Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport debate -
Wednesday, 17 May 2017

General Scheme of Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty - Drink Driving) Bill 2017: Discussion (Resumed)

I welcome Ms Moyagh Murdock, chief executive officer, and Ms Velma Burns, research manager, of the Road Safety Authority, RSA. This is the latest in a number of meetings we have had on this particular matter. In accordance with procedure, I wish to advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Ms Murdock to make her opening statement.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I thank the committee for the opportunity to engage with it this morning as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the road traffic Bill. When I have concluded my opening statement, Ms Burns, as RSA research manager, will explain the background to the research project, including how we came to the figures on alcohol related deaths, which might be of benefit to the committee.

The RSA mission is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on Irish roads and to make them safer for all users. This is our purpose. It is what drives us and on what we base our positions. We are not coerced or bounced into taking a view on proposals, such as this Bill, by Ministers, civil servants or vested interests. We work off the data, the evidence professionally, scientifically and independently analysed. Unapologetically, our mandate is only to make our roads safer for all road users. It is important to state that the RSA’s pre-crash report is a factual document. In it, we have presented the evidence gathered by experts from numerous fields, including Garda investigators, forensic collision investigators, public service vehicle, PSV, inspectors, coroners, medical experts, as well as information from witnesses to the prior activity of those involved in the 867 fatal collisions. The data have been compiled in line with best practice research standards. There is no emotion in the report, just facts.

From our research, all the 250 drivers who consumed alcohol and were involved in a fatal collision were deemed culpable of causing the fatal collision due to their actions, as per the investigation. That other contributory factors were also identified in many of these collisions is ancillary to the current debate. Yes, in some cases speed was deemed to be a factor in addition to alcohol. In some cases, fatigue was a factor in addition to alcohol. After the consumption of alcohol, judgment is impaired and this will affect a driver’s ability to choose the appropriate speed for the road and for the vehicle. Feelings of fatigue are exacerbated, especially the day after a heavy night, even though alcohol levels may have dropped in the system. Members will have heard the light-hearted jokes about the effect of alcohol on a person's self-awareness. For example, after even one drink, jokes appear funnier, speaking louder is better, texts are sent to people which should not be sent, people convince themselves that they are not bad dancers and, alarmingly, they think it will be okay to drive home after a drink or two, but it will not. Anyone who says different is lying. Driving becomes impaired, just like all those other more innocent actions. Collisions are complex events and result from a complex interplay of many behavioural and vehicle-infrastructural factors, and, ultimately physics and biology. It is disingenuous to say there is no evidence to support that alcohol was a factor other than a presence in collisions where the toxicology showed levels of 51-80 mg. It shows not only a lack of understanding of the effects of alcohol on the body or an unwillingness to accept the facts in the first instance, but also a lack of understanding of the cognitive skills required to complete the driving task safely.

According to the European Transport Safety Council alcohol, even in small quantities, immediately affects the brain. Effects on the human body and behaviour range from anaesthesia after large amounts of alcohol to impairment of behavioural and cognitive capabilities after small doses.

Alcohol may also decrease motivation to comply with safety standards, which may result in an active search for dangerous situations such as competitive behaviour, or excessive speed, which we saw all too often in these files. In general, all functions which are important in the safe operation of a motor vehicle can be affected by the levels of alcohol well below current legal limits operating in EU countries. To give a practical example, the latest evidence shows that the relative risk of crash involvement starts to increase significantly from 40mg per 100ml. Specifically, driving with a BAC of 50mg per 100ml increases the risk of a fatal crash by up to a factor of five.

This brings me to the critical point made by some that there is no justification for the introduction of an automatic disqualification of drivers at BAC levels of 51mg to 80mg, and that the RSA's pre-crash report provides no evidence that alcohol was a contributory factor in these collisions. I categorically refute that. The analysis in table 28 of the RSA's pre-crash report on alcohol, which the Vintners Federation of Ireland, VFI, has presented in its statement, shows that eight drivers and motorcyclists involved in fatal collisions, for whom a blood alcohol reading was available, had a BAC between 51mg and 80mg. A further 17 drivers and motorcyclists had a BAC below 50mg. A total of 25 drivers and motorcyclists with a confirmed BAC between 21mg and 80mg were responsible, therefore, for killing themselves and-or others because they consumed alcohol. Additional analysis conducted by the RSA, which is in table 1 and which was shared with the committee on 29 March 2017, showed that 35 people lost their lives and eight people were seriously injured as a result of these 25 drivers and motorcyclists choosing to drive while impaired at BAC levels of between 21mg and 80mg. The VFI has attempted to downplay the value of the lives of these people, as well as the lives of their families, by reducing them to an insignificant statistic. Presenting the figure of 1.3% is a selective use of the data in an attempt to undermine the impact of drinking and driving. It is important to state that, of those killed in alcohol-related collisions where the driver or motorcyclist had a record of alcohol consumption, 12% were killed where the BAC of the driver or motorcyclist was between 21mg and 80mg, as confirmed in table 1. Committee members can see those figures set out clearly. Furthermore, more people are being killed and seriously injured due to drivers with a BAC of less than 80mg than we have outlined in the table. This is because, in 11 cases, a positive breath test confirmed that the driver had consumed alcohol, and in a further 52 cases, there was strong evidence in the file that the driver had consumed alcohol but no toxicology report was available. We had other evidence, and Ms Burns will explain that. In addition, the RSA has not been in a position to conduct a comparable toxicology analysis of all road users involved in serious injury collisions. We have only examined fatal collisions to date but we plan to examine serious collisions later.

The committee may ask whether this trend is continuing because we have all heard that drink-driving is a thing of the past. We have proved in the pre-crash report on alcohol that drink-driving with a BAC of between 20mg and 80mg is killing, on average, seven to eight people per year. If that is not evidence enough for some of the opponents to the proposed legislative change, the most current data to hand are further concrete evidence that there is a problem with this type of drink-driving in Ireland. The Health Research Board, HRB, collected information on 2013 and 2014 road traffic fatalities from closed coroner files on behalf of the RSA in the context of the national drug-related death index, NDRDI. A total of 49 deceased drivers had a confirmed measurement of alcohol for analysis, and seven drivers reported BAC values between 20mg and 80 mg. This represents 14% of all drivers with a confirmed measurement of alcohol for analysis in 2013 and 2014. That analysis does not include other people who were killed or injured in those crashes. Provisional data supplied in advance of our appearance here for the period 1 January 2016 to 2 May 2017 show that of 246 drivers arrested at the scene of a crash - not detected at an MAT checkpoint or from observed behaviour - on suspicion of driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated, 38 drivers tested positive for alcohol at a BAC level between 20mg and 80mg or equivalent for breath or urine. The 38 excludes drivers who were medially unfit to be tested, deceased or who left the scene of the crash.

The Garda also provided data to the RSA that shows each year over the period 2012 to 2016 an average of 573 drivers had a fixed penalty of €200 and three penalty points imposed on them as a consequence of being found driving a vehicle in a public place while the concentrate of alcohol found to be in their systems was between 50mg and 80mg per 100ml of blood or equivalent in breath or urine. That tells us this is continuing and even this year a significant number of drivers have been arrested with BACs at this level. All this evidence confirms that we have a serious problem with alcohol consumption and driving at levels below 80mg and the current sanction is not working. Intuitively, we know that a driver is less likely to get behind the wheel after drinking if he or she knows they might lose their licence rather than face a fine and penalty points. It is much less of a risk. We believe the Bill will have a strong deterrent effect on would-be drink drivers.

We know only too well the devastating impact on families and communities when just one driver makes the decision to drink and drive and this results in someone being killed or seriously injured. We support the introduction of this Bill for all of these reasons. We agree this Bill must be supported by enforcement to be most effective, and we are working with the An Garda Síochána to address this. Over the years, Oireachtas Members have overwhelmingly supported measures initiated by RSA research to make our roads safer. They have done so, despite opposition from those who today seek to misinterpret data which have been scientifically and independently analysed. If their opposition had prevailed, I have no doubt more lives would have been lost on our roads, and without this legislation, more lives will be lost. We believe that losing one's licence for three months for a confirmed BAC between 51mg and 80mg is a much more compelling deterrent for a driver considering whether to drink and drive compared to the current sanction of penalty points and a €200 fine. A public attitude survey of 1,000 adults conducted on behalf of the RSA in January 2017 showed that 91% of Irish adults support the introduction of a mandatory disqualification for drivers caught between 51mg and 100mg. Many of those who support this state they believe disqualification should be for 12 months.

I feel compelled to clarify a final point, and make sure it is on the record, in reference to the submission by the VFI to the committee, in which it described their interpretation of our pre-crash report as "forensic". The only valid interpretation of what happened in the fatal crashes outlined in this report was conducted by the investigating gardaí who conducted the forensic collision investigations, the expert statements of medical experts, coroners, and witness statements. Their conclusions are reflected in our report and the RSA has presented these facts. The VFI's submission is not a forensic analysis of this report. It is a vested interest and it is inappropriate to suggest that it represents "one side" of the debate. The federation has conducted a disingenuous and selective interpretation of the report and it is not in full possession of all the facts in coming to its conclusion. The report covers a period when the lowest number of road deaths were recorded in the State. Since then, the situation has, sadly, deteriorated as has the number of people involved in alcohol-related crashes at these levels.

I hope that this committee, in concluding its pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, will accept the independent evidence that supports it, the integrity of the Road Safety Authority's work in fulfilling our mission, but, most importantly, will move us one step closer to a change in the law which will make our roads safer and ultimately save lives, prevent injuries and protect our local communities from further harm.

I call Ms Velma Burns to make her statement.

Ms Velma Burns

I support everything Ms Murdock has said. All the facts are backed up by the research we have conducted. For the benefit of everyone in the room, I would like to explain the process involved in the conduct of the pre-crash study. It is a unique study in Europe as not all our counterparts across Europe have the same access as we have to the fatal investigation files. It is very valuable information for us. We are an organisation that pride ourselves on the development of evidence-based interventions, and while we have access to collision data from An Garda Síochána on a daily basis giving us the update of the number of people killed on our roads every day, that is preliminary information. The information held in the fatal investigation files is the Holy Grail. It is the definitive outcome of the investigation and allows us to identify exactly what happened in these fatal collisions. That is what is contained in this report.

Many questions were asked about various figures in the report. To explain, this is not an ordinary report. It is not based on a survey or on dry, secondary research. People's lives are accounted for in the report. I was closely involved in the commissioning of this study. We commissioned two independent researchers to conduct the data collection for us. We were granted access to the files in Garda headquarters in the Garda National Traffic Bureau. I have also had an opportunity to look at these files. A total of 867 files were analysed in the context of this five year study. That represents 88% of all the fatal collisions that occurred over that five year period.

To explain what is contained in the files, there are a series of reports in them. There is the report of the forensic collision investigator, which examines the road, the vehicle, whether skidding occurred, etc. There are also a series of medical reports, including the coroner's report and the medical reports from the hospital if the person had been in hospital for a period. There is also the vehicle inspector's report, which includes a forensic examination of the vehicle to see if there were any contributory factors. There are also very detailed witness statements, which is helpful information as to what happened prior to the crash. In the case of some of these files, for example, where we did not have a toxicology report, there may have been witness statements to the effect that a person had consumed alcohol over a period of hours before they drove. There is a huge amount of detail in them.

The files were quite harrowing for our two researchers to review. They referred to the files as boxes of death. It was painstaking work that was emotionally draining and harrowing. They were at pains to identify all the contributory factors to these collisions to help us understand exactly what caused them and, ultimately, to give us the information that would then allow us to say definitively what is causing them and how interventions can be best addressed to prevent further collisions on the roads.

