Derek McDowell (Labour)

Perhaps we should retire to a public house to discuss it.

I believe the cameras should be visible so people know where they are. They are intended to scare people and to slow them down. There is no harm in that. It is as well that they be seen and that people appreciate that they are there for a purpose.

My party supports random breath testing but I have some concerns, perhaps due to my background as a solicitor. People should appreciate that what is provided for in the Bill is a radical move. We are putting in place a different regime from the one to which we have become accustomed. Prior to 2002 or 2003 there was a requirement that the garda have a reasonable suspicion that somebody was incapable of driving properly. That was a fairly high bar and gardaí on occasion failed to reach it. It was modified quite drastically to a requirement that the garda simply believed that the motorist had consumed alcohol. That lowered the bar dramatically. If there was a smell of alcohol, for example, irrespective of how the motorist was driving the car, it was sufficient to justify taking a test.

In this Bill we are removing any requirement that the garda have a suspicion that the person is incapable of driving. The fact that the person is driving entitles the garda to test his or her breath. I am not sure if we are getting the balance right. I must refer again to the information deficit I mentioned earlier. In so far as we can judge from prosecutions that are taken, the problem with drink driving is not caused by people who have had two and a half pints. Prosecutions in the courts clearly involve people who have consumed up to seven pints. They are not slightly but well over the limit. It is possible, even likely, that if we introduce random testing, there will be a glut of prosecutions and convictions for people who are just slightly over the limit.

I do not have a problem with this provision in the Dublin context. When there is a decent public transport system with taxis and buses readily available and offering a means to get home, the person should stop after two pints. However, if I were an old farmer in the west of Ireland, living a couple of miles from the local pub where I had a couple of pints a few nights each week, I might take a different view. Colleagues in the west of Ireland and in other areas will be faced with a cold wind when this provision is implemented if it is not enforced in a way that is reasonably sensitive to the facts and reality of social life in rural areas.

Let us be aware of what we are doing in this Bill because it is a dramatic change. From a purely legal point of view, it is also a little cumbersome. We will now have, in effect, two parallel regimes for testing. The existing provisions will remain in place. The Bill contains additional provisions which can also be used but only when an authorisation has been issued by a Garda inspector. I am aware of the Minister's reasons for introducing this procedure. However, it could cause difficulties in practice. Let us say a garda on a motorbike stops somebody on a main road in Dublin. Without an authorisation the garda must carry out a test with one standard of proof, in other words he or she must have a suspicion that the person has been drinking. However, if the garda has an authorisation, he or she can do it 100 or 200 yd up the road at a checkpoint under a different provision. That could, in time, cause difficulty in practice.

The process of requiring a Garda inspector or somebody of higher rank to issue an authorisation appears to be over-bureaucratic. I understand the Minister's reasons——