Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

That was last night's debate.

People feel the morning-after test is very unfair but if one is over the limit, one is impaired; it is as simple as that. Therefore, one cannot really make a distinction. Alcohol impairs a driver's judgment and ability to drive. Drivers feel they are okay but they are not; they are impaired. The level is too high and they are still impaired by the alcohol in their system. International evidence shows that alcohol, even at low levels, has an impact on driving ability. The WHO warns that the risks from alcohol begin at very low levels. The risk posed by being over the limit is caused by the alcohol and it makes no difference to that risk how long it is since the person consumed the alcohol. People who drank very heavily the night before must take responsibility for their own behaviour. If they have any doubts, they should not drive. It is a cardinal rule that one should not get in the car if one has any doubts at all. One cannot necessarily self-test so the rule is, "Do not do it." It is easy enough.

I agree on public attitudes in rural areas. I have addressed that already. I refer to the Behaviour & Attitudes polls in rural areas that the RSA quoted. The results were very powerful and indicated support for this measure, presumably because people in those areas are so conscious that it saves lives.

Reference was made to the very small number of people affected. It is probably true but I do not like addressing the subject in that way. While the number is small, it is a very big message. A very strong message is coming out from here that drinking and driving do not mix in any way. What we want to do through the disqualification is fight the impression that it is acceptable to drive after one, two or three drinks; it is not. We want to make people think twice about drinking and driving.

People can quote statistics and say that there are only so many affected. However, saying "only so many" is just not acceptable. It may be one life, two lives or three lives.

Deputy Robert Troy said that this is the only Bill I have taken through the Oireachtas. That is wrong. He mentioned five penalty points. We have been through that before. On his point that 93% of convictions are associated with the higher category and 7% with the lower, I am of the view that the 7% matters. We would not dispute that 93% of those convicted are in the higher category and that 7% are in the lower category. Those in the 7% category have the potential to cost lives and have done so in the past. This is the category we are addressing. We believe the penalty is appropriate. It is not right to suggest that the proportion is only 7%. I understand the Deputy's point in respect of addressing the higher limit further but those exceeding it are being disqualified and taken off the road. That is an appropriate punishment for them. There is a good case for punishing them further, and I am happy to discuss that with the Deputy. To be consistent, it might be more helpful if the Deputy withdrew his opposition to this Bill and accepted the disqualification we are introducing.