Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I appreciate the extensive reply the Minister has provided, but we continue to have concerns. I accept his argument that there is nothing he can do about unscrupulous gardaí. Our amendment does not attempt to deal with such cases, however. It has been tabled to assist the Garda Síochána in its efforts to deal with unscrupulous citizens. It was made clear during the most recent discussion on this legislation in the House that some people try to feign or fake certain conditions in a way that makes it difficult for gardaí to deal with them as they wish. The amendments we have proposed will ensure the onus is taken from the individual garda.

Ultimately, we want to ensure every individual is required to provide a sample of blood or urine, regardless of his or her medical condition. An exception can be made, as provided for in the legislation, if the person is in hospital. We clearly recognise the complications associated with those who are hyperventilating and pose a considerable risk to gardaí in determining that they have to provide a sample. That onus should be taken from gardaí. The legislation caters for cases in which the person has gone to hospital in the first instance. We are keen to prevent an individual who has not been transported to hospital from seeking to evade detection by faking an event in a way that prevents the Garda from intervening. The amendment would place a requirement on the officer in question to take a sample wherever appropriate medical assistance is provided, whether at the roadside, in the driver's home or car or elsewhere. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure a potential lacuna does not emerge. It is not intended to complicate the considerable volume of law pertaining to drink driving cases or create further problems for the courts in attempting to secure convictions.

As my party indicated during the previous debate on the Bill, given the criminal sanctions associated with being convicted of drink driving, individuals will try every possible avenue, sometimes at considerable legal cost, to test the law. On that basis, the Bill leaves a significant gap which will allow individuals to evade justice. That this loophole has been highlighted and identified guarantees that individuals will seek to exploit it.

While I fully understand the Minister's resolve to implement the main provisions of the Bill relating to mandatory breath testing, it would be remiss, in light of the considerable period the legislation has been in gestation, to implement it without first ensuring all possibilities are addressed. I ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment. Perhaps it could be refined and an amended version introduced in the Upper House. A new Seanad will be elected within the next fortnight.

While I do not wish to delay enactment of the Bill, given that it has been in gestation for a long period, a further three or four weeks' delay would not have any major impact. I am concerned, however, that enacting a Bill which has a serious deficiency would have a greater impact than delaying its implementation by a few week. If it proceeds, the courts will have to address the deficiency and the House would need time to amend the legislation. I ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendments.

See this speech in context