Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

A number of issues have been raised and what I might do, with the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is address the amendments put down first and then comment on the other issues for which no amendment has been put down.

The amendments all are in the name of Deputy Dooley. At the outset, I congratulate him on his recent appointment as spokesperson. I look forward to working with him over the coming years if I survive that long.

On the amendments, Deputy Dooley wishes to emphasise the seriousness of the offence by providing for stricter sanctions. However, it is important that we apply consistency in road traffic legislation when providing for fines or terms of imprisonment. The sections, as drafted, are appropriate and provide consistency with existing analogous legislation.

Where a person refuses or fails to comply with the requirement to provide a preliminary breath test under section 12 of the 1994 Act or a blood or urine sample under section 15 of that act, he or she commits an offence. In addition to a fine of €5,000 and a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months on summary conviction, section 9 of the principal Act provides for a consequent disqualification for not less than four years in the case of a first offence and not less than six years in the case of a second or subsequent offence. The offence is, therefore, addressed in at least as much if not more thoroughness than the Deputy's amendment provides.

In respect of the proposed amendment to increase the term of imprisonment to 12 months, the Office of the Attorney General advised against introducing such a penalty on summary conviction because it goes against the overall intention of such trials, would be disproportionate and has wider implications for other legislation. Deputy Ó Snodaigh also made a valid point on criminalisation. The only instance where a 12 month term of imprisonment is provided for in road traffic legislation is in section 112 of the principal Act and if we were to introduce a minimum 12 month section for road traffic offences, we should do so across the board rather than in respect of one offence. I ask Deputy Dooley to withdraw the amendments on the basis that the earlier ones are already provided for and the later ones go further than we would prefer.

In regard to the question raised by Deputy Broughan as to whether there should be an "or" conjunction between A, B, C and D, I have received written advice from the Attorney General to the effect that not only is it unnecessary but that it would be a deviation from the standard style and is therefore ill-advised. She argued that it would undermine the consistency and certainty of the system and raise questions as to whether the distinction in language is intended to convey a distinction in meaning. I understand the concerns that have arisen but I have determined this form of conjunction exists in other jurisdictions and the Attorney General advises that changing it could undermine the legislation rather than strengthen it. It behoves me to accept that advice.

In regard to the discretionary power of the Garda, I appreciate the fraught issue that Deputy Broughan raised. The Bill provides for mandatory testing and a garda shall test for alcohol where somebody has been involved in a collision causing injury. However, we need to include a provision that allows a garda discretion in carrying out a mandatory breath test where such a test would be prejudicial to the recipient's health. Circumstances can arise whereby a number of people are injured in serious road traffic accidents involving a drink driver who is exsanguinating or suffering cardiac arrest and requires immediate medical attention. A garda must be able to use discretion in such a situation to ensure the individual concerned receives the medical attention he or she requires immediately. We need this provision because such a person should not be breath tested before receiving lifesaving medical treatment. The only exception to mandatory testing is where a garda is asked to use his or her discretion to ensure someone involved in a road traffic accident receives medical attention in a timely fashion.

I fully accept the Deputy's concerns and do not want to see this provision being misused as a get-out clause for those who are capable of providing a breath test either at the scene of the accident or an hour later. I conveyed these concerns to the Assistant Garda Commissioner yesterday and I made clear to him the Government's intentions for this Bill and my desire to be given evidence of any cases involving such behaviour. We have not been able to come up with a formula of words that protects somebody whose life is at risk while at the same time ensuring discretion is not abused. Unfortunately, that is always the case with discretionary provisions in legislation. Discretion is provided for good reasons but there is always a small risk that it will be abused for nefarious reasons. The Garda advised me that the legislation allows for the arrest of the person concerned in such cases. If the person is shamming or is hyperventilating and cannot give a breath test at the scene of the accident, he or she can be arrested so that the test can be administered at a later stage. I have confidence in these assurances and, while I have not yet been presented with a form of words that provides discretion while preventing abuse, if Deputies wish to put forward an amendment to that effect in the context of the road traffic (No. 2) Bill, I will be happy to consider it.

The issue of an unconscious driver is not adequately addressed in the Bill but we are investigating similar legislation in the United Kingdom with a view to including in the road traffic (No. 2) Bill a provision that allows for the removal of a blood sample from somebody who is unconscious. The individual can subsequently grant or refuse consent for the sample to be used in court. From my medical experience, it is commonplace that somebody who is unconscious is tested for alcohol and drugs.

In regard to Garda resources, we intend to conduct a major public awareness campaign, including gardaí on the streets, when we bring in reduced blood alcohol levels in September. This will let people know about the reduced limits as well as crack down on infractions. As Deputy Broughan noted, there has only been one road traffic fatality so far this month and I hope it will turn out to be the safest month on our roads since records began. We are still ahead of our position for this time last year but that may change in the next week or so if there are no accidents.

Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee adequate resources for the Garda traffic corps. I wish I could but, as Deputies are aware, two thirds of the funds for the Garda come from the taxpayer and one third comes from the IMF and the EU. That money will not be there forever and we are in the middle of a fiscal consolidation process. The final answer to that question can be provided by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, or the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure, Deputy Howlin. I cannot assure Deputies that the IMF will continue to pay the salaries of our gardaí. Some people want the IMF to go home, at which point payment would cease immediately, but I cannot guarantee we can replace that money through increased taxation and cuts in other services.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised a valid point on drug testing. I investigated this issue further since it was raised on Second Stage and found out that the Medical Bureau of Road Safety is at present training gardaí in evidential testing for drug use. This involves a three-day training course through which gardaí are trained in administering neurological tests on individuals who have been stopped for dangerous driving. Deputies may have seen scenes in American movies where an individual is asked to walk along a line, touch his or her nose or do what is known in medicine as a Romberg's test. This would be recognised in law as an evidential test equal to a urine or blood test. The difficulty we face with drugs is the absence of a specific limit beyond which we can be sure driving is unsafe. Furthermore, different tests show up different types of drugs. We want this training programme to be rolled out at the earliest opportunity because drug driving is a significant problem. I am advised that the vast majority of people caught for drug driving have also consumed alcohol.

It is possible in almost all cases to prosecute them under that provision. We also want to be able to deal with persons who have taken cocaine or speed and drive but who have not consumed alcohol. It is not satisfactory that is not entirely the case now.

The legislation tightens the law further. It will, in practice, result in mandatory breath-testing. Anyone involved in an accident which causes an injury will be breath-tested. I am confident that this will happen. I am fully aware of the concerns that the clause could be misused, but I am prepared to test it and see what happens in the meantime. I want to know of any instances where this does not happen.

Other matters can be dealt with in the road traffic (No. 2) Bill, the heads of which will be brought to the Government soon. It will then have to be brought before the committee for the pre-legislative stage, a new stage on which the committee will get to see the heads of the Bill before it is published. The Bill will then be published and go through both Houses of the Oireachtas before being enacted into law. My intention is to have this done by the tail-end of the year.

This legislation does not address all we want it to. For example, it does not address the graduated driver licence issue which will be dealt with in the road traffic (No. 2) Bill. However, in the interregnum, before the road traffic (No. 2) Bill is passed, it will toughen up the law considerably and provide for mandatory testing and number of other measures. I ask for the support of the House in that regard bearing in mind that if I were to accept any amendments today, we would have to go back to the Seanad. We would then have to wait until after the Seanad election which would further delay the enactment of the Bill. That would raise the question as whether we should abandon the Bill entirely and wait for the next one. I do not want that to happen and another year to pass without this legislation being in place.

See this speech in context