Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 May 1995

Vol. 452 No. 8

Road Traffic Bill, 1995 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The basic purpose of this Bill is to introduce new requirements relating to consequential disqualification orders for persons convicted of certain road traffic offences, particularly drink driving offences.

The Bill proposes to amend some of the minimum periods of disqualification which were provided for in the Road Traffic Act, 1994. It also deleted the requirement — introduced in the 1994 Act — that persons convicted of drink driving offences and therefore disqualified must pass a driving test before a driving licence can be reissued. The Bill also contains transitional provisions applying to people who have been convicted of certain offences committed in the period between 2 December 1994 and the enactment of this measure.

Before the Road Traffic Act, 1994 was enacted, there was a maximum blood alcohol limit of 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Any person convicted of an offence of exceeding that limit was automatically disqualified from driving for a minimum period of one year. In addition, the courts had the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000 and to impose a term of imprisonment of up to six months. That law had the support of the vast majority of motorists who accepted that drink driving was a serious offence justifying stringent penalties.

The Road Traffic Act, 1994 introduced a number of important changes to our road traffic legislation, including a general updating of the law as it applied to drinking and driving. The new 1994 Act generated significant media and public interest. The debate which followed its commencement focused on three elements of the new law: the reduction in the maximum permissible blood alcohol level from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood; the doubling of the minimum period of disqualification — from one year to two years — for persons convicted of drink driving offences; and the new requirement that a convicted person must pass a driving test before the disqualification is removed.

This Bill arises from a review of those three elements of the 1994 Act. Before dealing with the specific provisions in the Bill, I propose to outline briefly the developments which gave rise to these new proposals.

The reduced alcohol limit and the new disqualification provisions were introduced in conjunction with the annual Christmas road safety campaign. Because of the added risks associated with motoring during the festive season, the Christmas campaign normally concentrates on drinking and driving and it includes intensified enforcement measures.

The combination of the new more stringent laws and the extra publicity and enforcement had an immediate impact on driving habits and there was a noticeable drop in the number of road deaths and injuries in the month of December. In that month, 28 people were killed on the roads and 729 were injured, compared with 41 deaths and 965 injuries in December 1993.

The significant improvement in road accidents statistics, compared with the same period in recent years, cannot, however, be attributed to a single factor. The new legislation, with its stringent penalties and intensified enforcement, had a major impact, but I believe that the ongoing educational and publicity campaigns also contributed. Public attitudes have changed and I think the House will agree that, in recent years, the motoring public has shown a more mature and responsible attitude in so far as drinking and driving are concerned.

The Road Traffic Act, 1994 proved to be controversial and there was a strong demand for change. This demand came from a variety of sources: from vested interest groups, from media commentators, private motorists, and a range of organisations including groups representing motorists. The most persistent criticism of the new laws was that the penalties were excessive and, in particular, that the single minimum period of mandatory disqualification, irrespective of the level of alcohol found in drivers in individual cases, resulted in penalties being imposed which took no account of the severity of the offence committed.

In January last, I announced that the new drink driving laws would be reviewed and that I intended to consult with a wide variety of interest groups before deciding whether to propose changes. I met with representatives of the drinks industry, including vintners, restaurateurs and hoteliers. This group was naturally very critical of the 1994 Act and was most vocal in demanding change. I also met with representatives of the insurance industry which has a direct interest in road safety matters and meetings were also held with Mothers against Drink Driving and the Campaign against Drunken and Dangerous Driving. I received written submissions from a wide cross section of opinion. Following that consultation process, and in the light of the views submitted, the Government reviewed three elements of the 1994 Act.

The first issue was the new blood alcohol level of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This limit applies in eight member states of the European Union and the limit in the other states is lower. The Government is in full agreement with that limit. All the evidence available to us indicates that the risk of accident rises very sharply when the blood alcohol level exceeds 80 milligrammes. At that level, the risk of involvement in an accident is significantly greater than the risk of a driver with zero alcohol. Accordingly the Government has firmly decided that the alcohol limit of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millitres of blood introduced in December 1994 should be retained.

The second element of the law to be reviewed was the disqualification requirements. Having reviewed this aspect, the Government is satisfied that disqualification from driving is a suitable penalty for drink driving offences and that the principle of consequential or mandatory disqualification should be retained. Under this system, the courts must, on conviction for specified offences, impose a minimum period of disqualification from holding a driving licence; this has been a feature of our road traffic legislation for many years and experience shows it to be a very effective deterrent.

