Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will probably take less than one third of the time available. I welcome the Bill as an attempt to improve road safety and reduce the toll of death and disability as a result of road traffic accidents involving motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. The moves to introduce lower speed limits and recognise driver disqualifications in other jurisdictions are welcome. However, I question the soundness of measures that would criminalise people who are not impaired for the purpose of driving and may have taken drugs more than 24 years before being tested as well as people who have taken a drug for medical reasons.

There is compelling evidence that cannabis use impairs cognitive function and driving skills and increases crash risk. However, while the relationship between being over the legal limit and impaired is straightforward in the case of alcohol, it is not straightforward with regard to other drugs, particularly cannabis. Tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, is one of the active ingredients in cannabis for which the Bill sets out legal limits for blood tests. The product can be detected in the blood of an individual for hours or days following cannabis use, depending on the frequency of use and other factors. For instance, long-term cannabis users have plasma THC concentrations ranging from 1 microgram per litre to 11 micrograms per litre. This means regular consumers of cannabis for medicinal use who test over the 1 milligram limit for THC may not necessarily be impaired or incapable of controlling their vehicle at the time of testing.

The introduction of a medical exemption certificate for cannabis based products for medicinal use is welcome. This is safeguarded from a road safety point of view by the clarification that such a certificate is considered null and void if the holder is thought to be under the influence of drugs to such an extent that he or she is incapable of controlling the vehicle. However, the Bill does not provide any detail on how such impairment would be determined. This matter needs to be further elaborated. In addition, the Bill specifies only cannabis based products that are prescription drugs, which would criminalise those who use cannabis based products for medicinal use that have been recommended by a doctor but are not consumed in a prescription drug formulation, for example, herbal cannabis products.

During the pre-legislative scrutiny process, stakeholders queried whether roadside drug testing could potentially be used to prosecute drivers who have illicit drugs in their bodies but who are not impaired. The joint committee questioned whether this was appropriate in the context of a road traffic Bill aimed at improving road safety. The Department noted that the proposed legal limits proposed had been considered in the context of other jurisdictions and the levels provided for were chosen on the basis that they are indicative of recent use. It is, therefore, of concern that the Bill legislates for setting up Garda checkpoints where routine drug testing could criminalise many people who are not impaired and do not pose any danger to road safety.

To address these issues, I propose that the Bill be amended to bring it into line with legislation adopted by several EU member states which have implemented a two tier system. This model involves a combination of an impairment based law and legal limit approaches under which drivers who are found to be above the legal limit but not to be impaired are penalised, if at all, by a small fine, while drivers who are impaired by any substance are penalised severely, including by means of a driving ban. Where a person is not over the legal limit or impaired, the results of drug testing under the Bill should not be used to prosecute him or her under any other Act. There is already too great a focus on criminalisation and insufficient focus on health and safety issues.

I welcome the elements of the Bill which focus on health and safety and are likely to reduce the levels of death and injury on the roads. However, those elements which increase criminalisation will serve only to distract from the benefits of the legislation. They are threat to civil liberties which will undermine the safety aspects of the Bill and should be removed by amendments on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context