John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

During the course of the debate, we heard a lot of statistics on the rise in drink-driving cases and the level of impairment that can be caused by drink-driving even after consuming low amounts of alcohol. Statistically, it has absolutely been proven. Medical science has proven it and all the indications are that it is absolutely correct. We have also heard concerns that the Bill is too extreme, that it will have a negative effect on rural Ireland and that there will be a financial cost. Since I mentioned statistics, our current laws are definitely not sufficient to deter drink-drivers. That is acknowledged right across the social sphere, even by drivers. It is obvious that our current laws are not sufficient. An average of 740 people were arrested every month in 2017 for drink-driving according to the Road Safety Authority. Research suggests that in the past 12 months, 10% of motorists have driven a vehicle after consuming alcohol. These are staggering statistics. The vast majority of Irish drivers believe that having no alcohol before driving is the only way to be safe. Having read all the statistics and gone through the facts and figures on deaths and injuries as a result of drink-driving, it is the only way to proceed.

Behind the drink-driving statistics there are tragedies and devastated families . During Leaders' Questions a number of months ago, Christina Donnelly from Waterford was present in the Gallery. Her son was killed by a drink-driver and his friend was also killed in the collision. It was not about politics for her. There are indications from some people that this is about politics - us versus the Opposition or rural versus urban - but that is not the case. It is interesting that we talk about statistics in rural and urban areas and mention things such as checkpoints, enforcement, the Garda traffic corps and poor roads. I accept that Deputies were not saying poor roads are responsible for people drink-driving. If I had my way - I have said this to the Minister - people with any alcohol in their systems would not be allowed to drive. If legislation in this regard could prevent just one death and the devastation of one family once a year, it would be well worth it. It is not beyond the realms of possibility for people who have a drink - and I have a drink - to get a taxi or to arrange something similar in rural areas. I understand the difficulties in such areas. When I go on holidays, I come across nice pubs that are isolated. I might like to go to one and have a drink and have to get a taxi. If all statistics show it is not working, then we have to change it. In all of these statistics, there are indications that many people who may intend to go for one drink do not stop at one.

They do not intentionally say, "I'm going to have one drink and then drink-drive". The genuinely do not mean that, but very many people end up having an extra drink. There are indications that if someone is ill with the flu or has a heavy cold, one pint can affect their system and how they drive. It all comes back to drinking and then driving.

In Ireland, we have developed a culture that is now unacceptable but in the past was deemed all right for someone to say, "I can take two or three pints and I can drive". That is not the case; everybody knows that. Scientists and health officials will tell us the effects of one pint or so many particles of alcohol in one's system. If we are ever to move from the drink-driving culture of our past, we need so send a clear message to motorists that alcohol and driving cannot be tolerated in society. It just does not add up. I am not a member of the medical profession, but I have listened to what they have had to say; I have listened to the debates.

I have great sympathy for people in rural areas who might like to have a drink and find themselves enclosed in a small area unable to reach the pub. There must be other ways of doing it rather than allowing them to go to the pub, drink and then drive home. A person can be killed on a rural road, as can happen in an urban centre.

Some of the criticism that has been levelled at the Minister, Deputy Ross, is unfair and unwarranted. It is a genuine attempt to deal with this issue. Having met groups from all over the country from all walks of life whose families had been affected by drink-drivers or drunk drivers - call it what one likes - he felt there was an onus and responsibility on him. I met those families with him. They were all devastated, having lost loved ones through drink-driving. The Minister, Deputy Ross, felt this was the correct thing to do. It was not politics because he has probably got more criticism than support from politicians. Interestingly, the support he has got from the general public has been completely overwhelming. Radio stations, including those in my area, have been overwhelmingly in their support.

This is why I support the Bill. I do not support it because it is sponsored by the Minister, Deputy Ross, and he is a comrade and friend of mine. Those of us in the Independent Alliance have differences on it. It would be interesting if other people had sat in the room where I sat with the Minister and 40 or 50 people who had all been affected by someone who was driving, having had alcohol. It did not matter if it was four, one, six or ten pints. They all lost loved ones and their families were devastated. People would probably change their minds ever so slightly.

I am sorry I do not have much more time to talk about this because I am sharing time with my comrade. In consideration of the medical facts and of the statistics from the Road Safety Authority and other groups, this Bill is well worthwhile and will prove beneficial over the next number of years. If everything in the Bill is implemented, it will reduce fatalities and critical injuries on our roads, and will justify what the Minister, Deputy Ross, is trying to do.

See this speech in context