That alcohol report is one of a series of reports. Drink-driving is known as one of the key killer behaviours. There are other killer behaviours. We have reports on the other killer behaviours, such as speeding. We focus on all the killer behaviours, and alcohol is one that has emerged particularly strongly from this study, being responsible for 38% of all collisions that have occurred over that five year period. It is a very important piece of research. We have used, and continue to use, the evidence in the development of all our interventions.

I call the members of the Fine Gael grouping, who have 15 minutes, although there will be adequate time available to allow every member ask questions. The members of the Fine Gael grouping may share the 15 minutes among themselves as they wish.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Moyagh Murdock and Ms Velma Burns to the meeting. I thank them for their opening submissions and I agree with almost everything they said. My belief is that we should have a zero tolerance approach to drink-driving. We heard some outrageous statements about drink-driving in this committee in recent months. The bottom line is that drink-driving is dangerous. It is the root cause of many road deaths, and it should not be tolerated.

First, for the benefit of the committee, will the witnesses again highlight the reason we should have an automatic ban on those caught drink-driving with an alcohol blood level under 80 mg? Second, Ms Murdock mentioned in her opening submission that driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 50 mg to 100 ml increased the risk of a fatal crash by a factor of five. For the benefit of the committee, will she explain the seriousness of that and perhaps give an example?

I agree with Ms Murdock that we have a serious problem with alcohol consumption and driving at levels below 80 mg. Some members of this committee seem to believe we do not have a problem. We have a serious problem. It is important that we realise that one life lost to drink-driving is one too many. If the introduction of this legislation is to save the life of only one person, we will have done a good job.

Do the witnesses believe that more can be done to educate people on the real dangers of drink-driving? Should we consider introducing a programme at secondary school level to highlight the many dangers of drinking and driving?

Ms Murdock mentioned a public attitudes survey, which showed that 91% of Irish adults support the introduction of mandatory disqualification for drivers who are caught drink-driving with a blood alcohol level of between 51 mg and 100 mg. Will she give the committee more insight into the survey, answer the other questions that were asked and perhaps give a brief outline of the demographics of the respondents? Were they mainly rural or urban dwellers?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I will start with the first question and will let Ms Burns answer the second. I will then revert to some of the other questions. The Deputy asked why we believe that introducing this change in penalty, in terms of a blood alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg, will save lives. From the research we see that too many lives are being lost as a result of people who have consumed that level of alcohol and gone on to drive. We have confirmed that at least seven to eight people a year are being killed. We see that even at the roadside crashes. In the past 16 months, a further 38 people were breathalysed at the scene of a crash and were deemed to have a blood alcohol level of between 21 mg and 80 mg. People are still taking a chance. There is a mixed message being given that it is acceptable to drink at that level and get away with an administrative fine. It is clear that the deterrent is not working.

To use the analogy of where a deterrent becomes much more effective, when not having a national car test, NCT, certificate became a penalty point offence in December 2014, we saw an 87% increase in compliance as a consequence of that. It is a very different offence, but attitudes and behaviours changed immediately. We now have over 92% compliance in this regard. That was as a result of changing the penalty. We believe, and our research supports that belief, that changing the penalty is important because it is not enough of a deterrent at the moment. People will be tempted to drive having had one or two drinks. They may think they will not be detected. We see too many people being arrested with blood alcohol levels of between 80 mg and 100 mg. Too many people are getting six months' disqualification.

Clearly, we are confusing people out there. This is an anomaly and it is causing deaths on the roads. There should be a mandatory ban for those who are caught drinking and driving, which is what this is. There is no other way to describe it. That is why the measure is necessary. The deterrent in place at the moment is not working and people are prepared to take chances. We must change those attitudes. The second question was on the research.

Ms Velma Burns

If I have understood the question correctly, it was about trying to understand more about the crash risk involved.

It is really for people listening to the programme this morning. There is no problem repeating it because it is so important. Zero tolerance is the only way. I have been involved in football all my life and I have a family. The morning after is the issue. I have children of my own. People going to work the next day after having a few drinks the night before do not realise they are over the limit. If we can save just one life, it is worth it. It is a matter of continuing to educate people.

Ms Velma Burns

Absolutely. The research on alcohol and driving is extensive and consistent. A huge number of studies have been conducted in the USA, which is the most authoritative source of such studies. Much of the research we have quoted on crash risk comes from the US studies. An analysis of 117 studies shows that they are all very consistent in their findings. They show that any amount of alcohol impairs driving, including levels below the current legal limit of 50 mg. The research shows that one's likelihood of having a crash doubles at 40 mg and that one is five or six times more likely to crash with a blood-alcohol level of 80 mg. Interestingly, much of the research shows that young drivers are much more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol, which is a very relevant finding given that young drivers are the highest risk group for fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. Due to their lack of experience, studies show they are much more vulnerable to collisions when they consume alcohol. In many cases, the error made may be a small one. However, a small error can have devastating consequences as I have seen in the individual files and cases I have looked at. It can be a split second lack of concentration which leads one to deviate from one's lane or to lose control on a bend. Whereas it might be something one could rectify if one were not under the influence of alcohol, when one is, even at the lower levels, one's judgment is impaired. We all know that and Ms Murdock set out some examples to which we can all relate.

Impairment is much more devastating when one is behind the wheel. Driving is a very complex task and one's judgment is impaired when one consumes alcohol as is one's ability to maintain one's lane and to choose the appropriate speed. The research has also shown that one is more likely to take risks. Our study shows that half of the drivers who had consumed alcohol and were involved in fatal collisions chose not to wear a seat belt. That is a much higher incidence than we have seen in our observational studies or the other studies we have conducted. Alcohol has a huge impact. To give members a sense of how we know that, many of the studies that prove it have been done in simulators. Those who saw the "Prime Time" programme recently may remember the subject being asked to drive in a driving simulator having consumed a certain amount of alcohol. A subject's reading is measured and his or her performance is monitored and measured according to key actions like maintaining lane position, choosing the appropriate speed for the road, negotiating bends and other driving tasks. It is scientific.

That brings me to my next question, which is about young people. Should we introduce a programme in secondary schools? I am a firm believer that prevention is the best cure. I was educated at the young age of 12 in my local school, which is why I became a pioneer at that age. I do not have a problem with alcohol. As I said earlier, I train football teams every month. However, people have to realise the damage alcohol can do. It is very important given the increasing levels of consumption among young people to introduce a programme in secondary schools to educate people.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

That is a really valid point. We recognise that contrary to the myth that this is an older person's issue, we are seeing a real emerging trend that the group showing the greatest propensity to drink and drive and who have admitted to taking alcohol and driven in the last 12 months is those aged under 24. As such, we have taken the immediate measure of introducing a new module in the driver theory test from October 2016 which relates completely to questions on alcohol, the law and driving. While that is not enough, it is a start. We are looking at what other educational material and interventions we need to make. We have a junior cycle course which has been piloted in a couple of schools and we need to ensure that alcohol is covered as part of that. One cannot pass a theory test now without answering at least two questions on alcohol and driving. We intend to enhance that and to introduce more complex psychological questions because, as Ms. Burns said, we must get into the minds of these young people to determine why they think it is okay. They may have a different perception about what drinking and driving is because they certainly have a different consumption level to ourselves. What was deemed a normal intake of alcohol many years ago is considerably less than is consumed now. There is the whole issue of pre-drinks which perhaps leads people to go out thinking they have not been drinking. It is therefore important to get the message to this new generation of drivers at an early stage.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a valid point about the morning after. Some 10% of fatal crashes occurred the morning after. Just because one thinks one has done the right thing the night before, one is still impaired. As such, one is not doing the right thing. One is still at a high risk of being involved in a serious crash the next day because one is still impaired. It is either because one is falling asleep or one's judgment is just as impaired as it was due to the consumption level the night before.

Does Senator O'Mahony want to use the couple of minutes left in this slot or would he prefer a proper slot of his own after we go to the other members? Would he prefer to defer it?

Is that at the end?

We have Senator O'Sullivan, Deputy Munster, Deputy Murphy and then it will be back to Deputy O'Mahony's group.

The Seanad is starting at 10.30 a.m. and we have to attend. I do not think these 15 minute slots are working.

I asked the Fine Gael grouping to share the time among its members as they wish. That is a matter for the grouping.

I am not talking about sharing. I simply do not think the 15 minute slots are working and they need to be reviewed.

We have had just over ten minutes. We will go to Senator O'Sullivan for ten minutes and we will have ten minutes for each member in the above order.

How long is left in the slot?

There is one minute.

It is an impossible situation. I agree with Senator Feighan but that is an issue within our own group.

We will have to discuss it in private session.

I apologise on behalf of my Dáil colleagues who are attending the funeral of the mother of the Vice Chairman, Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe, to which the Chairman kindly alluded earlier. I welcome the witnesses whose evidence and presentations have been compelling. I find very little fault with what has been said. For anyone with any bit of wisdom, drink driving is a bad news story. We are all on the one side on this issue. Certainly, my party takes a responsible view on it.

I have one or two queries. Deputy Troy has raised a matter a number of times and hopes to engage with the witnesses, possibly even before the day is out. How up to date are the figures and statistics that we are using? Are they the latest figures? If there is a glitch, why? Does the RSA have more recent figures that we have not seen or heard of and, if so, why? I ask these questions because, in the context of the recent Garda penalty points controversy, there is a question mark over many statistics that are in the public domain. It would be important for us to know the status of the figures that the witnesses are offering us.

Despite the crackdowns and publicity as well as the Garda's large operation over Christmas, there seems to be a continual increase in the number of offences involving people driving under the influence. Is there any solution to this and are other alternatives being considered? While we would support all endeavours that were geared towards reducing road fatalities, one wonders whether the overall process is capable of succeeding. Are there other views on how the issue might be addressed?

My only negative point relates to the hard words that have been spoken at this meeting about the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, almost as if - certainly in the Minister's view - it is the big bad wolf. To a certain extent, Ms Murdock has gone down that road as well. Like all organisations, those in the Vintners' Federation of Ireland are professionals who represent their members. I have always found them to be professional and reasonable. As every committee member will know from personal experience or anecdote, there is no more responsible person in any small community than the local publican, who is well aware of his or her responsibilities. Publicans' concern for their customers is commendable. Often, they are the first to spot problems with people's drinking. I speak from personal experience. They fill an important psychological role for people in isolated areas. As such, it is not helpful that the Vintners' Federation of Ireland should be conveyed as the big bad wolf in this story. It has a role to play.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I will start on the question about the figures being up to date and Ms Burns will continue on the ongoing workload. The figures that we referred to in our report relate to the 2008-2012 period in which this comprehensive 18-month study was conducted. It is an in-depth process and can only be conducted when we have a closed coroner's file and the case has been concluded. Ms Burns mentioned that 88% of files from that period were available to us. The remaining 12% were probably still ongoing. They could have been complex cases, under a court ruling or not been adjudicated on by a coroner or court of law for whatever reason.

A process is ongoing in terms of the 2013-2014 period. Quite a number of 2013 files are still open. In this country, it takes a long time to get a case from occurrence through to final adjudication. We cannot assess files that are still under review. We do not get to see them until a coroner is finished with them. Ms Burns might elaborate.