It is, however, valid to question the provision in the 1994 Act under which a single minimum period of disqualification is imposed, irrespective of the level of alcohol consumed. Accordingly, I sought advice from the Attorney General on the feasibility of introducing a range of disqualification periods to be linked to the amount of alcohol consumed in individual cases.

I understand the former Minister considered this issue but was advised, following consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, that there were difficulties arising from the operation of a tolerance which resulted in borderline cases not being prosecuted. However, I was advised that the Director of Public Prosecutions had, since then, reviewed the need for that tolerance and decided, on the basis of assurances given to him about the accuracy of analysis, to discontinue the tolerance and to prosecute borderline cases. The Attorney General has advised me that this decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions has removed a major obstacle to the introduction of a graded system of penalties and the Government has decided that the law should be amended to provide for such a system.

The third element of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 which was reviewed was the requirement to pass a driving test before a driving licence is returned following conviction for a drink driving offence. The courts have had a discretionary power since the early 1960s to impose such a requirement, but under the 1994 Act this became mandatory following conviction of certain offences. While it may have a deterrent value, the Government believes that an obligation to pass a driving test is not an appropriate penalty for drink driving offences and has decided that those provisions should also be amended.

The changes to the disqualification requirements, including the driving test repeat requirement, are set out in section 2 of the Bill. This section proposed to substitute two new subsections for subsections (3) and (4) of section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by the 1994 Act.

Subsection (3) outlines the changes to the requirement to pass a driving test, in addition to the minimum period of disqualification, before the driving licence may be returned. Under the 1994 Act, the requirement applies where a person is convicted of any drink driving offence, dangerous driving, or leaving the scene of an accident where death or injury was caused. The amendment now proposed will confine the repeat test requirement to two serious offences, the first under section 53 — dangerous driving where death or serious bodily harm is caused — tried on indictment, and the second under section 106 — hit and run cases where death or injury is caused.

The court will retain the discretion not to apply the driving test requirement where the court is satisfied that special reasons exist to justify such a course. The effect of this change is that the requirement will not apply in the future to drink driving offences or to offences of dangerous driving tried summarily.

Subsection (4) sets out the proposed new disqualification provisions for drink driving offences. Consequential or mandatory disqualification will continue to apply to all drink driving convictions, but the subsection proposes different minimum periods of disqualification for certain drink driving offences depending on the level of alcohol found in the arrested person's breath, blood or urine.

The Bill restates the offences to which a two year disqualification for a first offence, and four years for a second or subsequent offence, are to apply. These include the old "drunk driving" offence, the offence of being under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. Those periods of disqualification will also apply to all offences of refusing to provide a specimen for analysis. Where a person refuses to comply with the law, maximum penalties should apply.

For the purpose of offences of exceeding the alcohol limit, the Bill proposes three different grades or penalty bands, each with a different minimum period of disqualification.

The lowest band will cover drivers convicted with a blood alcohol level in the range of 81 milligrammes to 100 milligrammes. This is the new offence category introduced in December 1994. There will be an automatic three-month ban for a first offence and a six-month ban for a second offence in this category.

The middle band will be for drivers with blood alcohol levels in the range of 101 milligrammes to 150 milligrammes. There will be an automatic one-year ban for a first offence and two years for a second offence.

The highest band will apply to drivers with blood alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes. There will be an automatic two-year ban for a first offence and four years for a second offence in this category.

Section 3 of the Bill is designed to deal with offences committed before this Bill is enacted. Drink driving offences committed since 2 December 1994 are subject to the penalties set out in the 1994 Act. I have been advised that it would not be possible retrospectively to apply the new provisions in section 2 to such offences. Some of those offences have already been tried and penalties have been imposed in accordance with the 1994 Act. Those which have yet to come to trial must continue to be dealt with under the 1994 Act; in other words all persons convicted of offences committed between 2 December, 1994 and the enactment of this Bill must be treated equally, under the law.

Section 3 will allow all persons who committed relevant offences since 2 December 1994 — who are dealt with under the 1994 Act — to apply to the court seeking to have disqualification orders amended in line with the provisions in section 2. While that may sound a rather complex transitional arrangement, I am advised it is the only way to achieve the shared objective that everybody is treated equally. The transitional provisions in this section are desirable and I am sure the House will agree they are fair and equitable.

This Bill has already been considered by Seanad Éireann where there was considerable support for its provisions. There was all-party support for the concept of grading penalties to match the severity of the offences and for the transitional provisions in section 3.

