Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The LVA said it was of the opinion that current penalties were sufficiently severe. How do they weigh that view against the fact that people continue to drink and drive? The witnesses acknowledged there was an increase in young people drinking and driving and outlined why they thought this was the case. I agree that the lack of enforcement and resources in the Garda traffic corps have contributed to it, and the increase in staff this year will be woefully inadequate in this regard. There was a six-week campaign against drink-driving over Christmas, instigated by An Garda Síochána, but there was an increase of 35% in arrests for drunk driving in that period, so if we had the traffic corps present for 52 weeks of the year the statistics would show that drunk-driving was on the rise.

The vintners said they disputed the idea that the penalty in the new Bill would save lives, though they also said they did not condone drink-driving and that the full rigour of the law should be applied to people who do it. However, I cannot understand how they can stand over the contention that drinking over the limit of 50 mg and under 80 mg is harmless. Can they explain why they say that?

Deputy Troy referred to initiatives the witnesses had looked into, such as a rural hackney service. I was wondering what the associations here today had contributed to road safety and I thought about the cost of soft drinks, at between €4.50 and €5, to which there was no reference in either of today's statements. Several years ago there was a campaign for a free drink for a designated driver but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Surely, initiatives such as free soft drinks for designated drivers would go some way to alleviating the problems they face in rural Ireland.

The only thing that is changing in this legislation is the penalty. It remains unlawful to drink-drive if one is between 50 mg and 80 mg. The witnesses said there was evidence of a presence of alcohol in certain accidents but that there was no evidence that alcohol was a factor. The law of the land states that if there is evidence of the presence of alcohol and a person is above the legal limit they are breaking the law. The statistics do not have to prove that alcohol was a factor. If a person breaks the law by being over the limit they have broken the law. The law is there for the very obvious reason that alcohol can impair driving.