Ms Velma Burns

I will briefly explain our process for collecting data on 2013, 2014 and 2015 fatal collisions. Data collection on 2015's fatal collisions is ongoing and almost complete. We have an arrangement with the Health Research Board, which collects the data for us through the national drug-related death index, NDRDI, which Ms Murdock mentioned. We have a preliminary report for 2013 and 2014 based on approximately 70% of cases that were closed at the time of data collection. The results from the two studies are consistent with what we saw in our pre-crash study. They show that 31% of fatalities in 2013 and 2014 had alcohol in the toxicology. The only methodological difference with the pre-crash study is that we have only collected toxicology data on those road users who were killed. For example, if a driver was killed because the other driver involved in the collision had consumed alcohol but the second driver survived, that toxicology information is not included in the study. I am explaining this because the 31% figure is understating the problem slightly. Our evidence for 2013 and 2014 is consistent with the data from the previous five years and show that alcohol remains a significant problem in fatal collisions.

We consider ourselves to be up to date in terms of the type of study that we are undertaking. As Ms Murdock explained, it typically takes a year or two - sometimes even three or four, depending on the complexity of the collision - for an inquest to be held, the case to be closed and so on, so the file is not available to us immediately.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We have 100% confidence in the figures in our files. There is no ambiguity about them. They are independently reviewed by professional researchers. They include all of the statements and reports from a multitude of experts, coroners, medical professionals, hospitals, forensic collision investigators and gardaí. This is not something that is left to chance.

Regarding the continuing increase in the number of people drinking and driving, Ireland has an issue with its relationship between alcohol and driving as well as with alcohol generally in society. As a society, our relationship with alcohol needs to be addressed. It spills onto the roads.

The Senator asked whether the battle was a lost cause. Absolutely not. We are still punching above our weight in terms of European performance on road safety, but we must emulate countries like Sweden and the UK, which have lower levels of drink driving. There is no reason that we cannot change attitudes and behaviours. Ireland has been successful in other areas of society. For example, we have been tremendously accepting of the smoking ban. No one would contemplate lighting up in a pub now, yet there is not the same stigmatisation of drinking before heading off to the car. However, I fully believe that we will get there with the correct measures. We can make inroads. In line with typical years, 60 to 70 people were involved in alcohol-related crashes in 2016. If we can make even a 20% or 30% dent in that and bring our 38% alcohol-related crash rate down to something more akin to the level of the UK and Sweden, which is 14%, we will potentially save lives. We can and will do that.

We have a chart with us that we would be happy to share with the committee on the interventions of the past 15 years. It tracks from when we introduced mandatory alcohol checkpoints to when we lowered the level from 80 mg to 50 mg as well as the various interventions in road safety that have resulted in Ireland moving from languishing in the middle of the EU 28 to being in the top 5% to 8%. We will strive to improve on that year on year and can do so with the help of the Oireachtas.

An increase can be disheartening. To date this year, 59 people have been killed on our roads. That is still too many, but it is ten fewer than last year. The debate in itself and the focus on road safety are having an effect and changing behaviours. We need to get this over the line and make further improvements.

The vintners are no shrinking violets. As they alluded to lies and liars, they are well able to stand up for themselves. They are not getting a hard deal. They are a vested interest which represents a small cohort of pub owners and publicans in the drinks industry. The Road Safety Authority represents all road users, men, women and children, and all of Ireland, not only rural Ireland. Figures show that 81% of car crashes occur in rural Ireland and that 92% involve male drivers. We have a responsibility to make the roads safe for all road users, not some of them. People in rural Ireland are as entitled to safe roads as those in urban areas.

The bigger issue of rural isolation should not be considered a consequence of being afraid to drink and drive. Many older people are afraid to drive at night because it is dark or they have lost confidence. A complex range of other issues need to be dealt with in terms of rural transport. The issue should not be concentrated on drink driving. That is disingenuous to the people who do not drink. Many people in rural areas, including many farmers, do not drink. We do not have representation for a cohort of people. The RSA seeks to ensure we represent all road users and, for that reason, we hope to get the Bill across the line.

The Deputy asked about support for the Bill. The survey to which I referred was in-depth and the demographics covered a cross-section of the country. It was carried out across all four provinces. The level of support for a mandatory ban in urban Ireland was 89%, but in rural Ireland, including Munster, it was 93%. There was, therefore, a higher level of support in rural areas for a mandatory ban, which some people may find surprising. Our survey of 1,000 people was very in-depth and involved face-to-face questioning. It was not anonymous; it involved asking a series of questions about support for a mandatory ban, for how long a ban should apply and whether the respondent condoned having a drink before driving. It is worrying that 25% of the people we surveyed admitted to having taken a drink before driving. We have different surveys in which the number of people who admit to having taken a drink before driving varies. That arises whenever there are confusing messages being sent that it is okay to drink at certain levels and that even if people are caught, they will get away with a small fine and a penalty points offence. This message can lead to bad judgment, with people drifting into a higher level of consumption. Once a person starts, judgment is affected. Drinking to blood alcohol levels of between 50 mg and 80 mg is tacit acceptance of higher drink driving levels and more concentrated alcohol in the system.

Ms Velma Burns

Let me make a point of clarification. In recent years we have consistently seen approximately one in ten drivers admit to drinking and driving. I support the point Ms Murdock made in that regard.

A question was asked about some of the other measures the Road Safety Authority was implementing to tackle the issue of drink driving. We have a couple of other measures which are articulated in the Government's road safety strategy. For example, we are looking at the introduction of alco-locks as a sanction for repeat offenders. We are also looking at the introduction of rehabilitation programmes. These measures are specifically targeted at high risk offenders and those who are consuming alcohol at higher levels. This is a highly complex group and the issue is separate from that which we are discussing. International research shows that it is difficult to change the behaviour of high risk offenders because in many cases alcohol dependence is involved. As such, we are almost straying into the realm of public health.

The proposed Bill has the potential to be an easy win for us because it is easier to change the behaviour of motorists who take a chance by having a couple of drinks. It is at lower blood alcohol levels of 80 mg, below which we believe we can save lives because the proposed measure would have a strong deterrent effect. It makes a big difference for motorists who are considering getting behind the wheel after drinking two or three pints if they know that, instead of getting a couple of penalty points and a fine, they would potentially be put off the road for three months, which would change their ability to go about their daily lives and do their job. This has a strong deterrent effect and we know from international research that licence withdrawal is a very effective measure in deterring drink driving. The effectiveness of the proposal is substantiated by international research. As Ms Murdock indicated, Sweden is a good example. It has consistently had one of the best road safety records in Europe in recent years. It has a lower drink driving limit than Ireland and a phased disqualification system which starts from a 30 mg blood alcohol level. It is only one example of a country that is doing this.

I thank the delegates for their opening statement. Ms Murdock has made the important point that the purpose of the Road Safety Authority is to reduce the number of deaths on the roads. As the delegates will be aware, the representatives of a number of lobby groups who appeared before the committee some weeks ago had a clear motive for opposing the proposed legislation. It is important to distinguish the role of the RSA from that of lobby groups in so far as they have different reasons for holding their views. Did the RSA initiate discussion of this matter with the Minister?

Ms Murdock referred to enforcement. Will she provide an update on the RSA's ongoing work with the Garda on enforcement?

Ms Murdock has noted that in 52 cases there was strong evidence on the file that the driver had consumed alcohol but specific toxicology results confirming the level were not available. What was the reason for this?

I am curious as to whether the RSA has evidence to show that suspending drivers would reduce the number of casualties in road traffic accidents. Is the suspension of drivers' licences the norm in other jurisdictions at the levels prescribed in the Bill or is Ireland the first country to propose this measure? What evidence is available in other jurisdictions to support the proposal?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

On whether we originally raised this issue with the Minister, we should go back to 2011 when we reduced the level of blood alcohol from 80 mg to 50 mg. At that point, the Road Safety Authority supported outright disqualification at the lower level. I will be straight up and say there was significant resistance to that proposal. I forget the name of the Minister who was in charge as it was before my time. However, we faced significant resistance in having the measure passed at the time. A trade-off was made and an administrative fine introduced at the lower levels of blood alcohol. This was done to get the Bill through in some shape or form. Before the current Minister's tenure, it was the objective of the Road Safety Authority to lower the level to 50 mg outright and have a mandatory ban across the board. However, we have to be practical. A start was made. When he took office, the Minister saw the devastation caused by drink driving, in particular, the big increase in the number of road traffic casualties in 2016.

The Minister decided to move forward with an amendment to the current Bill, to revert back and say that this is obviously not working and we need to change this to a mandatory ban rather than an administrative fine. That is some of the background. When this was talked about in the past, it was our objective and we made recommendations but one has to be practical when it comes to legislation. It was saving some lives but it could go further and save more. That is why we are here today and what the pre-scrutiny is about.

We have a lot more research to hand now. In 2011 we did not have the in-depth study and the case would not have been as compelling. Prior to the pre-crash survey, there was a perception that 15% of crashes were alcohol related, significantly less than what we have now proved. The impetus may not have been there to do it. We now have unequivocal evidence and it continues on from the research we are rolling out from 2013 to 2015, inclusive. That is where we are today.

On the work we do with An Garda Síochána, we fully accept Garda resources have been depleted over recent years. However, we are trying to work with An Garda Síochána from the files we have analysed to see the critical times of the day, the days of the week, the locations, the counties and the propensity of people drinking and driving, so that it can have more strategic Garda enforcement. It has continuous programmes, especially over bank holiday weekends and holiday periods. It has Operation Lockdown and Surround where it surrounds a town and makes sure all roads in and out are manned. In recent times, there has been much anecdotal evidence that there has been a much more visible presence of An Garda Síochána. We fully accept that effective enforcement is required hand-in-hand with legislation but the legislation, the deterrent, has to be in force in the first place.

That is some of the work we are doing. Ms Burns's team of researchers will go through the forensic files and the collision files to continue the work we have already done. The Garda has two statisticians who work with our people to try to ensure we get the most comprehensive information. We are receiving much more information from the Garda on seat-belt wearing, mobile phone use and licence classification, that is, whether they are unaccompanied learners or learner drivers, so we can try to identify the underlying causes of the crashes on our roads much more quickly. The work going on is quite comprehensive.

On relaying the statistics and the figures to the Garda to assist it in its work, I am curious to know if the Road Safety Authority is aware of an increase in the allocation of enforcement officers to the Garda traffic corps specifically. Has the RSA been informed of this?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We have been advised that of this year's release from Templemore, 10% will be allocated to the Garda traffic corps by the fourth quarter of this year. I do not have an update on how close we are to progressing that. Of the most recent class to graduate, I think 100 gardaí have been temporarily assigned to traffic duties for a period of six to eight weeks, as an initiation. They will not necessarily stay there but it is as a commitment to enhancing visibility. It is a valid point and we will have to ensure there is a commitment to this, which is delivered on. We want to see it continue year-on-year because Garda enforcement and visibility is a key deterrent.

Of the 10% promised from the new recruits, does Ms Murdock know the number?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is approximately 60, because the numbers are between 600 and 700. We have had a commitment of 10% to the traffic corps, so we would anticipate there would be 60 or 70 new gardaí going into the traffic corps.

Ms Velma Burns

Of the 52 cases where no toxicology report was available, this does not mean that no toxicology test was taken, but that at the time of the analysis of the data collection, a toxicology report was not available in the file. However, there was significant and strong evidence in the file that confirmed that alcohol was a factor in the collision. That may come from, say, a garda opinion, a witness statement or other strong evidence in the file. As I mentioned earlier, somebody might have said that he or she was with the person all afternoon, drinking in the pub and he had consumed a certain number of pints. There was strong evidence in the file and each file was reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that it was validly included as an alcohol-related collision.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We also have evidence in those files where, for example, a half-empty bottle of vodka might have been found in the car.

I am not disputing the evidence; I am just curious as to what the reason would be that in 52 cases the toxicology report was not completed or was not in the file.