Some Senators, however, expressed reservations about applying an automatic driving ban to people convicted with alcohol levels in the bottom band. It was suggested that a fine — with the level being decided by the courts in individual cases — would be a more appropriate penalty and that disqualification from driving should apply only to the middle and top bands. I informed the other House that I could not agree to such an approach.

In drawing up the proposed changes in this Bill, I was anxious to ensure that the efforts of my predecessor, Deputy Smith, and the progress made over the last four to five years with our road safety campaigns would not be undermined. Statistics of road deaths and injuries in recent years have shown a steady improvement and we must continue to take firm action to secure the maximum level of safety for road users. We must, in particular, continue to promote the message that all drink driving offences are serious and that there is no such thing as a trivial or acceptable drink driving offence.

The proposals in the Bill are justified and strike a reasonable balance. I recognise that it is difficult to achieve a consensus, but I am satisfied this new Bill provides the basis for fair and effective enforcement of drink driving laws.

In particular, I am convinced that some periods of disqualification, however short, should apply to all drink driving offences. The three-month ban for a conviction with a blood alcohol level between 81 and 100 milligrammes is a significant penalty but it is also an appropriate one. At the other end of the scale, people with blood alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes will face a two-year ban — something which I am sure will receive widespread support. Statistics from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which analyses the blood and urine specimens, show that 75 per cent of the people who provide a specimen of blood or urine are in this top band.

As I said earlier, there has been a noticeable, and welcome, change in recent years in attitudes to drinking and driving. The majority of motorists now recognise that drinking and driving are incompatible and are adopting a responsible attitude. Unfortunately, there is still a minority who have yet to be convinced, and for these education and publicity programmes must be complemented by effective legislation which provides a real deterrent. It is important that the public supports the law. Some people did not support all of the measures in the 1994 Act. This Bill provides the deterrent required in a balanced, fair and equitable manner, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Dempsey

When the campaign against the rounds system began not only was the system all pervasive, it was almost mandatory. For those in the House who are too young to remember the rounds system operated on the basis that regardless of how small or large the group everybody bought a drink for everybody else and buying one's round was almost a matter of honour. On a fine summer evening, perhaps after a football or a hurling match, groups of people would adjourn to quench their thirsts in the local hostelry or to perhaps celebrate a win in the local championship and, depending on the size of the group, people would leave the drinking establishment either drunk or ossified.

A refusal to buy a round would lead to the accusation that one was tight or mean. Also, if one failed to stay the pace and take a drink in every round, welcome as that might be to one's companions, there was a suspicion that one was not fully a man. I am not sure if the same applied to the female sex and although I am only referring to 30 or 40 years ago, women were not seen as often in pubs then. None of us will ever know the damage the rounds system did to generations of people. We will never know how many people became alcoholics as a result of the severe social and other pressures this system exerted. However, somebody decided to put an end to this practice. One person who was an advocate of trying to end this practice was the late Erskine Childers who held very strong views on this issue.

A campaign began to change attitudes and end the rounds system. It was extremely successful and those responsible deserve credit because they changed a social practice with a minimum of fuss and very little trumpet blowing. As a result of the campaign, it became acceptable to go into a pub with a group and drink at one's own pace and people could leave the pub having had one or two drinks without a stigma being attached to that.

I mention that campaign in the context of the Bill because the people responsible did not introduce laws, rules or regulations but succeeded in changing attitudes. Once attitudes were changed, the habits of a lifetime were also changed. In the same way, the law passed by the previous Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, succeeded finally in changing the attitudes of people to drinking and driving. In a real and fundamental way, the then Minister Deputy Smith made us face up to the reality that there can be no place in our society for people who drink to excess and then drive a car.

The Bill which Deputy Smith as Minister steered through the Houses of the Oireachtas last year was described as draconian and extreme by its opponents. Perhaps it was a little extreme, and the Minister might even acknowledge that, but regardless of whether it was draconian or extreme, it was absolutely necessary. In the past five or six years, successive Governments and Ministers for the Environment, with the support of all Members of this House, initiated very successful drink driving and road safety campaigns. Some of those involved changing laws, others merely involved intense publicity at certain times of the year, but the message was transmitted that drinking and driving were uncceptable. Many people, particularly young people got that message but, unfortunately, a hard core of drivers, to which the Minister referred in his contribution today, remained to be converted and continued to kill and maim people as a result of drinking and driving.

