Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for his amendment and appreciate the motivation behind them. The matter of people driving while intoxicated is a serious one and one on which the law has been enhanced greatly over recent years. We have reduced the legal blood alcohol content limit for all drivers, with lower limits again for learners and newly qualified drivers. In addition, powers for the Garda Síochána to conduct tests for intoxication have been enhanced, allowing for greater enforcement. Most of all we have seen a cultural change away from casual tolerance of drink driving and towards an awareness of the dangers involved. Drink driving has become more socially unacceptable and that may be considered a great advance.

Current thinking on alcolocks tends to view them as a potential penalty for repeat offenders, rather than as a standard piece of equipment, all the more so because the technology is evolving and it is not yet clear what an optimum standard would be. The use of alcolock devices has been considered by the Road Safety Authority and my Department in the context of alternative sentencing options. A study commissioned by the RSA into a variety of devices, including speed limitation devices, for example, found that alcolocks were the only devices that might be viable in the context of alternative sentencing. The installation and monitoring of alcolocks would be costly, however, and the study also recommended that a cost-benefit analysis be carried out on their use in sentencing. Action 121 of the current road safety strategy commits the RSA to undertake such a study this year. I am of the view that the future of alcolocks will be found in the area of sentencing rather than general application. In addition, we need to consider carefully the question of specifications before we move forward on this matter. There are many types of alcolocks on the market and we would need to be clear about the technical specifications before considering imposing their use, either on offenders or on all drivers.

Intelligent speed adaptors were examined by the same study that examined alcolocks. It found them overall to be non-viable as a sentencing option. I do not think we could make something that is non-viable in some circumstances compulsory in all circumstances. Obviously the RSA study conflicts with the findings of the Leeds study in that regard.

At present there are no proposals at EU level to introduce pedestrian airbags as standard in cars and it is unlikely that agreement can be reached on the matter for some time. In general, vehicle standards are dealt with at EU level in order that vehicles can be traded in the Single Market.

For these reasons it is not possible for me to accept the amendment. However, I am determined to strengthen the law against intoxicated driving. Provisions in the Bill will introduce intoxication impairment testing at the roadside and include measures to allow for the testing of incapacitated drivers for intoxicants following serious collisions. My Department is also considering proposals for inclusion in the next road traffic Bill that will require employers to test for intoxicants drivers who work for them.

We think the technology for intelligent speed adaptors is not up to scratch yet. With regard to the next Bill, we propose to allow the courts to impose alcolocks as a sentence. A person convicted of being a drunken driver will have to adapt his or her car by installing an alcolock or we will require alcolocks to be installed in buses and other such vehicles. I do not propose to make that measure standard for all vehicles. I will return to the matter in the next Bill. I have steered the Senators in the direction that I intend to go, that is, to grant it as an option for the courts to impose on a person rather than something that must be installed in every new car.