the Minister doubts the sincerity of the people taking part in this debate but I should like to say to him that he was quite right. I was under a complete illusion that this was to catch drunken drivers and I learn that it is to catch impaired drivers, which is a totally different thing. I appreciate this point now. I may have been very slow in coming to this. I do not believe that any man can have 125 milligrammes of alcohol in his bloodstream, per 100 millilitres, and not be impaired; this I accept.
(Cavan): The Minister does not say that; the Minister says there are such people.
I said there were but that it is extremely doubtful.
I am sorry that Deputy Fitzpatrick has lost my support for his amendment because I admit I was completely off the beam. I can see now exactly what the Minister is getting at, particularly in view of the fact that he has mentioned there is in England a measure of 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. It is not easy for me to stand up here and say I was wrong but I believe my arguments in view of what the Minister has said were incorrect and I go along now with the Minister in relation to the section.
It is a very important point because many members of the public will not realise that it is designed not to catch the drunken driver but the driver whose ability has been impaired by the consumption of alcohol. I was also interested to note that the 2¾ pints related to their being consumed within a very short period, almost one after another, on an empty stomach, and that a man's normal evening's drinking would not necessarily be affected over a long period.
I should like to make this point— I know it has nothing to do with the Minister's Department—but the curse of drinking in this country is this business of buying rounds and drinking against the clock. Maybe if somebody could remove these licensing hours and people were free to drink slowly, instead of drinking against the clock, we would have a lot less drunken driving.
The Minister regards as a very foolish notion the views put forward by some Deputies, and by some authoritative spokesman for the liquor trade, as such, that a concentration of 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood represents about 2¾ pints of stout and approximately two glasses of liquor, say, whiskey. The Minister says that may be so, that in a person of about 11 stone weight who would consume that amount of alcohol on an empty stomach this is the effect it would achieve. It is very important that the public at large shall understand fully and clearly and without any ambiguity whatsoever what precise penalties are contained in section 28. Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment is:
and if there is present in his body a quantity of alcohol such that within 3 hours after so driving or attempting to drive the concentration of alcohol in his blood will exceed a concentration of 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood he shall be deemed until the contrary is proved to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.
I want the Minister to try to say if he can, if he disputes the quantities of drink we have mentioned—2¾ pints or two glasses of liquor—the amount of alcohol he or his experts say this represents in terms of pints and spirits?
(Cavan): That is the controversy: nobody knows.
The drinking public are entitled to know. The reference to milligrammes and millilitres means nothing to us even in this House. These are very technical terms and the drinking public and those of us who are anxious to keep death off the roads are anxious to know approximately how much alcohol, spelled out in terms of pints and half-ones, say, equates with this 125 milligrammes?
Over what period of time?
Let us keep the three hour period in mind. The Minister should now be in a position to tell us in his opinion and in the opinion of his experts what amount of alcohol this fairly represents in the average person. If we are to win respect for this measure and the co-operation of the public, drinking people should clearly know when they have crossed the Rubicon and incurred the serious penalties of this section and the following section if they exceed X number of pints or X number of half-ones. We should forget about milligrammes and millilitres and spell out in plain King's English what we are talking about. It is not good enough for the Minister to disregard the opinions of responsible people in the trade that the milligrammes referred to here can amount to less than three pints of stout. This will come as a shock, I maintain, to the average drinking person who likes a few pints.
I should much prefer if we could have greater clarification of what is involved when we talk in terms of milligrammes and millilitres and have it spelled out in terms of pints and half-ones as the case might be. I appreciate that there is some difficulty about it but if one section of the trade and certain Deputies of this House can bring forward a measurement or a standard in this regard, surely it is not outside the ingenuity of the Minister's experts to tell us precisely what amount of alcohol this means from the point of view of the average consumer.
