Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

I thank Senator Mullen for tabling the amendment. The message is very clear - people should not drink and drive. That will always be the message we will put forward to the public. It is important to note that the law has always allowed for graduated penalties and still does so. If a person is found to have between 80 ml and 100 ml of alcohol in his or her blood, he or she is banned for from driving for 12 months. If he or she has between 100 ml and 150 ml in his or her blood, the ban is two years. For people who are found to have more than 150 ml of alcohol in their blood, the ban is three years. Graduated penalties are nothing new and they have been in place for quite some time. We are applying the lower limit of 20 ml to novice, learner and professional drivers because those in the first two categories have the least experience and are more likely to be involved in accidents and because people in the third category drive more than others and are also at high risk of being in accidents.

I have some sympathy in respect of the case the Senator makes. This matter first arose in the context of the debate on the 2010 legislation. I understand it was the intention of the previous Government to reduce the limit to 20 ml at that stage. A decision was taken to put in place a limit of 50 ml, however, and also to have a special limit of 20 ml for certain specified drivers. That matter was the subject of a lengthy debate in the context of the legislation to which I refer. I do not especially wish to reopen that debate in respect of this Bill. I am of the view that in a few years the limit will be reduced to 20 ml for all drivers.

There is another reason I cannot accept the Senator's amendment and that is, unfortunately, because it is defective. The amendment states:

"(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."."

If Senators do not want to send out mixed messages, then they should not vote for the amendment because if it were passed the limit would be 20 ml for blood but 50 ml and 20 ml for urine and breath. This means that if a person gives a blood sample, there will be one alcohol limit, whereas there will be different limits in respect of urine or breath samples. If the House really wants to send out a mixed message, then Senators should vote for the amendment.