As I was saying, the point we are discussing now is whether or not this new offence which I am asking the Dáil to create should be created. It is my proposition that we should decide that it be an offence for a person who is driving to have previously raised his blood-alcohol content to a level of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. I am making that suggestion because it has been scientifically and definitely established that in the vast majority of cases, if not in all cases, anybody who raises his blood-alcohol content to that level is impaired in his capacity to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle. I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that there may be cases of people who can take this risk and still not be impaired in their driving ability. There may, and there may not. But even experienced and practised drinkers cannot say with certainty that, because on nine occasions out of ten, they can take this risk without impairing their driving ability, on every occasion, irrespective of the conditions in which they take this risk, their driving ability is not impaired. Even if they could say that with certainty, I still think it justifiable to provide that they will not take this risk or, if they insist on taking it, that they will be deprived of the privilege of driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on the roads.
Deputy Fitzpatrick says that this is inconsistent; the Commission recommended in favour of this being only prima facie evidence. That is so, but I think it is quite clear from the Commission's report that the Commission's advice was related to its assessment of the state of public opinion in 1963 and, whatever the state of public opinion in 1963, whether the public were or were not prepared to accept this as an offence, is, of course, a matter of opinion. I am quite satisfied that, in the meantime, public opinion has progressed and, with every day that passes and with every fresh fatality or serious accident on the roads, the public are more and more inclined to demand protection from those who take the terrible risk of putting themselves into a condition in which they are not fit to drive a motor vehicle.
I am quite satisfied that the public are now prepared to accept this new condition that such people will not drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle when they have taken the risk of raising their blood-alcohol content to this level. As I have said, I do not argue that everybody whose blood-alcohol content exceeds this level is necessarily unfit to drive, but I say it has been scientifically established that practically everybody in this condition is unfit to drive. In view of the risk involved in driving a motor vehicle in such circumstances, it is quite justifiable for us to provide that any person who intends to drive must not take the risk of raising his or her blood-alcohol content to this dangerous level.
Deputy Fitzpatrick argues that this is unconstitutional but, although he has placed such reliance on the Commission's advice to make this only prima facie evidence, at least in the initial stages, he has ignored the fact that the Commission have also said that the making of this an absolute offence would, in their opinion, not be in conflict with the Constitution. I should like to point out that the figures with regard to drink intake which Deputy Fitzpatrick quoted are minimum figures and were applicable to a man weighing 11 stone, who was fasting, and who drank the amounts mentioned very quickly. More realistic figures can be obtained from other sections of the report, as Deputy Fitzpatrick will discover if he looks through the report.
The Commission did not rule out the introduction of a system, such as I propose here, at some future date. They merely considered that, at the time of the report, it was unlikely to be accepted widely by the public, in their opinion. I think the situation has changed since then. The experience in Britain has shown that the use of the blood-alcohol level as evidence, but not as conclusive evidence, has had little effect, because, as the White Paper issued by the British Government in 1965 pointed out, conviction still depends to a large extent on evidence of the accused's manner of driving, or his personal appearance and behaviour, and because some courts still ask to have the blood-alcohol level translated into the amount of drink the driver must have consumed, it is an unreliable and misleading procedure at the best of times.
The arguments in favour of this are, as I have said, that at this level the driving ability of the great majority will be seriously impaired and the community is entitled to say that a person whose blood-alcohol level exceeds 125 milligrammes should not and may not drive. If this level is to be accepted as prima facie evidence only, then we will have to fall back on evidence based on clinical examination, observation, and so on. In other words, we will be back exactly to where we are at present. The whole intention of this section is to establish a definite test, which is not to be taken as evidence that a person is drunk, but as evidence that he or she is not in a fit condition to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle. That is quite a different thing. If there are exceptional individuals who can put themselves into this condition, and still be fit to drive, I do not think we should worry about them, particularly when we remember that they may not retain this facility for the whole of their lives or may not retain it in all circumstances. Obviously their capacity will deteriorate with long practice.
As I said, so far as I am concerned, this is a fundamental proposition. One is either for or against. If it is rejected, we will be back exactly where we are now; these cases will be decided on the basis of clinical examination and observation.