If I recall correctly the debate on Second Stage this section is not to be introduced immediately. The time when breath specimens alone can be used as evidence is a little bit down the road. Apparently there is a huge discrepancy rate and too much inaccuracy with the present breath sampling system. What changes does the Minister envisage in terms of the apparatus that is used that will allow it to be technically accurate enough to stand up in court?
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
The technology and the sophistication of these types of apparatus has improved greatly and has been used considerably and with effect in court proceedings for some time. We have some way to go to ensure that we are able to comply with those requirements and I want to be satisfied that at the stage at which we resort to evidential breath testing as an absolutely reliable indicator — that will take some time and in the meantime we will be using the existing provisions — a decision will only be taken when we are satisfied that we have reached that stage and are able to provide for all of the required needs.
Given the restriction of the blood-alcohol limit, which I support, when we get to the point that the apparatus is technically accurate enough for it to be used as evidence in court and without a supporting blood or urine sample, does the Minister envisage a product on the market whereby an individual on leaving a public house or a hotel or a reception of any kind could check whether they were over the limit? The limit of 80 miligrammes is a tight limit and understandably so. For some people it is one drink and for others one drink would be a drink too many. Once the technology has been perfected and the accuracy verified, does the Minister see a product coming on the market that would enable people to check themselves before they sat into their car to drive home?
The Deputy is asking me to do down an old boreen that I am afraid, even with all her persuasive powers, I am not going to travel. I have tried to make it clear, not just in this debate but in all the road safety campaigns, that I want to divorce drinking from driving and that practically no levels are acceptable as it is too great a risk. As Minister for the Environment I would consider it injudicious of me to get into the business of trying to help in provisions of that kind. My answer has to be that if people want to drive they should avoid occasions where they might be drinking. In other words, people can enjoy themselves to the full but must make some other arrangement for driving. I am not going to get involved in that debate.
It is a valid point as a "half one" has a different effect on two people, depending on their metabolism and their general metabolic rate.
While I accept the Minister's advice not to drink and drive, there are occasions when people will have one drink or will have a couple of drinks at lunchtime and would not be driving home until 6 o'clock. They may want to check whether their blood alcohol level permitted them to safety and legally take their car on the road. Is there a commercial apparatus for breath testing which would be technically accurate and would have the approval of the Minister to enable them carry out that test?
This is a reasonable request. If people wait a few hours sometimes the drop in the blood alcohol level takes longer with some than with others, depending on metabolism, make up, body weight, rest and other factors such as illness and other drugs. For example, one drink could put a person taking a prescribed antibiotic over the limit without him or her being conscious of the fact.
Is there a product available that would permit people leaving a building, be it a public house, a hotel or even a restaurant, if they wished, check their blood alcohol level? Such a product could be useful. At present the accuracy of these products is not accepted as evidence. It is only the apparatus used by the Garda Síochána that can be used and this has to be backed up by blood and urine sampling.
However, when the point is reached where the apparatus used by the Garda Síochána is technically sophisticated enough to be accepted on its own for breath testing, without urine and blood sampling also, will the Minister accept that an equivalent type of DIY kit should be generally available on the commercial market? That will help ensure that people will not sit behind the wheel of a car and cause unnecessary accidents. Often it is too late if it is said that that second drink was over the limit. With a mechanism like this people would test themselves.
They have them in the UK.
With the blessing of the authorities in the UK also.
My answer is unchanged from my earlier remarks. I am not going to be drawn into supporting any provisions which suggests to the public that they should take a number of drinks, depending on the circumstances, and then have some way of checking their own alcohol level. It is safer to operate on the basis that if one wishes to enjoy a drink he or she should make some other arrangement for driving.
I understood that these alcohol meters were generally available. I gather that they are available in the UK and I cannot see any good reason that they should not be available here.
In many ways I am puzzled at the Minister's attitude. If the Minister wants to make it illegal for people to get into a car with an alcohol level less than 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood then he should indicate this. Deputy Doyle made a reasonable point that if people want to be sensible and responsible and check that their alcohol level is less than 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood, alcohol testing meters provide them with an opportunity to do so. It also provides an opportunity for those people who may have mistaken ideas regarding their blood/alcohol level to check it. This facility provides a scientific and sensible way of checking the level. In addition, it also enables people whose blood/alcohol level is over the limit to take their time, measure it at appropriate intervals and wait until it declines to within the legal limit.
This is a sensible approach and it is one I would encourage even though I accept it is possible to measure the blood/alcohol level prior to the peak of absorption, with the blood levels increasing ten or 15 minutes later before tailing off at the maximum level. While I accept this is a risk it is a good idea and it might increase public awareness of the effect of small amounts of drink on blood levels. In my experience a large number of people are quite deluded in relation to being within the law and the amount of drinks that can be consumed. Many people will declare after five or six pints that they are safe to drive which I am sure is completely illegal.
Regrettably I must again disagree with Deputies Upton and Doyle. The alcohol blood level monitoring machines are available in the UK and I understand they do not have any formal Government approval. If people want to exercise good practices in this way and it proves to be of benefit, perhaps that would be helpful. However, I have my doubts. The effects on the blood level from the alcohol are determined by the amounts consumed and the variations that Deputy Doyle has referred to.
There are many difficulties involved. While these devices may be helpful I have my doubts about them and I am not going to seek formal Government approval for them. I want to remain close to the notion that if people want to drink socially they should make other arrangements for driving.
It might help to change the cultural problem we have towards getting people to accept that they should not drink and drive if, as Deputy Upton pointed out, they realise now little it takes to go over the limit. Many people do not realise that they cannot drive after drinking three or four pints.
I do not believe that such people are under the slightest doubt. They are as aware as the Deputy or myself or anybody else. One doubt that is not in their mind and that is that after two drinks there is no way one is as capable a driver as one was without them.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.