Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)

I want to focus my remarks on one of the provisions of the Bill, taking into consideration some of the previous debates in the House on the same subject matter, namely, the question of the lowering of the blood-alcohol limits. I am one of those who, over the years, has reached a strong conclusion that there should be no tolerance of driving while under the influence of alcohol or any other drug. Whether this Dáil or a future Dáil deals with the issue, it is something all of us know is inevitable.

I read some of the previous records of the House on this matter. As recently as eight years ago, not one single Deputy stood up in the House and said we should question whether it is right or safe that there should be a tolerance level for those who use alcohol or some other drug and then use their vehicle. We have heard certain arguments put forward today and yesterday. Why do we not take to its conclusion the argument that every so many years we would reduce the permitted level of alcohol and use the scientific evidence that this lowers the death rates? I read one contribution which stated the death rate was now down to "only six per week". If one were to say that to a family that has lost a member as a result of the actions of a drunk driver, one would get very little understanding, and rightly so.

We must think this through. Every time we, as parliamentarians, water down these measures, we must ask why we do not go the extra mile, as other Parliaments have done, and just ban it entirely, whether it is alcohol, cannabis, heroin or cocaine. We should ban it once and for all. That is the message people want to hear.

It was refreshing to hear today and yesterday that there are perhaps an increasing number of people who take the view I take, namely, that we must face up to an outright ban on the use of any drug, including the national drug, alcohol, which I enjoy myself occasionally. It may be the new Minister who will have to make a stand and be the only Minister in the history of the State to say this issue has to be confronted and that there must be a public debate on it. If there were a public debate, I believe I know on which side it would come down.

If one considers how other jurisdictions have dealt with this, not just in Europe but worldwide, there is no great difficulty for us. There are some who say we must reduce the alcohol level and try to reduce the number of deaths but then contradict themselves by asking us to consider our country cousins who want to go off for a few pints and then drive home. The life of someone living in the country is just as valuable as that of someone, such as myself, who lives in an urban centre. There should be no distinction.

Speakers in the debate have drawn a distinction between alcohol and drugs. If one compares the figures regarding illegal drugs and road casualties with those concerning the national drug, alcohol, the illegal drugs are out of the frame and are scarcely of consequence in the statistics.

See this speech in context