Professor Denis Cusack:

They were pertinent questions. On the issue of the 24-hour period, alcohol is a particular drug, a pleasant one, that many people take voluntarily and sensibly but which some others do not. In this context, though, we are dealing with seven other classes of drug: cannabis; benzodiazepine; Valium or tranquiliser-like drugs; cocaine; amphetamines and methamphetamines like ecstasy and speed; methadone; and other opiates. In addition to these are other drugs that are not always tested for under road safety measures. This is a complex area. Those drugs fall into different classes of being sedative-like drugs, hallucinogen-like drugs and stimulant-like drugs. They are different family types. Some will only stay in their active components in the body for short periods. Sometimes, this presents a difficulty. I know from my forensic doctor colleagues that, although police in England will test someone on the roadside who is clearly impaired, by the time he or she is brought to a police station the doctor conducting the examination must honestly find that the person is not impaired. Other drugs can last much longer, so each must be taken on its own merits.

I will link this matter to that of hair. A hair sample is a useful forensic tool, but it covers a much longer sphere. For those who still have head hair, certain drugs will get deposited as our hair grows. This tool is used more to see whether someone has used a drug of abuse over the longer term, that is, weeks or months. It is not particularly useful in the immediate phase. The Bill's measures are concerned with whether a driver has an impairing active drug in his or her system while driving, not with whether he or she took drugs last week, two weeks ago or three months ago. That is another issue.

I do not know whether the Deputy was referring to car crashes when discussing the tragedy of suicide. Under the Road Traffic Act, we in the bureau only deal with living samples, but the coroners send samples from all road traffic crashes to determine what was in people's systems. One of the studies involved Kildare. This is a relevant issue.

The Deputy also asked about blood, urine and saliva. He is right, in that much of this work to date has been concerned with blood and urine. We define "oral fluid" as including saliva. Dr. Maguire will pick me up if I mislead members in any way. What goes through our blood goes into our saliva. Different drugs bind in saliva in different ways, which is what makes this process so complex. Had the Deputy asked me ten years ago after the ROSITA and DRUID studies, I would have said that we were not yet at a stage where we could reliably look to the tests in question. The situation has since progressed significantly and we are now examining oral fluids at the roadside. As part of our recommendation, we have suggested that, as technology develops, saliva might be suitable for confirmatory or evidential testing. The roadside test is only meant to determine whether it looks like there is a drug. That will not be enough for a prosecution, as it must be confirmed that a drug is in the blood. Currently, the emphasis is on blood and urine, but oral fluids could be included in future. We hope to develop this aspect.

The Deputy asked about prescribable drugs but he also referred to alcohol and other drugs. Of the 1,000 drivers we studied who were under the then alcohol limit, one third tested positive for drugs. Of those who were over the alcohol limit, 15% also tested positive for other drugs. The Deputy is right about there being a problem. Ireland has a nuanced balance. In terms of blood measures for alcohol, we are one of the few countries with levels at 20 mg, 50 mg, 80 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg. As members are aware, there are tiered and increasing penalties between the 50 mg and 150 mg levels. I understand that the Minister will make a recommendation in this regard to the Oireachtas. For example, if someone has alcohol at a particular level plus a drug, one way to approach the issue would be to bring the person up to the next penalty tier. If we recognise that a driver with an alcohol level of 81 mg is more dangerous than a driver who has a level of 50 mg or that someone with a level of more than 150 mg is more dangerous than someone with a level of 81 mg, a person with a blood alcohol level of 81 mg plus ecstasy is clearly more dangerous than someone with a level of just 81 mg. Therefore, should this be reflected in the penalty? This question is being considered actively.

I am unsure as to whether I have answered the Deputy’s questions.