(Cavan): Briefly, I want to correct the record in view of some things the Minister said. He says that if my amendment is accepted, the law will be very much as it is at the present time. This is clearly not so. If the Minister thinks that, as I am sure he does, he does not clearly appreciate the significance of my amendment. The significance of my amendment is shifting the onus of proof on to the accused. At the present time the State must prove that a man is impaired. If my amendment is accepted, the man who is charged must prove that he is not impaired. During my professional experience, a very high percentage—I would say probably 80 per cent—of the people for whom I have acted and who were acquitted or whom I have seen being acquitted in courts were acquitted on application for a direction by the defence because the State had not proved their case. If my amendment is accepted, that can never happen again. There will be no such thing as a direction if the 125 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood is there. I hope that is clear on the record and clear in the minds of the Deputies. I will go so far as to say that if that is accepted as being in effect the result of my amendment it means a tremendous change in the law as we understand it at the present time.
The Minister stated that we are dealing in section 28 with the impaired driver. In section 28 we are going to punish a person whose blood alcohol concentration is 125 milligrammes to 100 millilitres, whether he is impaired or not. Let us get that clear on the record. It is known from statistics and from the best authority that can be had in the country that while a great many people will be impaired at this concentration there is a fair percentage who will not be impaired. Let us put the record straight on that.
I have the greatest sympathy for Deputy Treacy's commonsense approach in his last remarks when he asks for guidance for the public and a yardstick for drivers by which they will know when they are committing an offence because they will not know now when they have committed an offence. I emphasised this point several times in the course of my remarks and I do not want to over-emphasise it. One of my most serious complaints about this section is that a man may be committing an offence, violating this section without knowing it. The Minister admits that a person could be outside this section having consumed 2¾ pints of stout but says he would have to do it pretty quickly.
Various people have different views about drinking, usually depending on whether they drink themselves or depending more importantly on whether they think that other people should drink. I do not know whether the House in general would think that four pints of stout is an abnormal amount of drink. It is a matter of opinion. If the Minister disagrees with 2¾ pints, the figure which has been quoted, I do not think he can disagree with paragraph 8 on page 125 of the Report of the Commission on Driving While under the Influence of Drink or a Drug:
As a very general guide it may be stated that a man of 11 stone weight would be unlikely to exceed a blood alcohol level of 125 mg. unless he drank more than 6 small whiskeys or gins in a period of approximately two hours, or more than 4 pints of stout or beer in the same period.
It is a matter for the House to decide whether drinking four pints within two hours, presumably on a normally full stomach, is heavy drinking. That is a matter of opinion, but, reading that paragraph, it is clear that as a general rule or as a general guide, individuals drinking less than that over two hours, presumably on a normally full stomach, would have this concentration. It is admitted as a general principle that one person can have such a concentration of alcohol and not be impaired, while another person would be impaired. Therefore, I have the greatest sympathy with Deputy Treacy's approach to the problem which this section will create for the ordinary law-abiding citizen.
Let us not leave section 28 without bearing in mind that if we pass it, and if the Minister has no further thoughts about it, section 29 follows as night follows day. Section 29 is the section which says that a man must submit himself to blood being extracted from his body with a hypodermic syringe and that if he does not—if he says he will not submit to a blood test—he can be brought to court, fined, put in jail and have his driving licence suspended. Once we accept section 28, we are right into section 29.
Has he not got the alternative of a urine test?
(Cavan): He has in certain circumstances, but there are cases where a blood test is compulsory. Section 29 follows section 28 and that is the provision in section 29 with which we will be dealing shortly.
(Dublin): I am rather dubious about this section. As someone who is engaged in the trade, I have never at any time encouraged drunken driving. Those of us who drive cars with our families are always rather dubious about driving at night in case this particular type of person is on the road. I am under the impression that we are going too far too quickly and that we are going to bring within this section people who are innocent.
As other speakers have pointed out, there is no indication for any man who wants to take a drink of how much he may take. The Minister has not given any guideline as to exactly what amount of drink we may consume or as to the alcohol content of the various drinks. If this Bill passes, the public will be left completely in the dark. If I wish to partake of refreshment, the Minister has not told me the alcohol content of each drink. If I go out to a lounge or a hotel tonight, there is no indication as to how far I can go or where I must stop.