Ms Velma Burns

I cannot answer that. It would be an administrative issue. For example, we have followed up with a number of cases. We want to do a study on drugs as a factor in fatal collisions and have followed up, through the Garda Síochána, and in some cases through the coroners, to get those reports. I do not understand the reasons but we believe we will be able to access some of those reports. They may be with the coroners.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is a valid point and we need that information.

One needs it particularly if one is making the case for legislation.

Ms Velma Burns

As I said, the evidence in the file was very strong and each was reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure it was validly included as an alcohol-related crash.

On Deputy Munster's question about licence withdrawal, international research shows that licence withdrawal is a very effective measure for reducing drink driving. The research shows that a licence withdrawal is particularly effective in certain circumstances, when coupled with very strong enforcement, that is critical. The phrase often quoted in this context is that there must be certainty about the withdrawal and the licence must be withdrawn swiftly. That is really important. Another thing that emerges is that rehabilitation measures are very effective when coupled with licence withdrawal. This Bill is supported by international research.

On other jurisdictions, I mentioned Sweden earlier as a case example. In Sweden, there is phased processing whereby disqualification starts from 30 mg and the length of licence withdrawal depends on whether someone is at 30 mg or 40 mg. Sweden is a best practice country.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

Legislation has been introduced in the North at the 50 mg level. It has not yet been enacted and that may be held-up in light of there being no Assembly. Scotland has also legislation for the same level.

The role of these hearings is pre-legislative scrutiny. When that is done well, it assists the passage of the legislation. That is why we are asking different people for different perspectives.

I have a number of questions and would like short answers, so that I can get answers to all of them. I am not being rude but I might stop the witnesses. We are looking for robust evidence. Where the evidence has been challenged, we need to put that to the RSA.

For example, one of the points that was made by the Vintners' Federation of Ireland was that some of the fatalities involved cyclists. Are these all drivers? I would like that aspect made clear.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

Yes. All drivers and motorcyclists, and all deemed culpable. They are not consequential but culpable.

I wanted to get that aspect out of the way.

There is a tabular statement on the second page of the chief executive officer's statement. I have questioned this aspect before. I have not figured it out but perhaps it is an anomaly. A higher number of people have been killed in the 21 mg to 50 mg category than in the next category of 51 mg to 80 mg. Why? Is it an anomaly?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do not believe it is an anomaly. It is just a fact that the files indicate that that was the level that was in their blood at the time. Maybe it was a closer period, after they had taken that drink, that they were in that car and it was a higher concentration than the people who were in the next category of 51 mg to 80 mg. They may have had a little bit more time for the alcohol to reduce. No, sorry, I shall let our researcher answer the question.

Ms Velma Burns

The reason we included those data is we believe it is relevant to look at the number of people killed by a driver or motorcyclist who had a blood alcohol level in the range of 21 mg to 50 mg. That is why we have included that fact in our tabular statement. I know the figure has been questioned. In total, 35 people were killed by a driver or a motorcyclist with a blood alcohol level between 21 mg and 80 mg.

The data makes it look like one is a higher risk in the lower category.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

That confusion supports the argument that there is no safe level to drink and then drive. That is the answer.

Ms Velma Burns

The number is very small to say one is a higher risk in one category versus the other. Overall, between the categories of 21 mg and 80 mg as many as 35 people were killed. It is a significant number of people and warrants a measure to be put in place to address the matter.

I refer the witnesses to their opening statement, which states "573 drivers had a fixed penalty of €200 and three penalty points". The authority is saying that the sanction of putting somebody off the road is a greater deterrent.

The category of 80 mg and over refers to the heavier drinkers and their number seems to be rising. It can very much depend on campaigns, like the one that was broadcast around Christmas. The lack of an expectation of being caught, and that is where enforcement comes in, is a factor. Is there evidence that it is enforcement that matters, as opposed to the loss of a licence?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

The evidence would not support that enforcement alone is the solution. The evidence supports that it is a combination of effective enforcement coupled with deterrents. I again refer to the analogy of the NCT becoming a penalty points offence where we saw an 87% increase in compliance. The initiative changed people's attitudes and there was absolutely no change in enforcement. The enforcement levels were the same before the initiative was introduced as afterwards. A penalty change made the deterrent much more effective.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

In that case it suited the offence. In this case we are saying the mandatory ban suits this offence.

The morning after is an issue. I do not dispute that the RSA has gathered evidence. I think there are people who try to be responsible. They would not want to stray into the area of putting themselves at risk of getting penalty points, let alone lose a licence. The sanctions, not the level of alcohol present, are likely to change with this legislation. With professional drivers it is 20 mg and that rises to 50 mg and the next category is 50 mg to 80 mg, which is what we have talked about here.

Some mouthwashes and hand sanitiser liquids, like those used in hospitals, contain alcohol. People will estimate their effect. We cannot have zero tolerance because there are other ways that alcohol can get into one's system other than consuming alcohol for social purposes or whatever.

Ms Velma Burns

Yes, that is correct.

Can people estimate the impact? A lot of alcohol is consumed at home, which makes it more difficult to keep track of consumption. People are less likely to use measures etc. when drinking at home. Is there any guidance on this matter?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We stay away from trying to guide people because metabolism and body mass differ. The Deputy mentioned the important element that people use different measures, especially at home. We see different measures in everyday life. The size of a scone nowadays is three times the size of a scone 20 years ago so things are all relative.

In terms of mouthwashes and such issues, that is a red herring. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety conducts the tests in its labs in UCD and caters for this aspect. All of this aspect has been researched. The margin of error is fully anticipated in terms of testing someone's sample. Eating some sherry trifle will not put one over the limit.

Ms Burns may come in on this but the morning-after effect is that many people are very fatigued but there is a small trace of alcohol. This is what we are seeing in terms of contributing factors in alcohol-related crashes. There are other reasons that alcohol has contributed to the result of a fatal or serious crash.

Ms Velma Burns

Yes. We ask road users to be sensible. We want them to know that if they get behind the wheel in the morning but had ten pints beforehand that they should do the maths. For example, one of the messages that we have communicated previously was that it takes about an hour for a unit of alcohol to be processed by the body. People need to exercise personal responsibility and use common sense to a certain extent. It is a complicated science and we defer to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety for the detail on this matter.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

On the morning after, one can still get the smell of drink from many people the next day. It is definitely a red herring to suggest they did the right thing.

According to the opening statement, "A total of 25 drivers and motorcyclists with a confirmed BAC between 21 mg and 80 mg were responsible" which was mentioned as part of the RSA's conclusions. Was the finding absolutely conclusive?

Ms Velma Burns

Yes.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

Yes, conclusive. There is no question about the information. The Deputy will notice that in our submission we have not veered away from anything that we have put in the report. We have not made corrections. We have re-examined, we have validated and we are 100% satisfied.

The vintners' association questioned the findings, which is part of the reason we are having this discussion. It reduced the numbers.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

By 7.3% or something similar.

The vintners looked at the cohort of accidents where alcohol was a contributing factor, as against the total number of people killed on our roads. They said it was a percentage of a percentage. I am sure that the RSA will dispute the analysis and I am sure the RSA paid attention to what was said. Can the witnesses address the issue?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I think the vintners stated it was a very small percentage of motorists. That may be the case but this small percentage of motorists have the potential to devastate many lives and communities, and we saw the result with Ciarán Treacy being killed by a drink-driver. One cannot negate such loss of life by saying it was a morning-after death because these lives are just as important. In terms of the 1.3% of cases where alcohol was a factor at between 50 mg and 80 mg, those lives are every bit as important. We cannot as a nation and a society allow the current situation to go on. We cannot resist legislation just to protect people who break the law. They are drink-drivers.

That is the first point we make. It is not a change in levels. We are not reducing the level of alcohol allowed, rather we are changing the deterrent and we should make no apology for doing so. That is what is at play. It is important to point out that we are dealing with people's lives and that we looked at the files. Fathers, mothers and children are left behind. It is a very important issue.

Ms Velma Burns

As research manager and the person who was closely involved in producing the report, on the figure of 1.3% quoted by the vintners federation, it was a selective interpretation of the data in an attempt to minimise the impact and make less significant the prevalence of drink driving and the contribution of drink drivers with a blood alcohol content of 51 mg to 80 mg who had killed people on the roads. The figure in our report is that 5.6% of those killed were killed by drivers and motorcyclists who had a blood alcohol content of 51 mg to 80 mg. The figure of 1.3% is irrelevant. It was not quoted in our report.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is important to clarify that the vintners were at pains to state our report had stated there was a presence of alcohol and that we had not stated it was the cause. We did state it was the cause. Let us not beat about the bush. The presence of alcohol was the cause, just as the presence of a burglar in one's house when things went missing was the cause.

How does the overestimation of the number of breathalyser tests distort, or does it have the potential to distort, the analysis of the Road Safety Authority in its work to ensure road safety?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It does not have the potential to distort any of the findings in our report.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

Absolutely not.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

These are the files on people who died in crashes. However, it is a valid point. What it does do is undermine the confidence of the public in the potential of being stopped at a checkpoint. We have to acknowledge that it has had a big impact on people who have been drinking and driving and I can only imagine the reaction of families who have lost members as a result of people drinking and driving. They are probably asking what would have happened if they had not done so. That is a normal reaction. It is very important that we receive credible data from An Garda Síochána for the purposes of our interventions. We welcome the reviews and examination of this subject, but we do not want them to detract from the Bill which absolutely has the potential to save lives, regardless of other factors. It is very important to state this is based on hard evidence from the files we have examined. That is what we are bringing forward. We are not bringing it forward on the basis of the number of breathalyser tests conducted.

I welcome the delegates. The graph covering the period from 1997 to 2016 shows that many of the measures introduced have saved lives, which is very welcome. I grew up at a time when drinking and driving was acceptable. People did not stop because they could kill themselves or somebody else but because they might lose their licence or the cost of their insurance would increase. The delegates are correct that there is a need for enforcement because if people think they can get away with something, they will try to do so.

Our job, as legislators, is to craft legislation and make sure it is fair. I have dealt with many vested interests, including various health groups, the Catholic Church, the GAA, chambers of commerce, the IFA and residents' associations. Certainly, I do not see vintners as a serious pressure group. I have found them to be quite reasonable. We all have a vested interest in what happens, including the Road Safety Authority which is interested in ensuring fewer people will be killed on the roads. It is a personal, not a financial, interest. A few times I have heard vintners being described as a vested interest. Yes, they have a vested interest because they are businesspeople who are doing their best, but it is our job to try to be fair.

I am probably guilty of using a mobile phone and texting in the car. I have a hands-free kit, but I use and look at Google maps while driving through the city. In my heart and soul I know that is wrong and that I should pull in. Does this mean that down the road, if we reduce the blood alcohol limit so low that it will save lives, we will effectively ban the use of mobile phones in cars because people are texting?

As regards people who do not wear seat belts, I have a young child. If I am sitting in the back of the car with her and she is crying, I am tempted to take her out of the seat, but I will not do so. The delegates will understand where I am going. We are tackling the issue of drink driving, rightly so, but will the Road Safety Authority eventually propose that the use of mobile phones in cars be banned, unless part of a hands-free kit?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We already ban the use of a mobile phone in a car, except as part of a hands-free kit.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is already banned.

