Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I understand amendments No. 4 to 21, inclusive, has been grouped together. Therefore, I will speak to a number of amendments and I trust that is permissible. I had a brief opportunity to start my contribution on the previous occasion. I made the point that it has been illegal for a motorist drive a car with a blood alcohol level in excess of the 50 mg limit since 2011. Despite many positive changes that have been introduced to our road traffic legislation, such as the reduction of the blood alcohol limit, the introduction of penalty points and random breath-testing, the fact remains that, unfortunately, we still have fatalities on our roads. The point I made on the last occasion and the point I want to make again tonight is that we should be focusing our scarce resources on tackling the area that is the biggest problem. The only up-to-date figures we have, which are certified and produced by the Road Safety Authority, are from 2008 to 2012. Of the sizeable number of fatalities in that period, 39 had a blood alcohol level of in excess of 250 mg, 37 had a blood alcohol level of between 201 mg and 250 mg, 25 had a blood alcohol level of between 150 mg and 200 mg and 20 had a blood alcohol level of between 100 mg and 150 mg. Despite that, this area is not even being considered by the Minister. He seems to believe, and he reiterates this time and again, that the only real deterrent for people who break an existing law is automatic disqualification. If automatic disqualification was the deterrent the Minister seems to believe it is, we would not have the fatalities in this category because those people are already liable if caught to be put off the road. If automatic disqualification was the deterrent the Minister says it is, the figure for 2016 which the Minister gave us on Committee Stage was that 8,063 people were arrested and detected for having alcohol in their blood that was over the limit. Of that 8,063, 93% were in a category that would deem automatic disqualification. The point I am making is that if automatic disqualification was such a deterrent we would have fewer people in the category of people who have been disqualified and fewer fatalities in that area.

The real deterrent, and this has been backed up time and again, is the fear of being caught. Unfortunately, the checks are too sporadic. During the past number of years, the number of people working in the traffic corps has decreased from full capacity, which was more than 1,000, to approximately 667 now. There are 444 fewer people working in the traffic corps now than was the case when it was at full capacity. The real deterrent is for people to be afraid when they look in their wing mirror and see a blue flashing light behind them or for people to be stopped at an automatic check point. That is not happening now. During 2016, when a very good Christmas campaign was launched, it resulted in a decrease of 34% in road deaths compared to the same period in 2015 and a decrease of 27% in road deaths compared to the same period in 2014.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody who willingly goes out and breaks the law by drink driving. However, where I have sympathy, and I believe the Minister's proposal is disproportionate to the offence, is where somebody who takes a taxi, a Nitelink, shares a lift or whatever home, goes to bed, gets up the next morning and may be marginally over the blood alcohol limit of 50 mg. The Minister is now saying that person did everything right but we will put him or her off the road for three months. As a result, that person who may be the breadwinner and the only earner in the house will lose his or her job. I believe that penalty is disproportionate.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the blood alcohol limit is 80 mg. In Ohio and a number of other states in the United States, the blood alcohol limit is 80 mg. In Canadian provinces and territories, it is 80 mg. Already, we are below the blood alcohol limit in many other countries. What we are proposing as a party and what we believe to be fair and proportionate is to increase the penalty points to five and have a €500 fine. That is fair and proportionate in terms of the penalty.

We have to remember that what we are doing now is being done against a backdrop of Garda breath test figures over which we cannot stand.

In fact, the Road Safety Authority itself, in August 2017, stated:

The Road Safety Authority (RSA) was greatly concerned [...] that there were significant discrepancies between the number of people actually being breathalysed versus the number recorded as having been breathalysed since 2011.

Unquestionably, there is a direct link between the levels of drink driving enforcement conducted and compliance with drink driving laws. The absence of credible and reliable enforcement metrics such as the numbers of drivers being breath tested, makes it almost impossible to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of road safety interventions.

This is especially valid in the context of the rise in road deaths over recent years. [...] One of the primary concerns for the RSA is the implications for road safety of inaccurate data being recorded and the potential lack of enforcement activity especially around the issue of drink driving which continues to be a serious problem in this country.

Those are the Road Safety Authority's own words. It cannot stand over the data on which the Minister is relying for introducing this legislation. Are we, as legislators, meant to rely on good, sound data? I believe we are and in this instance, we are not doing so.

Assistant Commissioner Michael O’Sullivan published a report on the examination of the recording of breath tests at mandatory alcohol-intoxicant testing checkpoints, which stated:

The examination calculated breath test data from 7th June 2009 – 10th April 2017 and determined that 3,498,400 breath tests were recorded on PULSE compared to 2,040,179 recorded on Dräger devices. This identified a discrepancy of 1,458,221 breath tests between the Dräger count and the PULSE count, which reflects a 71% disparity between breath tests recorded on Dräger and those recorded on PULSE.

I have no intention of filibustering this legislation. I have been fair at every opportunity the Minister has come before the House. If there is any reason for delays it is because the Minister has not been able to secure time in the Dáil to debate this issue since he published the Bill in February of last year.

What the Minister proposes is disproportionate. The Minister is operating on a foundation of sand because, as the Road Safety Authority and an assistant commissioner acknowledge, we cannot even have confidence in the facts provided.

I believe the Minister is going for low-hanging fruit. If the Minister is serious and genuine about tackling the scourge of fatalities on our roads, why is he not prepared to bring in far stricter measures for drivers in excess of 80 mg or 100 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood where the vast bulk of our fatalities occur?

As somebody who is totally opposed to drink driving and who wants to ensure that impaired drivers are off our roads, I believe genuinely the best way to do so is to increase the Garda presence on the roads. The Minister failed to ensure there was an increase in the traffic corps last year. I hope the Minister will be able to honour his commitment this year.

The Minister should not punish somebody the following morning who is marginally over a limit that is already lower than that applicable internationally and put him or her off the road for doing the right thing. It is unfair. It is disproportionate. The Minister should reconsider what I have proposed, which is fair and balanced.

See this speech in context