I am in agreement with the breathaliser test in principle, but I think the offence is too great. It should be a separate offence and if you are caught with a certain amount of alcohol, it should carry a certain penalty. In my opinion, the onus should be placed on the policeman to charge me with drunken driving and take me to court and say this is the offence with which he is charging me. It is wrong to take this test, find this amount of alcohol in my blood and disqualify me from driving. We are going too far and we are bringing in a very dangerous section if we bring this in. I can visualise many innocent people who will be caught within this 2½ pints of stout——
(Cavan): 2¾ pints of stout.
(Dublin): 2¾ pints of stout. There are people like dockers who work in an overheated atmosphere for an hour or two hours and it is one of the regulations that they must get a break. It is nothing unusual for them to take a certain amount of that type of beverage. This happens with dockers and in breweries where people work in a very heated atmosphere. If such a person drives home for lunch and a policeman stops him, he can lose his licence. That is taking it too far.
I am also concerned about an innocent person who goes out at night. He has no guideline as to what he is to drink. Once he steps outside the door he can be challenged by a policeman and can automatically lose his licence. I should like to see this as a separate offence. If the person has this amount of alcohol, there should be a fine, but the onus should be placed on the policeman to prove that he was incapable of driving. We could bring in this kind of legislation and see how it works. If at a later stage we thought it unsuccessful, we could go a little further, but I would be very careful about introducing it in its present form.
We are trying to encourage tourism and various other types of trade. We are opening car-ferries. Will this have a depressing effect on our tourist industry? I cannot answer that at the moment. The Minister might tell us if he thinks it will have any effect on our tourist industry and on the car-ferries. It is mandatory at the moment—and no doubt the Minister for Local Government is aware of this—for any licensed premises or hotels opening today to have car parks. Does this mean that we want to encourage people who patronise hotels to go out and drive? One seems to contradict the other, in my opinion.
It is part of local government law that anyody who opens a hotel bar or licensed lounge bars must provide sufficient car parking space. This encourages people to get out their cars and go drinking. This Bill should be doing away with car parking at places where drink is sold. We should be providing here that signs be put up that no car parking will be allowed within two miles of any place where drink is sold or consumed. On the section, my opinion is that the penalty for this offence should be less than disqualification. There should be an offence by all means, but if the man who consumes that amount of drink is to be penalised, there should be an onus on the policeman who finds him in such a condition to prove the case in court.
The only viewpoint that has been raised is the suggestion that I should endeavour to indicate to people what amounts of different types of drink it is safe for them to consume without reaching the blood-alcohol level specified in the section. I should not like to advise what are safe quantities to consume in normal circumstances. I do not know what normal circumstances are: they vary with the individual, and the question of the state of health and physical fitness comes into it. It is the blood-alcohol content that affects ability to drive, not the quantity of liquor consumed and it is this which must be the test.
I do not think it reasonable to ask me to provide an alternative test of the number of small whiskeys or pints consumed during a specified period by different people of different physiques. If I were to do so, is it to be taken as an adequate defence to show that even though the blood-alcohol content had been raised to this level, the amount of drink which I specified had not in fact been consumed during the specified period? Am I to draft out a table showing people's weights on the one hand, showing the different quantities of all the different types of alcoholic drink that are available that could be consumed within different periods for each different category of person? This, in itself, would be valueless because it would also depend on the physical condition of the person concerned.
If a person, when driving a car, insists on sailing as close to the wind as possible, it is not unreasonable to ask him to establish for himself just how much drink he can consume without committing this offence; but it is certainly not reasonable to ask me to do it for him. The only thing I can do is to direct people's attention to Appendix V of the Report of the Commission on Driving While Under the Influence of Drink or a Drug. It is a report of an eminent member of the Commission, Professor Hickey, on tests conducted by him. In it he gives a table— Table I—from which Deputy Fitzpatrick has been quoting. In paragraph 2, which I shall quote fully, it is stated:
The amounts of drink listed in Table I are the minimum quantities that must have been taken to produce the blood alcohol levels stated. To produce these levels the quantity of drink would have to be consumed very quickly. In practice, two-thirds of the population ...