Yes, but I am asking how we differentiate. A person may be texting or using Google Maps.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

As the Deputy said, we are engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny of the alcohol elements of the Bill. As I stated, 60 to 70 lives a year are lost in crashes as a consequence of alcohol being a factor. Use of a mobile phone is absolutely a factor in many crashes but not as many as alcohol and we have legislation in place to deal with the issue. We are monitoring the position. New legislation has been introduced in the United Kingdom to double the number of penalty points imposed. We have other research reports covering speed, vehicles and alcohol and have one coming out on vulnerable road users which will cover the issue of use of mobile phones. I must point out that the mobile phone element did not feature in the 867 fatal crashes to such an extent that it warrants this level of scrutiny and legislative consideration, but we will absolutely have it as part of our programme. It is an offence to use a mobile phone in a car and many manufacturers are introducing technology to disable mobile phones. We have an extensive programme under which we advise employers to adopt an engine on phone off policy. Many crashes were the consequence of employers contacting employees by mobile phone to see what they were doing, but in this debate that is not relevant. We will take whatever measures are required in time.

On ultimately ending up in a position where there will be zero tolerance, we have pointed out that consuming any amount of alcohol impairs driving. We need to tackle the levels we see in our research because 78 lives a year are being lost. That is what we are here to do.

On the vested interests, the Senator is absolutely right. Vintners have a vested interest in selling more alcohol as otherwise pubs would go out of business. We do not have a vested interest, rather we have a mandate to save lives and represent all road users. That is what is different and why we will make interventions and propose legislation. We have the support of the motor industry, the AA and victims' groups. Many vested interest groups fully support this measure. I would not go so far as to say we are a vested interest but that we have a mandate.

The Road Safety Authority is a vested interest because it has a personal interest, which is very commendable. Sometimes people assume it is for financial reasons, but it can be for personal reasons. However, we will not delve into the matter.

Is there any modern technology out there that would simply prevent someone from getting into a car and starting it? Would that be a way forward?

Ms Velma Burns

As I referenced earlier, there is an action in our road safety strategy to look at the potential safety effects of rolling out an alcohol interlock, Alcolock, programme. Many countries in Europe have already rolled these out for those who have committed drink driving offences. The alcohol interlock is installed in the car. It is like a breathalyser. The driver blows into the device and it is not possible to start the car unless he or she is confirmed as not having alcohol in his or her system. We are doing a cost-benefit analysis of it and investigating its feasibility.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I noticed in yesterday's newspaper that a drink driver was apprehended in County Antrim over the weekend after being involved in a crash. I do not know how serious it was. He was driving a new Ford Fiesta, which has software installed which places an emergency call automatically when an accident happens. The PSNI arrived on the scene and detected that the guy had taken alcohol and that the car had called the police on his behalf. This eCall technology will become mandatory in all new vehicles coming out of Europe in 2018. While we certainly do not want to rely on technology that calls the emergency services after a crash has happened, it is an indication of the prevalence of drink driving.

Many professional driving companies already have alcohol interlocks installed in their vehicles. A bus company from Dundalk, I think, won the contract to supply transport for the 2012 Olympics as a consequence of having them in its coaches. Certainly for public tendering purposes, many buyers of services are encouraging the use of the best technology available resulting in the safest drivers. Having heavy goods vehicles and heavy commercial vehicles fitted with such devices would be very welcome. They are a high risk group in that they carry more passengers and bigger loads, so they should be safer on the roads.

Ms Velma Burns

I would like to add that, while technology such as the alcohol interlock can have a role, it is also critical that road users and drivers take personal responsibility. That is what we are about: educating road users on the impairment effect of alcohol. That is why the proposed Bill is extremely important. A deterrent as powerful as the loss of one's licence for three months will make road users think twice before drinking and driving, even at the lower level of two or three pints. We believe that is critical.

As I am at the end of the queue, I will try not to repeat questions that have already been covered. I welcome the witnesses. As representatives of a lead agency, it is important that they were given the opportunity to come back in when they expressed a desire to do so. Would it be their wish that there be absolutely zero tolerance?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

What we are arguing today, quite clearly, is that we are supporting the Bill and want to see its introduction with the 50 mg to 80 mg provision. We are also trying to educate everybody on the fact that any amount of alcohol impairs driving. In terms of bodily functions and metabolism-----

If Ms Murdock was the Minister, would she be proposing that someone with 0.1 mg of alcohol should be banned from driving?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I read with interest what the Minister said at the weekend, namely, that he would ultimately welcome a zero tolerance of alcohol approach.

I am trying to get at what the Road Safety Authority wants.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I would go through the same process as we are going through here. We would have to do the research and provide supporting evidence to get to a point at which it could be drafted as legislation. We would have to take account of all the medical factors. Ms Burns would be the expert on what is considered a zero level from a testing perspective.

Ms Velma Burns

The threshold is 20 mg. It is often described as zero tolerance or zero level across Europe, but the measurement is in fact 20 mg. Below that threshold, there is alcohol naturally occurring due to the composition of the human body.

What is the limit for coach drivers and bus drivers? Is it 20 mg?

Ms Velma Burns

Yes. That is effectively zero.

I thought that was the situation and was surprised that it was not zero for a coach driver who carries 50 or so passengers.

Ms Velma Burns

The reason is the likes of mouthwash and natural bodily metabolism. I am sorry I do not have all of the terminology. The most sensible threshold that can be applied is 20 mg.

It would appear to me that it would be nearly more important for coach drivers to be subject to zero levels than for the motorists we are talking about. However, I will rest that point.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I suppose it is important to note that we had files containing those trace elements and they were not included.

Ms Velma Burns

Yes; 20 mg and above is the threshold used for analysis.

From the data the witnesses have given us, it appears that in 2011, when the limit was brought down to 50 mg, there was a reduction in road deaths. The witnesses have made the point that the lower limit was the reason for the reduction in deaths. Are the witnesses now putting the blame for the recent increase in deaths on the level of the threshold or the severity of the penalties?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We have better evidence now. We had got the low-hanging fruit up to 2011. We have crystallised the real underlying reasons. As I said earlier, we would have expected around 15% of crashes to be alcohol related. We also must accept that in 2011 the number of cars on the road was declining. We are seeing a big increase in employment and disposable income and a change in attitudes. There is a whole new crop of young people coming out. Drivers who are now 20 or 21 years old were only in their childhood or early teens in 2011. The only road safety messages they heard were the safe cross code and what they got in primary school.

We need to change attitudes in exactly the same way as happened for the smoking ban, when zero tolerance was achieved. We have an issue with alcohol in Ireland and it is creeping into all areas of society. Road safety is just one element of it. This is a measure that is needed to change attitudes and make drink driving completely unacceptable. We have a massive cohort of young people who do not accept drinking and driving. Unfortunately, there is a growing number who think it is okay. While everybody does not drink and drive, there is a small number of people who do and, once they start, the problem becomes pervasive.

There was other data given in the presentation which Deputy Catherine Murphy and others have questioned, about people with blood alcohol levels under 50 mg and between 21 mg and 50 mg. I am still confused by that evidence and I think it is undermining the witnesses' case. If I felt one life could be saved by making whatever reduction, I would support it. However, I have not heard conclusive evidence or explanation as to why there are more deaths between 21 mg and 50 mg.

The witness has mentioned more time and so on but if drivers are detected with levels of 35 mg or 40 mg and there have been more deaths as a result, that would offer proof but that bridge has not been crossed by the witnesses. We talk about educating people. However, the lack of conclusive evidence undermines the witnesses' case.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do not accept it undermines it. The numbers are small and it is therefore difficult to say that there is a trend based on those numbers. However, there are a number of reasons we have not looked at the individuals. One of the restrictions on the research was that we could not profile people as saying that they were A, B or C class or that they-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We do not know the impact of the fact that many professional drivers did not take the chance at that level. The Senator is almost asking us to predict why someone was not killed in a crash. These lower levels are 20 mg to 50 mg. Maybe the figures are higher because younger people or non-professional drivers were involved in the incidents and were more likely to crash. We have not considered that data. We have not considered the characteristics of those individuals compared with those with a higher level of 51 mg to 80 mg. People were killed on the roads in incidents involving blood alcohol levels lower than 80 mg and our argument is that there should be no differentiation. We should not be telling one group of drivers that it is okay to drink and drive at that level and another group that it is not okay. It should not be okay for non-specified drivers to drink at that level if it is not okay for specified drivers. When would the discrimination stop? Exceptions will be made to allow some people-----

The witness is arguing for zero tolerance and 0 mg-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

People should not drink and drive. We are trying to save lives.

It is important that we challenge what the witnesses are saying and that is done in a totally genuine-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

The numbers of people killed in this regard is small but every life is valuable. It confuses the legitimacy of this measure to say that the numbers killed do not justify it. Too many people are being killed in incidents involving levels of between 20 mg and 80 mg.

Ms Velma Burns

It is sending a strong message that any amount of alcohol impairs driving. Nineteen people were killed as a result of a driver or motorcyclist who had consumed alcohol at a level of between 20 mg and 50 mg. We have discussed the complexities of identifying one's alcohol level if one chooses to have a drink or two. The difference in level could be marginal. It is not possible for a layperson to calculate that he or she has had a certain amount of alcohol, a certain amount of time has passed since the alcohol was had and he or she now knows that his or her alcohol level is 49 mg or 51 mg. There can be a fine line between being between those levels depending on all the factors mentioned by Ms Murdock such as one's metabolism, age and so on. It is complex. Our message has always been that people should never drink and drive. Any amount of alcohol impairs driving. This analysis shows that people are being killed by drivers who have consumed smaller amounts of alcohol.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

The rate goes up again at 80 mg. It is not a consistent trend. There is an increase in the numbers killed by drivers who have consumed over 80mg of alcohol. There is no safe level.

Ms Velma Burns

We want to deter anyone from taking a chance. If people know they will receive a severe penalty such as disqualification, drivers will not judge that they can drink two pints or whatever measure they feel they can. That is a subjective decision and we are saying that this will deter them.

I would not agree if the vintners were to attack the witnesses and I do not agree with the witness saying that vintners are disingenuous. I have been in pubs that are controlled places for people to drink. The publicans have been caring, have brought people home and stopped people from getting into their cars. The witnesses can blame the legislators in the Oireachtas rather than the vintners in respect of the issue of people drinking at house parties and getting below-cost alcohol. Members, as legislators, have not sufficiently addressed that issue. That is important. I have no connection with anyone who owns a pub and have no vested interest in the drinks industry. However, my philosophy is that in any debate nobody is 100% right and nobody is 100% wrong.

I thank the witnesses. It has been useful to tease out the issues this morning. I accept their bona fides in terms of getting this right.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We appreciate being given an opportunity to come in and go through the report and statistics in detail. It is most welcome.

Anything I say is not aimed personally at today's two witnesses. They have been sent in here to do a job. I am sent in here by the public to do a job. I do not represent vintners. I am a publican and I have never hidden that. I live in the pub. The people I represent have told me that this is a crusade to further isolate people in rural Ireland.

On a previous occasion I attended a meeting of this committee, figures were produced which indicated between 2008 and 2012, inclusive, 35 people were killed in collisions in which alcohol levels of 20 mg to 80 mg were a factor. I asked whether the figures involved cases such as a person walking on the footpath having had several drinks who is then struck by a car driven by a person who has taken no alcohol. I want the details of the 35 incidents that were referred to. I have not received the breakdown. Do they involve incidents such as someone who had had a few drinks, chose to walk home and fell off the footpath, possibly on a dark road, and was then struck by a driver who had not been drinking? Perhaps they involve a driver who had an alcohol level of between 20 mg and 80 mg and was minding his own business when some other person going out of his mind and doing 100 mph to 120 mph came across the road and hit him? Was there an incident of a person going home after having one pint or with an alcohol level of between 20 mg and 80 mg who then hit black ice and that was the overriding factor in the incident?