The legislation brought in was essential to get the message to those people that enough was enough. It was passed and the regulations implemented during the Christmas period served the useful purpose of finally changing attitudes to drinking and driving. It certainly helped to reduce the number of facilities on our roads in that period. The previous Minister, Deputy Smith, deserves to be congratulated in that respect and I thank the Minister Deputy Howlin for congratulating him today.

If the legislation was responsible for changing the attitudes of drivers who persisted in drinking and driving, it raises a question as to why we should change it now. I am sure the Minister has been asked that by a variety of individuals and groups. The answer is that any law we pass in the Houses of the Oireachtas should find a general acceptance among reasonable people. While most of the Road Traffic Act 1994 was welcomed by the general public, there were specific aspects of it that many people felt were unfair. They included the requirement to resit a driving test following a disqualification and the fact that people with a blood alcohol level of 80 milligrams who committed offences were treated in the same manner as those with a blood alcohol level of 150 milligrams. Those aspects are being addressed in this Bill. Most reasonable people will regard this as acceptable legislation.

The 1994 Act and this Bill must be seen not in isolation but in the much wider context of the Government's continuing efforts to promote road safety through the various campaigns against drinking and driving, speeding, etc. It must also be seen — and this was lost in the brouhaha following the introduction of the regulations — in the context of the attempts of successive Governments to secure a reduction in the cost of motor insurance costs, particularly for young people. This measure cannot be taken in isolation, it is part of the policy of successive Governments and should be seen as that.

I welcome the measures in this Bill, in particular the fact the Minister has maintained the new levels of 80 milligrams. While I believe it is acceptable and understandable that the Minister should respond to the calls made on other aspects of the legislation, to restore the limits to the pre-1994 Act levels, 100 milligrams would be a backward step. Some people in the drinks industry do not agree with this and have been lobbying the Government but, despite the public outcry about other aspects of the legislation there would be an equally vociferous reaction to any attempt by the Minister to restore the 100 milligrams level. The Minister is right in this regard. Most reasonable people never had any difficulty about the measure reducing the blood-alcohol level in the first place. Restoring the minimum level to 100 milligrams would undo all the good achieved by the 1994 Act. It would send signals that we were somehow soft on drink-driving and were not prepared to maintain the momentum of change in attitude over the past number of years.

I welcome the decision to introduce graduated penalties for the different offences and for different levels of alcohol in the blood. In his contribution to the Seanad and in this House today, the Minister explained that this was made possible because the DPP had changed his mind on the prosecution of borderline offences. I am glad the DPP changed his mind and facilitated the introduction of the graduated system. The Minister adverted to the strong advice the previous Minister got against the introduction of such a system but, as the DPP changed his mind in this regard, the graduated system is being introduced. I hope the new system does not create loopholes which will allow people to escape prosecution. That was one of the fears of the DPP, the Attorney General and the previous Minister and the Bill should be carefully monitored to ensure that people do not avoid prosecution because of loopholes in the system.

Another issue that has arisen over the past number of weeks is the question of the penalties to be imposed in the event of a prosecution of somebody with 80 to 100 milligrams of alcohol in their system. It has been argued that a fine for the first offence in this category should be sufficient. I doubt if there will ever be legislation before the House on which the main Opposition spokesperson and the Minister will see eye to eye—

Mr. Howlin

I have every confidence in the Bills I present.

Mr. Dempsey

——but I agree that a reduction such as a fine instead of three months' disqualification would send all the wrong signs to the general public and to those seriously concerned with the effects of altering this legislation. Part of the argument used by those who support the reduction to a fine is that we should not build into our legislation mandatory sentences and that such mandatory sentences are a reflection on the integrity of the courts and our confidence in them. I do not accept that argument. A mandatory sentence is the means by which we in the Oireachtas reflect what we consider to be the will and the views of the people and we as representatives of the people state what we regard as a minimum punishment for the crime. That is no reflection on the Judiciary because they are allowed to decide the upper limit of the punishment having carefully considered the details of the case. Putting minimum sentences into legislation is merely society saying to the Judiciary, this behaviour is unacceptable and demands at least the following action, what the judge does after that is based on the evidence before the court. It has been argued also that an endorsement on the person's licence for any offence under this legislation is a serious enough punishment. With the loadings the insurance companies put on drivers, this is not an unreasonable argument. However, you could turn that argument on its head and state that anyone who drives a car, knowing or suspecting that he is over the limit, even if it is the lower limit, knows that he faces a potential ban of three months, plus a loading which might double his insurance premium. If that deterrent is not enough, offenders deserve what they get.