We do not know which two-thirds.
... could drink half as much again and many individuals ...
We do not know who they are.
... could drink twice the quantities listed without exceeding the stated blood alcohol level provided the drink was not taken at an unusually rapid rate. The human body eliminates the amount of alcohol in approximately one ounce of whiskey or gin or in a half a pint of average stout or beer per hour. Accordingly for prolonged periods of drinking an amount equivalent to half a pint of beer or stout, or a little less than a small whiskey could be regarded as disposed of in each hour.
I do not think it would be possible for me to indicate to every individual in the country, who wants to drive his car and consume the maximum possible amount of liquor while doing so, a reliable guide as to what he could consume in all the different circumstances of environment and state of health.
If such a person is determined to take this risk, I do not think it is unreasonable for me to say to him: "Make this calculation yourself; get out your stopwatch and time yourself and decide when you have eliminated the effects of a sufficient quantity of alcohol and then go ahead and consume more." If he wants to do that, it is reasonable for me to say he should take these precautions himself.
Paragraph 8 of Appendix V states:
As a very general guide it may be stated that a man of 11 stone weight would be unlikely to exceed a blood alcohol level of 125 mg. unless he drank six small whiskeys or gins in a period of approximately two hours, or more than four pints of stout or beer in the same period.
If people of 11 stone weight want to take that as a guide, they can do so but at their own risk, not with any authority given by me because, as the professor says, this is a very general guide.
Such a man would be unlikely to exceed the blood alcohol content but Professor Hickey does not say it would be impossible. One of the difficulties about disposing of the section is the fact that while I am here all the time, Deputies can come and go and we can go on forever, as far as I can see, with new Deputies coming and going, raising the points Deputies Fitzpatrick, Treacy and others, who have been here all the time, had already raised and to which I had replied. Our discussion here will be completely inconclusive if the same points are to be raised over and over again.
This is the only new thing that has been raised: Deputy Treacy made the not unreasonable request that there should be some indication, in easily intelligible terms, as to what a person can do safely and what he cannot do, but I want to point out that I cannot give a reliable guide. The best Professor Hickey could do was to indicate on the basis of these tests what appeared to be fairly general guides. However, he indicated that there can be no undertaking given to anybody in any particular set of circumstances as to what amount of alcoholic drink he can safely consume.
It all boils down to the fact that it is the individual's duty to the general public to ensure that he does not take this risk and does not commit this offence. In view of the seriousness of the act of driving a motor car, in view of the disastrous consequences for himself and his passengers and for completely uninvolved members of the public, I think it is reasonable for us to require people to ensure that they do not impair their driving ability by raising their blood alcohol content to this level and to put the onus on the person himself of not consuming alcohol in such quantities and at such a rate as will produce this condition.
(Dublin): I believe that when we create an offence of this kind, we must spell out to members of the public how they are going to break this law. If we have today an offence of speeding, limits of 50 mph or 40 mph are laid down. I have a speedometer in my car which points out to me if I am breaking the law. I have no excuse for committing this offence. Other laws and penalties point out conclusively that, if you do such-and-such a thing, you will be liable to prosecution. We must spell out to the public in no uncertain fashion at what stage they are committing this offence. We cannot cloud it in a vague way as we are in this Bill.
Nothing could be less vague than 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood.
(Cavan): Instead of parking facilities, the publicans will have to install breathalisers.
Let them do so: it might be a good idea.
(Cavan): The Minister's reply to the Deputy's question demonstrates more clearly than anything we have heard yet just how unworkable and unfair this section will be. The Minister said he does not know, nor do the people advising him know, how much a person can consume and drive, that it is for the person concerned to find out any way he likes. But if he is caught with the guilty percentage in his blood——
It is a high limit.
