I do not intend to reply at any length to what was said here today. Obviously we could go on and on repeating what was said on two different days last May and what was said here again today. The only reason I got up is that Deputy Tully expressed some doubts about this section today and also on another occasion and that is the only point I should like to clear up. Deputy Tully expressed this doubt before and I drew his attention to what the position was but he may not have been in the House at the time.
I should like to point out to him that there is no question whatever of a garda going to a person's house sometime after he has arrived home after driving. The point to remember is that this is an amendment of section 49 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act and it can only be read in conjunction with that section. Section 49, subsection (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 provides:
A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle in a public place.
This is an amendment of that. The prior requirement of being in a public place is relevant so that a garda cannot require the person to take the preliminary breathaliser test unless he comes across him driving or attempting to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle in a public place. There is no question whatever of his going afterwards to the person's house. In fact, he would have no authority whatever to do that. I pointed that out in volume 227, No. 6, of the Official Report, column 1029. That is the only point I want to clear up. A garda would not, in fact, have authority to do what Deputy Tully thinks this might make possible. There is no question whatever of that.
With regard to everything else that was raised, I think there was nothing new and I would only be wasting the time of the House going over them again. The fact is that this is a simple matter at issue. The fundamental thing in the Bill is whether we are to create this new offence or not. I am asking the House to make it an offence in future for the person who drives or attempts to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle when an alcohol content of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood has been reached.
I said before that it is scientifically established that virtually everybody would have his driving efficiency seriously impaired at such a blood-alcohol level. It is as near certain as possible that everybody would have, and when Deputy Fitzpatrick said I would admit that a man when he shows this particular blood-alcohol content was incapable of driving, I said no such thing. It is not possible to prove that every single member of the human race would be affected by the test. There is no reason to believe that anybody would not be seriously affected at this blood-alcohol level. I personally believe that everybody, no matter how experienced and how accomplished a driver, would have his driving impaired at this level. That cannot be scientifically established but it is scientifically established that practically everybody would be so affected. The public are entitled to have this protection and my belief is that the public as a whole demand this protection.
It is all right for Deputies to refer to what the Commission says, as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, in May, 1963. I quote from page 43 of their report:
It may be that, as a result of experience, public opinion would in the course of time be conditioned to accept and approve of a prescribed level which would be conclusive evidence of impairment.
They went on to say:
We doubt very much if the education of opinion on the matter has yet reached that stage.
That is almost five years ago, in 1963, and I do not know how many deaths and maimings ago it was but I certainly know that in the last calendar year, the number of deaths on our roads was 415 and the number injured was 5,693, so that the total in the 12 months of 1967 between deaths and maimings was 6,108. The public have had five more years of that and it is my opinion that the public demand this protection, that they demand that the State do everything possible to ensure that people who run this terrible risk of impairing their driving efficiency when they are in control of a deadly weapon, should not be allowed to drive. They demand that the State should do everything possible to ensure that such people should not go on the road endangering their own lives, the lives of their passengers and the lives of innocent people.
I completely reject the suggestion made by my own colleague that because we cannot ensure 100 per cent enforcement of the law, we should do nothing about it. We cannot ensure that every law passed will be 100 per cent observed and enforced. We have to hope for some element of co-operation by the public. We have to depend on whatever system of enforcement we have available to us. Although we know it will not be 100 per cent effective we are called upon to safeguard the public from this kind of thing.
As I said, this is a fundamental issue, whether we establish this new offence or whether we do not. Deputy Dillon says that he will go part of the road but there is no part of the road. You either make it an offence to raise the blood-alcohol to this level or you do not. If you make it an offence, you must have some system for establishing it. As far as I can understand Deputy Dillon, he says he is prepared to make it an offence but he is not prepared to give us any method of establishing it. A breathaliser test does not establish it. Deputy Dillon suggested that we establish it by that means. That is not a reliable test.