I want a breakdown of those figures because the statistics indicated that 19 people were killed in collisions in which alcohol levels of 20 mg to 50 mg were a factor and 16 were killed in collisions involving drivers with alcohol levels of between 50 mg and 80 mg. As Senator O'Mahony said, the argument put forward by the witnesses on the previous occasion is not helping their case. There is no mention in the document given to members today of the exact figures that were referred to on the previous occasion the witnesses appeared before this committee. I want the figures to be fairly presented and the witnesses to outline what were the real causes of the accidents. Many people are killed while walking home. Many people are killed on the roads while sober. We need to get the breakdown of those figures because the public is not accepting that a fair argument is being presented to them.

The purpose of the Road Safety Authority, RSA, is to save lives. Members of Kerry County Council and Members of the Oireachtas who represent Kerry have highlighted locations where fatalities have been caused by poor road layouts. A lady cycling a bicycle was killed a week ago at the top of the Upper Lewis Road in Killarney where one accesses the bypass. I am not saying that the road layout was the cause of that accident but the design of that junction needs to be addressed. We have been making representations for many years about places such as that or Glenflesk, where five people have been killed and the road camber is at the wrong angle in both directions. Why is the RSA not doing something about that?

To get back to what this debate is about, I need the witnesses to bring the statistics and facts before us or to the Dáil Chamber, if the Minister wishes to do that. We need the breakdown of blame to be apportioned to the driver when he or she has between 20 mg and 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood and to categorically state that a driver with a certain level of alcohol in his or her blood was the cause of an accident or fatality. To date, they have not done that. I asked the same of the Minister when he sat over there a number of weeks ago.

Commercial and professional drivers who drive buses and lorries are effectively at a zero tolerance level of 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. People in rural Ireland with one vehicle, be it a van, jeep or small tractor, are categorised in the same way as that professional driver so they are at a zero tolerance level. These people have been hit already and they only have one vehicle. They would lose the van or jeep that they use to bring bags of meal or whatever during the day. They use the same vehicle to go to town or a local village for a bit of socialising. They are treated unfairly under our laws. I asked the Minister to consider this in framing his Bill and to get rid of this unfair anomaly but he or the Department has chosen not to do so. Why is that not being addressed in this Bill?

I want the witnesses to state categorically when a driver with between 20 mg and 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood was the cause of an accident. To just say it is a factor is not good enough for me.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

As I stated earlier, we can only deal in the facts and we have presented them as transparently as possible and as transparently as the Data Protection Commissioner will permit us to present them. These numbers are very small. I can tell the Deputy categorically that 25 drivers caused the deaths of 35 people at those low levels. What I understand is that if the Deputy saw the names and files, he would support this Bill. Is that what he is saying? I will seek to see if I can provide more clarity on the personal data of those individuals. As the chief executive of the Road Safety Authority, the Deputy can take it that from the research and extensive examination of the contributory causes, those drivers were deemed to be culpable. We have files that are not included in those numbers that include pedestrians who fell on the road or were sleeping on the road. They are not included in these numbers. A significant number of pedestrians were killed in alcohol-related deaths at the much higher level of 200 mg per 100 ml of blood. The numbers are very small and it would be completely irregular and inappropriate to give out information in a level of detail that could lead to those people being identified. I can say the numbers categorically to the Deputy and I will seek to see if there is a way we can show him the information. It is probably not permissible. The only reason we got to do this was by keeping the identities of people private. We have recognised researchers and we have done this to best practice. We have protocols in place to permit us to do the research in the first place and we stuck to that protocol. The people in these cases were deemed culpable and not the pedestrian.

With regard to the matter of van and jeep drivers, I will correct the Deputy. They are subject to a commercial vehicle roadworthiness test but it is C and D class drivers who are professional drivers; they are the specified drivers at levels of 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. I can drive a jeep but I am not a specified driver. What applies in this respect is the classification of one's licence, and whether one has a C or D licence. They apply to vehicles that are 3.5 tonnes and heavier. We should clarify that it is not an attack on rural Ireland but about making all roads safer for all users. A jeep may be subject to a commercial vehicle test, the licence determines whether one is a specified driver. A learner driver or a professional driver is a specified driver. A driver is non-specified if he or she has passed the test with two years of subsequent experience, as long as that driver does not have a C or D class licence.

The understanding out there is that regardless of licence, if a person drives a jeep, small van or tractor to town, he or she would be in the 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood bracket.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do not believe that is the case. I will personally clarify that. There are regulations in place for C and D class drivers. They drive a higher class of vehicle.

It is the understanding out there. The other question relates to alcohol being a factor. The witness seems to be saying it is a factor. What percentage is that factor? What else was involved? That is what we need to know.

Ms Velma Burns

The analysis was not conducted in a way that a percentage could be attributed to the various factors that contributed to the collisions. There was a forensic analysis of the file and the contributory factors were listed. In some cases that might have been alcohol plus speed; in some cases it was alcohol and fatigue. No percentage was apportioned. However, we know and have mentioned on numerous occasions this morning that the scientific evidence is unequivocal that any amount of alcohol impairs driving. Therefore, we can conclude that of the 35 people killed by drivers who had consumed alcohol leaving their level between 20 mg and 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, alcohol was a contributory factor in those collisions. We have other reports where we have looked at speeding in particular. International research indicates that motorists are more likely to engage in high-risk behaviour when they are under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, they are more likely to speed, lose control on bends and fall asleep at the wheel. There is a link between alcohol impairment when driving and other contributory factors. There would only be a very small number of cases where alcohol would be found to be the only factor, as alcohol contributes to other risky behaviours on the road. That is why there are multiple contributory factors in many of these collisions.

So there could be many other overriding factors, as well as alcohol?

Ms Velma Burns

I did not saying "overriding".

Many people would agree with me in saying that if a person eats too much before getting behind the wheel of a car, he or she would be a danger on the road as that person could fall asleep after a big meal. When I go home this evening, I will not eat before getting behind the wheel because I know what it will do. There could have been many other overriding causes for accidents as well as the consumption of a small amount of alcohol.

Ms Velma Burns

I disagree that there are other overriding factors. The research indicates that when alcohol is consumed before driving, it leads to other risky behaviours. The alcohol consumption comes first. It is not a fair comparison to speak about the impact of a big meal on driving compared with the impact of alcohol.

The witnesses indicated they cannot produce files because of data concerns. There was a graphic road safety campaign last Christmas that was excellent. I praise the courage of the families who were affected. If we had the permission of the relatives of somebody killed as a result of a driver having 55 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood in his or her system, could the information be given out? The levels of under 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is a fair point and we fully intend doing that. Many members of families affected by road crashes have helped in our communication. I know she would not mind me saying this but Ms Susan Gray lost her husband a number of years back as a consequence of someone who admitted taking two bottles of Miller beer.

That is exactly what we are talking about here. We have them probably watching today and listening to the debate and they know all too well the impact on their lives and their communities of having lost their loved one as a result of somebody who thought it was okay to have a bottle or two of lager or whatever. It just leads to all of the factors Ms Burns has outlined already. I can imagine Deputy Danny Healy-Rae asking us to prove it to him. Bar putting one's finger in the wound, I would be more than happy to have some of those people to come forward and say they have been victims of that type of road offence. To bring it back to the current situation, the reality is that all they will be subject to is a penalty point endorsement and a €200 fine. That is the reality. That is the offence and it is totally disproportionate to the consequences. We must address that and we have an opportunity.

We hope we have covered all of the questions on the data. We are open to take any further questions but we believe we have proven unequivocally that this measure will save lives and we seek the committee's support in moving it along with the Bill and endorsing it. We can take satisfaction from the chart on the other measures that the Oireachtas has supported which have saved many lives over the years. We will do the same with this measure as well.

I thank Ms Murdock for appearing. To clarify, in her previous correspondence she expressed disappointment at the refusal of the Chairman to consider her request. That is absolutely incorrect. That is not the case. First, it is not within my remit as Chairman to refuse or-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

Okay. I accept that.

It is the committee that decides. I can assure Ms Murdock that her requests were considered on a number of occasions. There was no unequivocal refusal to invite Ms Murdock before the committee. It is important to state that.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

You did come back, Chairman, and invite me in so I fully appreciate that. I apologise if I identified you, Chairman, incorrectly.

Those documents are on the public record and it is important that they are accurate.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I know we were here in February but the legislation had not been finally drafted at that point and we did not have an opportunity to go through it in this level of detail.

It is important to clarify that I, as Chairman, did not refuse to consider Ms Murdock’s request. Does Ms Murdock see this as the most effective piece of road safety legislation that could be introduced right now to reduce road deaths?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I think it is the most immediate at the moment, certainly, and every life saved is to be welcomed. If we could get this Bill through I believe there would be an immediate effect and we as the authority would immediately engage in an advertising campaign to educate people and ensure that everybody was aware of it. It would have an immediate effect on driver behaviour. I will go back to the small change in legislation for having a valid NCT. Overnight, we saw there was an immediate effect. In fact, it caused significant problems in the NCT network due to it trying to accommodate the demand by people to get their vehicles up to date. Likewise, I believe that people will accept the change in this legislation and that there is no grey area – that they cannot drink and drive – and they will change their behaviour.

The 2008 to 2012 analysis shows that the 51 mg to 80 mg cohort is responsible for 5.6% of the analysed fatalities. If one also subtracts the 20 mg to 50 mg bracket one is still looking at more than 80% of fatalities caused by other drink drivers. Would it not be far more productive in terms of saving lives to focus on the 80%, the vast majority? That is within the context of drink driving alone. If we look at the overall road deaths we are looking at a far lower percentage in terms of deaths caused by drivers between 50 mg and 80 mg. In no way do I say that any one life is less important than another. Every one road fatality or serious injury is one too many. I have said that here repeatedly, but would we not reap greater rewards from targeting the far higher percentages of deaths caused as a result of higher drink driving levels? I do not hear Ms Murdock shouting from the rooftops that we do not have enough people in the traffic corps.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We have always said we need more gardaí in the traffic corps. Today's debate is about the Bill. Drink driving is a big issue in this country and I accept many lives lost are at levels above 80 mg. Ms Burns already alluded to the fact that many of those issues are related to addiction and alcohol dependency. That is a big societal problem for Ireland. This is where it starts.

If we can stem the flow, especially in younger drivers, as new drivers are where the educational process starts. Just because new drivers have a licence after two years and they are now 19 or 20 does not make them experienced drivers and we consider it is a big issue that they think it is okay to have a bottle or two. If we tackle the 50 mg to 80 mg we remove the confusion and the temptation to have one or two drinks because people think they will be okay. A significant number of people are arrested who are at the level of 80 mg to 100 mg. A total of 400 people so far in 2016 were issued with six months' disqualification. We believe that the impact at this level will cascade across all levels. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae has left the room but I am sure he observes decision making in his own pub. When one takes a drink or two, one's decision making changes. One has heard the saying, "One for the ditch" and "Another one would not do any harm". We have to stop the lax approach and the propensity to drink and drive and it has to be at this level.

Based on the authority's own figures, the logic of the argument is that people are being killed by drivers who register between 51 mg and 80 mg but according to the figures from 2008 and 2012, surely what the RSA should be advocating is that the limit in the legislation would be 20 mg because the numbers between 21 mg and 50 mg are higher than in the 50 mg to 80 mg category? There is no consistency in the argument. That is why I am asking Ms Murdock these questions as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny. Could she be straight and say whether she considers this to be a stepping stone to 20 mg being the limit across the board?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I will go back again to the fact that we would save lives at this level. If we introduce this measure it will have a demonstrable effect on the roads. The drivers will be safer and it will cascade across the board. We want a consistent message across the board that one cannot drink and drive. We are not advocating zero tolerance at this point in time. I do not suggest that is where we are going.

