Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their different points. On Senator O'Neill's last point, NG is an anagram. As regards the prescribed substances that are there at the moment, the consequence of this law, if it is enacted, is that for those particular drugs the presence of the drug within the system means the users should not drive. The purpose of this law, therefore, is only to look at road traffic incidents and making our roads safer. If people are consuming the drugs that are laid down here as being prescribed, having those drugs in their system alone, is a road traffic offence. The direct answer to the Senator's question is, therefore, leaving aside any of the criminal or other legal matters concerning the consumption and presence of the drug, from a road traffic legislation perspective, if people consume these drugs and get behind the wheel of a car they are committing an offence. Therefore, if they consume these drugs they should not be driving on our roads.

I will go back to some of the figures quoted earlier on Second Stage. Figures from County Kildare concerning a large number of tests that were carried out showed the presence of drugs within the system, which was a contributory factor either to road safety incidents or risks being created on our roads. I will now comment on the points made by Senator Barrett, the common theme of which was whether a loophole would, in any way, be created due to the drafting of the Bill. Before I deal with each of his amendments in turn, the common thread in his question and my reply is that currently the Road Traffic Act 2010 allows the prosecution of people for driving while intoxicated. In each case, the 2010 Act provides for an anchor law for dealing with anybody who is suspected by the Garda of driving while intoxicated. This Bill strengthens that law by focusing on the intoxicants that are drug based.

Amendment No. 2 in the name of Senator Barrett would amend the provisions around the proposed medical certificate exemption by introducing the concept of impairment. The purpose of the medical certificate of exemption is to allow an exemption from this new offence for people who are prescribed Sativex, which is a medicinal form of cannabis. This refers to the new offence of presence only and I believe that adding a reference to the concept of impairment at this point, where it is not relevant, might create confusion.

Let me return to the answer I offered to Senator O'Neill when dealing with this group of drugs. We have delineated these drugs from other groups of drugs that could include prescription drugs and are saying that we judge the mere presence of these drugs alone to be so serious that it is a road traffic offence in its own right. It is for that reason I would not want to introduce an amendment which states: "where the drug use did not impair the person’s driving capability”. That dilutes, and could be a direct contradiction of, the objective of this Part of the Bill, which states that the presence of these drugs alone is a road traffic offence.

I will now deal with Senator Barrett's third amendment on prescription drugs. I acknowledge that the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications considered this in some detail in its discussions at the pre-legislative stage. The main worry of the joint committee was that individuals might be concerned about taking their prescription drugs for fear that it might lead to impairment. The conclusion we reached on Senator Barrett's amendment is that it addresses the other side of the coin, that is, that some prescription medications can have effects which are detrimental to driving. This might include some non-prescription medication, such as over the counter cough mixtures that might cause drowsiness. However, as I said earlier, under the Road Traffic Act 2010, it is already an offence to drive while intoxicated. We would deal with many of those matters under that Act but this Bill seeks to introduce a new ability to deal with this matter, which is what we are doing here.

Notwithstanding anything the Bill is dealing with, I would make the broad point that the responsibility rests first and foremost with the driver, as is the case with any other area of road safety law. If a person consumes a drug, be it something that is available over the counter or on prescription and if he or she believes that the effect of the drug makes him or her drowsy and might impede his or her ability to drive the car, his or her judgment is impaired and he or she should not be driving the car in the first place. There is very little that any of us can do in road traffic legislation which will ever take the place of somebody exercising his or her judgment in a reasonable manner.

However, the other side of the coin also implies that if a person takes a drug and does so in line with the advice of the doctor or pharmacist, there is every reason to believe that taking the medication would not impede his or her ability to drive safely.