(Cavan):——he can lose his licence. It brings us back to what Deputy Booth said. We are, in effect, saying; “if you drink, don't drive.” Table I of Appendix V gives the minimum intake of Irish whiskey or gin, and average Irish beer or stout capable of producing certain blood alcohol levels. At 125 milligrammes, we are given 4½ small whiskeys or 2¾ pints of beer. There are no “ifs” or “buts” about that. Admittedly, Professor Hickey said in paragraph 2 that in practice two-thirds of the people could drink half as much again. That would make it, I think, about 5½ pints. This is what I am complaining about. You can have a number of innocent, law-abiding, capable people caught up in this through no fault of their own. You could go the whole way and say, as Deputy Booth says: “If you drink, don't drive.” But I do not think we are in that state of mind yet. I do not think the country would accept that. In my opinion, the reply given to Deputy Treacy proves that this will be an unnecessary hardship on people. The only safe way is not to drink at all or have the publicans install breathalisers or other instruments to test people before they get into their cars. Or else, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, prohibit cars within a certain distance of public houses.
I want to get the record straight. I was not suggesting for a moment that we should legislate by statute to say: "If you drink, don't drive or if you drive, don't drink." What I did say, and what I will repeat, is that the only safe way for a driver to behave, if he wishes to save himself from the danger not only of an accident but of a prosecution, is not to drink at all. Several speakers have said they would like the Minister to give some indication as to what they must drink. I cannot imagine anything further from the Minister's mind than suggesting to people what they may drink. They are not under any obligation to drink anything at all unless they want to. To suggest it is permissible to drink alcohol up to a certain limit before driving is, I think, putting temptation in the way of drivers—a temptation we should try to remove from them.
What we are trying to do in this Bill—I support the Minister absolutely to the limit on this—is to create a scientifically established, technical statutory offence, not because that offence in itself means that driving skill is necessarily impaired but because there is too high a risk of driving ability being impaired to allow of any temptation. I support the Minister also in his contention that the amendment would put the law back to approximately where it was before. There is no clinical test known that can establish driving ability. There are certain tests which are used—walking along a white line and picking up something off the floor—but those are all arbitrary tests and are not scientific in any way. They are only sufficient to allow a man to have an opinion based on some test, but it is far from conclusive. If Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment were accepted, it would give a false sense of security to moderate drinkers. They would say: "I will take a chance on it. I will probably be able to fight my way out of this. I know a doctor, a broadminded man without straining his conscience in any way and, if I get him down quickly, he will be able to satisfy himself I am reasonably able to drive." That opens the door again. We have got to stand on this statutory technical offence. Once we weaken on that, we have given the whole thing away.
I am not disregarding the report of the Commission, but we have to remember the Commission dealt with the matter in a theoretical way. The members of the Commission were not the people who will have to enforce the law. It is only when you are in an executive capacity, as the Minister is—the man who has to frame the law and then enforce it—that you can see that section 28, as drafted, is the only way in which you can properly do it.
I would not contest for a moment that certain people with an alcohol content above that set out in the section may not have their driving impaired. I admit that there may be something in what Deputy Treacy says, that certain people's enjoyment of an evening may be impaired or even ruined by having to restrict their drinking but it is far better that people's enjoyment of an evening should be ruined and that they should live to see tomorrow than that they should have a hell of a good night and wake up dead in the morning wrapped around a telegraph pole.
(Cavan): That should be an interesting experience, to wake up dead.
I am talking about conscientious people.
I seriously hope the fate I have described will not overtake the Deputy. It would be a most alarming experience. We have got to get down to the hard facts of life, that once you allow opinion, technical opinion, lay opinion or anything else, to be brought into legal proceedings, you are bound to have doubts arising which, very rightly, must be resolved in favour of the accused. The result would be that this section would become something of a laughingstock or that people would feel that it was worth while taking a sporting chance and having just one more for the road. That is one thing we have to get them to come off at all costs. They must have no chance of escape. They must be told, as they are going to be told in the Bill, that too high an alcohol content is an offence and that is the end of it and there is no defence against it except another analysis which queries the scientific finding.