Is Ms Murdock not overlooking the fact that in 2008 to 2012, inclusive, 19 people were killed by drivers registering 21 mg to 50 mg of alcohol?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

No, we are not because that is already an offence for specified drivers.

But not for every driver. The Minister's argument is that there was an anomaly in the punishment for the 50 mg to 80 mg category.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

There is. We are saying to some people they can have-----

But is that not equally an anomaly?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

There is no other offence for drink driving level where one can escape with a fine and a penalty point. This is the only one in the drink driving category that one can escape with an administrative fine, so if we put in the mandatory ban, all drink driving offences will result in a mandatory ban. That will mean consistency across the board if one drinks and drives whether one is specified or non-specified.

Is the inequity in the levels not an anomaly as well?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

That is not an inequity, it is balanced on the risk to other road users by novice and inexperienced drivers, and professional drivers who are carrying passengers or driving heavy goods vehicles. There is a greater risk there and hence the zero tolerance. For non-specified drivers it is an offence to drink and drive at 50 mg but at the moment one can escape with an administrative fine. We are saying all drink driving offences should be classified the same and should result in a mandatory ban. The fact that there are different categories of driver out there is based on risk and it is not a cop-out at all.

Could I ask about the impact of the legislative changes that kicked in in October 2010? I am looking at the details from the 2008 to 2012 period, and the figure of 16 in the 51 mg to 80 mg cohort. Could Ms Murdock give us an annual breakdown of those? It is an average of 3.2 per annum.

Do the witnesses have an annual breakdown for 2008 to 2012? Did we see a significant drop in 2011 and 2012?

Ms Velma Burns

We did an annual analysis at an overall level, not at the specific individual levels.

I have asked for breakdowns because I wanted to know the impact of the changes to the law in 2010.

Ms Velma Burns

I understand the Chairman's point and I had expected to see a difference across the years but, in fact, if one takes the figure of 38% - which was the overall figure measuring the impact of alcohol in fatal collisions - it was very consistent for every year within that five-year period. It is not like the bulk of those alcohol-related collisions occurred in 2008 and 2009. That was not the case. They were consistent across the years.

I have asked for this over the last couple of months with regard to when the law on limits changed. It is very important that we know-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

To do those comparisons, we would have to go back prior to 2008 and go through the forensic files relating to the previous five years, when the level was at the pre-2011-----

It is not the greatest reference period, because there was a change in the law in the middle of it.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

The findings we have are at the prevailing legal limit.

Do the witnesses not have an annual breakdown of the figures of either the 19 or 16 people in the different categories?

Ms Velma Burns

We have not conducted that analysis.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

The numbers are very small, so I think we are getting into personal data as well.

Ms Velma Burns

The numbers would be very small but I can confirm that an overall level, alcohol as a factor in fatal collisions was consistent across those years.

I am asking about the lower limits. Did the change in law have an impact on people registering in those brackets? I have asked that before as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I still have not got that answer after months of requesting those figures.

Ms Velma Burns

I will look at that. Depending on how small the numbers are-----

I am not looking for names.

Ms Velma Burns

-----I may not be able to share it, but I will certainly look at it.

The witnesses would not be looking for names, just figures. I do not think there are any data issues there, since they are not looking for names of people. They are just looking for a breakdown of the figures. That is not an unreasonable request as part of this process.

Ms Velma Burns

I will certainly have a look at it and see what trends are there.

Could I ask-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

Is the Chairman still talking about the years 2008 to 2012?

The study reference period.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

If the Chairman is looking to see what change there was, as Ms Burns says, there is only one year of that data that would have the different levels.

There are two years, 2011 and 2012. The new law kicked in in October 2010.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

So two years versus the previous three years.

The first three fifths, roughly, of the reference period-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

There is a risk-----

Ms Velma Burns

If we were to break down those numbers, the margin of error for drawing a conclusion on the impact of that legislation would be so high that it would be very unlikely-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is not reliable.

Ms Velma Burns

-----that we would be able to make any inference.

I am not looking for a margin of error. I am just looking for the facts and a breakdown per annum of the people in those categories per annum. That is all.

Ms Velma Burns

I understand.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I think Ms Burns's point is that the numbers are so small that if one saw three in one year, two in another year and six in another year, the margin of error is so high in that level of numbers that it would be wrong to call it a trend. One could find that all of them are pre-October 2010 and there are none in the other half of the study period. The numbers are so small that they could all be concentrated in one year. That is the point here.

I think we can interpret the information. As we receive that, we have the ability to go through it and analyse it but we have not been able to receive it. That is the difficulty, following numerous requests.

Ms Velma Burns

I was not aware of that.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I was not aware that that was a request either.

We need it as quickly as possible, because we are trying to conclude the pre-legislative scrutiny process, but we do not have the information. That would be important. I am sure we will be able to interpret the information.

The other matter I want to ask about on the RSA's study is whether there have been cases in it where suicide was the intention and where alcohol is recorded in the system. How many cases do the RSA have where suicide is attributed as the intention?

Ms Velma Burns

That is specifically mentioned in the report. There were no cases within the 2008 to 2012 period where the coroner's verdict stated that suicide was confirmed as the cause of the collision.

Was there suspicion in any cases?

Ms Velma Burns

There was suspicion in a very small number of cases, but we were not in a position to state it for certain. The coroner is the expert and the person who makes the call on that.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is important to point out that this assumption would have been made based on the fact that an individual would have been under the care of a doctor and getting treatment for something related to suicide risk. That has been something on which Professor Denis Cusack has already made a specific statement in his capacity as the coroner of Kildare County Coroner's Court. It is not a factor. It may be a presumption by people without the facts. It is not an issue in these files and certainly has not been the contributory factor, and certainly not at those levels of alcohol. A much higher level of alcohol would have been involved in those cases.

Something that was not looked at in the regulatory impact analysis that I feel should have been was the effect on the courts of removing the penalty points and fine option and including an automatic disqualification. We have seen in other areas where there is not the penalty points option that the level of challenging in court is much higher. Is it something that the witnesses anticipate will happen now as well in the 50 mg to 80 mg per 100 ml blood alcohol content category for non-specified drivers? The point I am getting at here is that the time it takes for a person accused of drink-driving to come to court is already too long. Will this not actually further delay the times for people who are accused to come to court? At the moment, someone could have ten pints, drive home, be caught, be arrested, and drive away for months before coming into court. I anticipate there will be more court challenges because the figures for court challenges are much higher where the penalty points option is absent. That was not part of the regulatory impact assessment. Do the witnesses anticipate that will have an effect?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I am not sure the fact that it may cause an increased demand on courts would be a valid argument against introducing life-saving legislation. In fact, it will reduce demand on courts if it acts as a deterrent, as we anticipate. People will not engage in the activity in the first place, so they will not be issued with a mandatory ban. Anybody already detected at 50 mg to 80 mg per 100 ml blood alcohol content is fully entitled to go to court to appeal that. People still have the option to go to court as it stands to appeal that, so that is a draw on court resources-----

It is much slower compared with other options.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do not believe that is a concern. We are here to save lives.

The effects are showing-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

There is other legislation. We have the third payment option coming in for many other traffic offences that will alleviate the pressure on courts and improve efficiencies in courts. Some legislation will increase the demand on the courts service. Other legislation that we are introducing later this year will improve efficiencies through the court. This is not a valid argument. This is about saving lives. This is about standardising the offence of drink-driving by introducing a mandatory ban, and that is what we are here to discuss.

Did Ms Murdock consider that factor?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is not a reason not to introduce the legislation. I think that saying "we are too busy to do it" is really not a valid argument.

I am asking the difference between the figures for the court challenges where there is automatic disqualification versus penalty points. There is quite a significant difference.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do not have that information. I certainly know that any road traffic offence is subject to challenge in the court and it is nothing to do with the legislation-----

It is subject to challenge, but the actual effects are-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is just our tendency to challenge. People do not want to lose their licences. That is why they go to court to challenge these things. The fact that people are afraid of losing their licences and end up having to go to court to challenge it proves in itself that this is a deterrent. That indicates that this is valid.

The point, however, is that a person in a rural area who is faced with losing his or her licence has no access to public transport. Losing one's licence is losing one's licence. The difference between the minimum period in court and the proposed change in the current legislation is three months. It is an automatic three-month disqualification versus six months for a first offence. My point is that there will be a far higher level of court challenges as a result of this change because people who face losing their licences will challenge that in court. The risk is only three months of a difference.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I accept fully that this is the Chairman's opinion. My opinion is that it will deter people from drinking and driving in the first place. Hence, they will not be stopped, will not be involved in crashes and will not be appearing in court. If anything, this will reduce the challenges in court because people will not take the chance.

The authority has not studied that, however.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

No. It is not part of the discussion we are having.

Ms Murdock referred earlier to the effectiveness of the changes to the NCT. How many penalty points apply where one drives a car without an NCT certificate?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

One was always going to be issued with penalty points, but one had to appear in court. It was the removal of the requirement to appear in court that constituted the change there. One was given an automatic fixed charge notice for driving without a valid NCT.

How many penalty points apply?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is three.

The compliance rate is much better.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It has improved dramatically. The Chairman might draw the analogy that it is killer behaviour but our research does not show that to be as risky a behaviour as drink driving. My point was that the effect of a penalty change can be dramatic. We believe the current deterrent is not effective enough and changing it to something which is much more meaningful will change driver behaviour.

Would the authority consider looking at increasing the penalty for the 51 mg to 80 mg cohort to six or eight penalty points?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We have looked at that and at international research. The argument for a stronger financial or administrative penalty is not as strong as the argument for a deterrent such as the withdrawal of a licence. International research shows that the risk of licence withdrawal is much more effective than a financial penalty.

Ms Velma Burns

To clarify that, licence withdrawal has been shown to be an effective counter measure. It is difficult to compare exactly in terms of a ranking with other sanctions.

In terms of research on the impact of this measure, how many people have re-offended? How many people have lost their licences who previously availed of penalty points in the 51 mg to 80 mg cohort, having reoffended within the time period?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We are currently researching that. Certainly, we see a number of people re-offending for different types of offences. The difficulty we have establishing a trend is that after three years, one's penalty points are expunged. We do not have information on people who received penalty points prior to 2014. It is very difficult to say that. There is also data protection. One has one's penalty points but after three years they are expunged and there is no trend.

Let us say October 2010 to 2013.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

They have all had their penalty points expunged so I do not have that data.

Yes, but we do not know if people availed of this derogation, to call it that, and were subsequently caught for drink driving.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

There are people who have availed of this sanction and gone on to re-offend in various categories of offence. There are at least 700 people in the system with multiple offences and we are still looking at that. I would rather come back on that. It is a changing figure every day.

What is important to know is whether giving penalty points to people who are caught drink driving is a deterrent which stops them re-offending. That is what I am asking. Have people in the 51 mg to 80 mg cohort who availed of penalty points reoffended in terms of drink driving?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is a very difficult figure.

Ms Velma Burns

We will have to collect data on that for the Chairman and come back to him.

This is the pre-legislative scrutiny process. We are here now in the month of May. This question has been asked here numerous times.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I have to point out that penalty points are expunged on a person's record.

I know that.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is not easy to analyse this topic because it would breach data protection to look to see if someone had offended at a penalty point level in 2014 and gone on to re-offend. It is a small number and we do not have access to those records.

Approximately 600 people per annum who availed of penalty points are in this category. We have no statistics on them. Over the five-year period, it is 3,003.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

How long does one give them to re-offend? One cannot avail of this measure within a three-year period. As such, everyone who has been penalised and convicted in this fashion cannot avail of it and then the record disappears. That is my point. It is not an easily analysable figure because they have three years to expend their penalty points and they cannot avail of it again. Once they are in the clear, we cannot go back and look at their records to determine whether they have offended previously.

