Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 11, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:

"(b) In section 4 substituting the following for subsection (2)(a) and (b):

"(a) 20 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, or

(b) in case the person is a specified person, 20 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.",

(c) In section 5 substituting the following for subsection (2)(a) and (b):

"(a) 20 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, or

(b) in case the person is a specified person, 20 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood."."

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. The Minister is very welcome. The Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill allows for mandatory breath testing at the new limits, which will be introduced next month. It reduces the legal blood alcohol limit from 80 mg per 100 ml to 50 mg per 100 ml. The current limit is the highest in Europe and is found only in Ireland and the UK. My amendment seeks to resolve the unnecessary discrepancy between the 20 mg limit envisaged for learner and professional drivers and the 50 mg limit envisaged for all other drivers who hold a full licence.

I refer to a zero limit for all road users, as adopted in a number of countries. Some commentators have voiced what I believe to be legitimate fears, namely, that a zero limit would risk criminalising those whose driving is not impaired and that it would, in effect, criminalise those with small amounts of alcohol in their system perhaps because they had a couple of drinks the night before or have used alcohol in cooking. Surely the answer to that difficulty would be to introduce the lowest possible limit above zero for all drivers, a level that avoids the problem of being an absolute zero limit but which would effectively act as a zero limit? That is the reason for my amendment. It seeks to apply the 20 mg limit to all drivers regardless of the type of licence held or the length of driving experience of the driver.

Those who drive professionally, such as truck drivers, or, indeed, learner drivers will be subject under the Act to what is virtually a zero limit of 20 mg per 100 ml of blood. There is good international evidence to support such a limit. When Sweden, for example, lowered its limit in 1990 to 20 mg, fatal alcohol related accidents were reduced by 10%. I understand similar reductions occurred with similar beneficial effects in Austria, Belgium and France. Drivers who currently drive just below the legally permitted maximum level are estimated to be two to three times as likely to be involved in an accident as drivers with a zero blood alcohol limit. Dr. Denis Cusack of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety has stated in the media that the only way people can guarantee not being over the new lower limit is not to drink and drive. That is the kind of clear message this Bill should send out rather than the mixed message I believe it does in suggesting there are two classes of drivers who are allowed to take in differing amounts of alcohol. I do not suggest that is the reality as proposed. If we are to send out a message today which would support such campaigns as those of the Road Safety Authority, we should provide that people should not drink any quantity of alcohol and attempt to drive. We would not simply introduce a small reduction from the current level.

I return to the distinction between learner and fully qualified drivers regarding the quantity of alcohol that may be consumed. The Minister envisages that learner drivers and professional drivers would be liable for prosecution if found with a level of 20 mg, whereas drivers with a full licence for over two years are liable at a higher level. There is no rational basis for such a dichotomy. If we assume that a level of 20 mg above the level of absolute zero is necessary to avoid a scenario which may arise if an individual has consumed alcohol the previous day and may have residual alcohol in his or her bloodstream, there is a sound basis for having a 20 mg limit. The increase of the limit from 20 mg to 50 mg for full licence holders is puzzling when we consider that the imperative of the Bill is to make roads safer for users by ensuring all drivers have the lowest possible quantity of alcohol in their systems. I do not understand why a quantity of 20 mg in blood is considered as the safe limit for one class of driver and an additional 30 mg is allowed for another class of driver because up to 50 mg is considered safe. On what basis is the higher limit permissible? Is it the case that we think a driver of greater experience should be regarded as being better able to handle more alcohol in his or her system? There is an oversight here which has confused the issue regarding the quantity of alcohol one may consume. The message that should go out is that drivers should consume no alcohol.

I point to surveys that were undertaken in 2010 by the Royal College of Nursing in the United Kingdom. These are surveys of the general public which reveal widespread confusion about what constitutes a measure of alcohol. Most individuals are accustomed to taking alcohol in measures that are traditionally understood, for example, a pint, a half pint or a glass. It is not clear to many what quantity of alcohol it is permissible to imbibe before one is over the limit to drive. The distinction in the Bill between two quantities of alcohol for two classes of driver makes things worse and introduces a totally unnecessary element of confusion. This Bill still sends out a message that any quantity of alcohol is permissible before driving, which is wholly wrong. It runs contrary to the good work of the Road Safety Authority as well as to the good intentions of the Minister. It runs contrary to all our efforts to impress on people the danger of taking any alcohol and driving.

I refer again to the findings of the Royal College of Nursing survey which found that an estimated 80 road deaths per year are caused by drivers who are under the current drink driving limit. Studies show that even a small amount of alcohol results in slower reactions, longer stopping distances, a reduced field of vision and poor judgment of speed and distance in drivers. Furthermore, drivers are more likely to take risks and to believe, mistakenly, that they are in control. Once again this raises the problem of individuals, full licence holders, who as currently envisaged in the legislation may be under the limit of 50 mg but are above the lower 20 mg limit. I pointed out that this 30 mg of difference would still allow a series of negative effects on the drivers' reaction time, concentration and judgment.

The central question to be resolved is how a learner driver can go through the two year period envisaged by the Act at a 20 mg limit and suddenly rise to a 50 mg limit. Is it not the case that if there is a separate limit for young drivers, it could send out the message that once one gets through those two years one is then allowed to drink and drive, when the message we should give is that drinking and driving do not mix, whatever the age or experience involved?

A number of issues tend to be introduced when we talk about permitted drink driving limits and people having alcohol in their system. We must acknowledge there are serious vested interests involved - vintners, drink manufacturers, some politicians and perhaps even some members of the Judiciary. At times, and on issues such as this, vested interests seek to bring up extraneous issues. We will hear, for example, that people will lose jobs because they will lose their licence and a conviction of this kind is very serious. We must note, however, there has been change in this regard. Penalties are proportionate and loss of licence does not happen at the lower level. We hear arguments made about rural Ireland, from where I, too, come. People talk about the impact of the recession, pubs closing, lifestyle changes and the smoking ban. All sorts of issues are introduced. Again, however, we cannot make the argument that we ought to contemplate a greater risk to people, or even the possibility of some individuals dying, simply to keep pubs open. There is an argument in respect of the common good which must prevail.

An argument is also put forward to the effect that it is fine to drive when one has two or three pints on board or that the nanny state approach of using a mallet to crack a nut is being employed. It is obvious that it is not only those who are well above the drink driving limit who are involved in fatal collisions. The evidence shows that people who have consumed low amounts of alcohol can also be involved in such collisions. We must be aware of the big picture and view this issue in the context of the common good. I accept that there is a need to strike the correct balance between certain conflicting or opposing forces or arguments. I refer to individual freedom and rights in a democratic republic on the one hand and our responsibility to ourselves and our fellow citizens on the other. It is precisely because we are involved in trying to reconcile conflicting rights and aspirations that we must procure evidence-based research in respect of these issues. Such evidence exists and is compelling and supports the argument that there should be zero tolerance. The latter is what I am proposing.

The actions taken on foot of the road safety strategy during the past five years have succeeded in reducing the number of fatalities quite dramatically. It should be remembered that for every fatality, there are between seven and ten serious injuries. Such injuries can give rise to the need for overnight hospital stays at the very least. There are issues which arise in respect of definitions, especially in the context of the point at which an injury is classed as serious.