We have got to get away from this feeling that we can encourage people to drink. We have to leave them in a state of doubt. That is far better than to tell them to go on by all means and have five pints, six pints, four half-ones, three large ones, whatever it may be. That is only encouraging people to do the one thing which we want them not to do. If there is this doubt, as there will be, a lot of people will be prepared to take the obvious solution and just not have the drink if they are going to drive. If we do this, we will make a very marked improvement in road conditions generally but if we weaken on this, we might as well throw our hat at the whole thing.
I want to express my disappointment at the Minister's reply to my pertinent query. I had hoped that if he was not in a position now, he would avail of an opportunity after consultation with his experts to translate into everyday understandable language the officialese and gobbledegook and technical terms, "milligrammes" and "millilitres" in terms of pints and half-ones, as I said. Obviously, the experts who brought out the report on drink and driving were able to do this. Dr. Hickey and others made a gallant effort to spell out in terms of drink and alcohol content what was involved. I merely ask that the Minister would make a new endeavour to translate into terms of drink consumed what 125 milligrammes and 100 millilitres mean to the drinking public.
We are legislating here for the vast majority of our people who are partial to a drink. We are imposing very severe penalties. Any of us driving a car may be stopped by a garda and, if he has the slightest suspicion that we have drink taken, he may insist on our taking a breathaliser test, may insist on a urine test and may insist on our acquiescing to a minor operation in the form of the extraction of approximately an eggcup of blood from our veins. In all the circumstances, the public are entitled to know just at what stage they transgress the law and what amount of alcohol renders them liable to all the very serious penalties under the Bill. I have not mentioned at all the question of fines—the minimum is about £100—and the most important matter of the withdrawal of a driving licence.
We are all with the Minister in his desire to eliminate death and accidents from the roads and we are all setting our faces sternly and uncompromisingly against the drunken driver. I do not want to be interpreted as seeking to compromise the Minister one iota in regard to this matter but, if we are to win respect for this measure, it is vitally important that the public should be clear as to what is involved. The public should be informed as fully as possible. It is not good enough to leave the interpretation to doctors or lawyers. We are legislating for the man-in-the-street, the man who enjoys his pint or his half-one when he can afford it. The Minister has an obligation to spell out what is involved. I appreciate the difficulty but he should spell out what is the average amount of drink, in terms of pints, whiskeys or gins, which brings one across the Rubicon as regards violation of section 28. At what stage does one cross the Rubicon?
It is not good enough to say that each person has to apply his own test. The Minister even indicated that we should purchase stopwatches in order to see how long it would take us to consume so many pints, and all the other scientific devices that are involved. Maybe our friends in the liquor trade would help us in this regard. Certainly, we are grateful to Dr. Hickey and the other experts on the Commission for the information they have given in this regard but I feel that the Minister is evading his responsibility. It is his duty. It is we who are making the law in this House and if we are to win respect for that law, it must be clearly understood by the people what is involved. It is not sufficient that we should argue among ourselves in a pub at night whether we have exceeded the 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood at any given time.
I appreciate the invidious position in which we seem to be placing the Minister. Nevertheless, I would ask him to reconsider that aspect of our query and consult again with his experts and bring back to this House an indication of what he considers the amount of alcohol, on average, that would produce the alcohol content referred to in section 28. This is important if we are to win the support and co-operation of the public for this measure.
(Cavan): I should like to conclude my remarks on this amendment unless I receive further provocation——
I have concluded, so the Deputy will not get it from me.
(Cavan):——by referring again to the Report of the Commission on Driving While Under the Influence of Drink or a Drug because I began by referring to that report and a short time ago Deputy Booth stated that the eminent judges, doctors, police officers, social workers and members of motoring organisations who were on that Commission had regard only to the theory of the subject. I think that is not so. It is clear from this report that the members of the Commission went abroad, to Switzerland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden and Denmark, and there consulted police officers, judges, medical men, who were intimately associated with this problem, and that they went to London and there took part in a seminar which was studying the same problem.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.