Surely, the data should exist for anyone who availed of this in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Those three years are now up for the people in 2013 so we should have that data.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

No. Data can only be held for the purposes of its use. Under data protection regulations, the person's record is expunged after three years.

As such, the RTA cannot tell us if this is a deterrent to drivers drinking and driving again.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We can tell from the other information we have seen. We can say from our public surveys that people who are faced with a driving ban will desist from drinking and driving. We can base it on other information, not the penalty point information that is held on the NVDF. We cannot come out and pull people's records from times past. That would be wrong.

Is this an effective tool to stop people who were previously drink driving from continuing to do so? When those in the 51 mg to 80 mg bracket are caught, do they reoffend or not? We do not know. I am just looking for the information.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We do not know that.

Ms Velma Burns

An Garda Síochána published a report on its website a number of years ago which looked at reoffending rates for drink driving. That report is in the public domain albeit it is a bit dated. I do not recall the figures offhand but I can certainly get the report for the Chairman for clarification. It is not data that I can provide from the research department, however. There are complexities around the data.

In the area of technology, the alco-lock and alco-interlock have come up here before. I furnished numerous examples to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, of systems from around the world. The greatest number of alcohol-related deaths are caused by people who are well over the legal limit and well over the limit covered by this derogation. Would it not, therefore, be the sensible thing for us to pursue placing alco-locks in every vehicle? Would that not simply prevent the crimes from occurring in the first place? Rather than look at those who are caught for offences, why do we not pursue that? Why are we saying we are waiting for Europe to do it rather than to do it now ourselves?

Ms Velma Burns

We are looking at alcohol interlocks and conducting a cost-benefit analysis in that regard currently. There is a significant cost associated with rolling out an alcohol interlock programme. They have been shown to be effective. It is important to state that all of the research shows that drink drivers are a heterogenous group. One cannot, therefore, have one solution for all drink drivers. As I stated earlier, there are more complex issues going on with drink drivers who consume alcohol at the higher levels. There is often a dependency issue. They are a more difficult group in terms of changing their behaviour. Research has shown that alcohol interlocks and rehabilitation programmes are very effective for the high risk offenders who are repeat drink driving and drink driving at higher levels. We need tailored solutions for the range of behaviours.

Much of this meeting has involved talking about drink drivers at lower limits, the problems caused by any alcohol intake and international research, so surely the conclusion is that people should not be able to activate a mechanically-propelled vehicle if they have any alcohol in their system or are over 20 mg.

Ms Velma Burns

I do not know if it is practical.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I must answer that. The national fleet comprises 2.7 million vehicles. I am not sure about the cost of an alcolock but I am sure it is in the hundreds of euro. If we are talking about alcolocks, we are talking about mobile phone use and technology to prevent that. We are also talking about technology to prevent someone moving a vehicle without seat belts being engaged. All of those technologies do improve road safety and we welcome them. Certainly, in a commercial environment, we welcome buyers of public services ensuring that contractors come with those things fitted.

We are talking about it in the context of a drink driving Bill.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

However, we must be practical and decide what we can do right now and that is to introduce this legislation which will save lives, even if it is only seven or eight lives. To try to legislate to retrofit 2.7 million vehicles in this country is not practical and we are losing an opportunity here to save lives.

Outside the argument about retrofitting, in respect of new vehicles coming on the market, is this something the RSA has looked at for all drivers as distinct from offenders?

Ms Velma Burns

I know there have been recommendations in the EU that new vehicles have the fitment to allow for the fitting of an alcohol interlock. I am not sure the stage that was at but certainly-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

It is not necessarily Ms Burns's area of expertise. We have our vehicle standards and are working with the EU on that. We certainly welcome technological advancements. For example, it should not be possible to get a vehicle without a mandatory seat belt alert in the rear of the car yet that has still not become mandatory. We see 20% to 22% of people killed every year because they did not wear seat belts. Yes, some of them have made that decision because they have taken alcohol but a small measure would be to have an alert to say that a person cannot drive without it. People are innovative and will come up with ways of circumventing safety methods.

Working with the EU has been referenced too often. Ms Murdock referenced the smoking ban earlier. We led the way on that. We did not look to Europe to do anything about that. We did that ourselves and we could look at doing the same in terms of other road safety measures.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I agree. We are leading the way on some of the other measures. We want to introduce the legislation to publish the names of disqualified drivers so that people are deterred from drinking and driving and getting disqualified. That is something we are leading on.

That is deterrence. When the technology is there, surely we should embrace it for prevention more than trying to catch people.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

There will be no resistance from the RSA. We are working at EU level and we work with the Department on bringing forward measures. The rehabilitation proposal is with the Department. It contains measures we would recommend such as implementing alcolocks, the re-sitting of the driving test, certain measures for people who offend and who we need to rehabilitate and the educational programme for people who speed. We are fully engaged in that process and have proposals with the Department.

Earlier the witnesses were giving the message that we cannot send different messages to drivers about what is and is not an acceptable level of alcohol, that going a little over the limit is not as bad as going further over the limit and that, therefore, this anomaly, as it has been referred to, in section 29 needs to be addressed. Taking that logic, could we not apply the same thing to speeding, which kills far more people on the roads? We have the penalty points system at the moment and we have penalty points for speeding offences, which we know kill people. The witnesses are saying we should not have a penalty points system for drink driving offences because we know drink driving kills people. Why do we have a penalty points system for speeding? Should we not apply the logic that if somebody is speeding, speeding kills people so we should disqualify that person for speeding?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We deal with every killer behaviour out there. The number of offences where speeding is the sole contributory factor like alcohol is quite low. I would not say that speeding kills considerably more people. Speeding and alcohol are very similar in terms of the level.

Ms Velma Burns

The number is lower based on our pre-crash study. A total of 38% of the fatal collisions involved alcohol as a factor while 32% involved speeding.

So we are talking about one third of incidents but we have a penalty points system. Someone can commit three or four speeding offences before losing their licence in a certain period of time. How many people lost their licences last year for a single speeding offence?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do not have that information. Today is about the pre-legislative scrutiny on the alcohol Bill. I would be more than happy to come back and talk about speeding measures but what we are trying to do here is support-----

It is important in the context of the approach here.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We are trying to support the alcohol Bill and I think we have put-----

Ms Murdock does not know how many people lost their licences last year or any year for a single speeding offence.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do know that 22,000 disqualifications were issued and on average per annum 22,000 licences are-----

That is for people who accumulate-----

Ms Moyagh Murdock

Not necessarily. That is for all classifications of disqualification.

What about speeding?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I do not have that information but I can tell the Chairman how many people are disqualified for-----

Surely Ms Murdock should know this.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

-----for dangerous driving and an offence that is deemed to have caused injury or death. There is a multitude of reasons a person can lose his or her licence. Some of them relate to an accumulation of penalty points but that accumulation could be for multiple factors. It could be for parking, speeding or other traffic offences. There are quite a number of offences out there that accumulate penalty points. In respect of how many people lost their licences as a result of speeding, the speeding might have been the last nail in the coffin. We cannot isolate it into one-----

Could Ms Murdock provide us with two specific areas of information? They are the numbers of people who lose their licences for accumulating the total number of penalty points and data regarding people who are disqualified from driving for a single speeding offence, for example, if someone gets clocked driving up the motorway at 100 km/h, is taken to court and disqualified. Could Ms Murdock give us the available figures? It is important that we would have them because there is a strong feeling among members of the public that not enough is being done to tackle serious speeding, which is a major killer, and that people can do it far more often than drink driving. I am not condoning any of them. I am just talking about what the public perception is. The public perception is that someone has a better chance of getting away with speeding than of getting away with drink driving.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

The public perception is wrong because, as Ms Burns has said, more people are killed because of drink driving and someone can speed but not kill someone.

It is critical because it can impact behaviour. Perception is important. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, we cannot overlook it.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We are here to clarify those perceptions. We are not here to create further doubt and confusion.

I know but the point is that it should not be overlooked.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We are here to clarify the perception that speeding is the killer behaviour. It is not. It is alcohol. We will come back to the committee with those numbers but it has nothing to do with the alcohol Bill we are discussing here. This is about saving 78 lives per year as a result of the drink driving level being between 50 mg to 80 mg. We would be happy to look at further legislation in terms of speeding but we must be quite firm about what we are here to do today. We are here to clarify questions about the pre-crash report on alcohol. We have a very detailed report on speed and speed is also a killer behaviour that is combined with alcohol. Members will see that in the report. People make decisions as a result of drinking alcohol and also speed. There is a lot of overlap whenever we talk about these killer behaviours.

Does the RSA agree with automatic disqualification for people who speed over a certain limit, for example, if somebody is clocked at 40 km/h over the limit?

Ms Moyagh Murdock

The legal system in this country would have to look at that and decide whether there should be automatic disqualification for speeding. The offence is an automatic disqualification for driving so dangerously that it warrants disqualification. That is a separate issue. Speeding offences involve different pieces of legislation. Some could be driving causing death or driving dangerously but there is no specific offence where people drove so fast that they were disqualified.

I have a final question about the table on page two. The 2008 to 2012 analysis shows that the 51 mg to 80 mg cohort is responsible for 5.6% of the analysed fatalities. Within this table there is a figure of 16. What does the figure of 16 represent? The vintners have one figure. What does it represent in the overall number of road fatalities between 2008 and 2012?

Ms Velma Burns

That is not a calculation we have done.

Can the Road Safety Authority provide this to the committee?

Ms Velma Burns

I can provide that, absolutely.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I would point out that it is not a calculation the vintners could have done either because we have not put that in.

Ms Velma Burns

I am not sure exactly how they came to the 1.3% they quoted.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

We put it on the record that we could not see how they arrived at that figure.

I am asking the witnesses to provide the committee with this information as soon as possible. We cannot conclude the pre-legislative scrutiny until we get all the answers.

Ms Velma Burns

That is no problem.

I want to know what the figure 16 represents as a percentage of the overall number of road fatalities between 2008 and 2012, inclusive. That is all I am asking for.

Ms Velma Burns

Is this as included in this study or included overall? It may be more relevant-----

The study, which is 88% of the overall figures, but it would help if the witnesses could give both figures. I appreciate that this is a number within 88%. Is this okay?

Ms Velma Burns

Yes.

The information can be sent to the clerk to the committee.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I think the Chairman had another question. He wanted the figure per year.

That was the annual breakdown of those figures of 19 and 16, if possible. That should be retrievable among the data. It is important that the witnesses issue that information to the committee as soon as possible.

The chart is quite striking and what stands out is the establishment of the RSA in 2006 when the figures for road fatalities were well over 400 per annum. Thankfully we have seen a serious reduction to 162 in 2015. The figure went up last year, unfortunately. The downward trend will, we hope, continue this year. There is no room for any complacency. I want to make the point that in the 30 years prior to the establishment of the RSA, there was a reduction of just one third in road fatalities. Since then we have seen a huge reduction. We never know who they are but there are hundreds, and possibly thousands, of people who are walking around today in Ireland who would not be here without the work of the RSA and the other State agencies tasked with reducing road fatalities and serious injuries. On behalf of the committee, I thank the representatives and the RSA for the work and efforts in this area.

Ms Moyagh Murdock

I would just like to add to that it is not without the help and support of this Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport, across the board in the past. We have had cross-party support for many of the measures that are resulting in those reductions. We unashamedly seek its support on this one also.

I thank the witnesses for their time. It is important that as Members of the Oireachtas there would be full scrutiny, that every question that needs to be answered would be answered, and that every question that needs to be asked would be asked.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.55 a.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 May 2017.
Top
Share