During the Christmas period the myth was propagated by many people that huge numbers were being breathalysed and losing their licence, having to do their test again because they were just over the limit of 80 milligrams and that this was a very harsh penalty for the offence. However, the Minister has quoted the statistics and nothing could be further from the truth. About 75 per cent of those who were stopped, breathalysed and prosecuted as a result had well over the maximum limit of 150 milligrams of alcohol concentration. I understand from well placed sources that this would be very much the norm, but the vast majority of cases throughout the year are prosecutions of people with high readings and in fact relatively few people at the lower end of the scale are prosecuted. One may ask is that because the gardaí only stop drivers that are most obviously drunk, use their discretion when they breathalyse somebody and if it is near to the limit they are happy to let a person go with a warning, or, as the Director of Public Prosecutions seemed to indicate, that it was unsafe to prosecute in borderline cases or, apart from the blitz that is usually undertaken at Christmas, the breathalyser is mainly used when there has been an accident. I do not know the answer but perhaps it is a combination of the reasons I have given that explains why such a high percentage of people breathalysed have high concentration levels when they are caught. It will be interesting to see with the new graduated penalties whether the number of convictions at the lower level of the scale rises.

As the debate raged about road safety, accidents and causes of accidents, statistics were quoted left, right and centre by various groups. Most of the statistics were from the same sources but the arguments were totally contradictory. Indeed so contradictory were the statements that it reminded me of the criticism that is often levelled at politicians' use of statistics which goes like this "politicians use statistics much as a drunk uses a lamp-post, more for support than illumination". In this case I think that charge can be levelled against publicans rather than politicians. There is a serious lack of proper statistics on road safety and probably other areas. Quoting statistics from other jurisdictions can be helpful in a general way in informing a debate. However, there is no substitute for accurate, up-to-date and relevant statistics compiled in this country.

The various agencies such as the National Safety Authority, the National Roads Authority and the Departments of Justice and the Environment should seriously set about compiling accurate and relevant statistics which can inform future debates. There may be such statistics available but the debate in that area was not well informed. Perhaps insurance companies could help in this regard. They seem to have access to some statistics which others do not know about. How do they justify the loadings they put on persons convicted of drink related offences? If, as some people claim, drink related offences cause only 6 per cent of road traffic accidents, how can an insurance company justify a 100 per cent or 200 per cent loading on a premium, especially in cases where no accident occurs? Have they a scientific basis for these loadings or is it just a matter of thinking of a number and multiplying it by a factor of two, three or four? If they have reliable statistics they should make them public and ensure that we have informed debate.

I stated at the outset that the measures should be seen in the overall context of efforts by successive Governments to increase road safety and encourage a responsible attitude to drinking and driving. Drink driving is only one element in ensuring safety on our roads — speed, the age and condition of vehicles, the standard of driving and the deplorable conditions of many non-national roads are major contributory factors to the unacceptably high toll of death and injury on our roads annually. Regular enforcement of existing laws is one way to reduce that toll but I regret that does not happen. It cannot happen with the drug epidemic sweeping the country and when crime and lawlessness are the norm in many parts of our cities and towns. The Government must do something about that.

The success of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 over the Christmas period was due mainly to the belief that there was a fair chance of being breathalysed and the serious consequences of that. Once the fear of being caught receded, as it did when the Christmas checkpoint blitz finished, so too did the vociferous and vocal campaign to save the fabric of rural society. I have not heard anything about that in the last few months. There is no threat when the law is not enforced. It is now time to examine the way we enforce and implement road traffic laws. Such examination must be basic and fundamental. We must look at the question of freeing up Garda resources to fight serious crime and get our priorities right. Thousands of Garda man-hours are currently tied up in the enforcement of road traffic regulations and laws. Highly qualified gardaí spend hundreds of hours cooling their heels in courtrooms in order to prosecute relatively minor offences.

It is time to consider setting up a traffic corps which would operate under the direction of the Departments of Justice and the Environment. It should have responsibility for all traffic related offences ranging from untaxed cars, driving without insurance and parking violations to more serious offences such as drink driving, dangerous driving etc. The provision of new and faster roads will require more careful and constant policing if we are to keep the death toll down. The Government should look at this as a matter of urgency.

I congratulate our young people. They have taken the issue of drink driving seriously and the vast majority of them will not drink if they are driving. They make other arrangements and have accepted the message of various Governments that drinking and driving is wrong. I pay tribute to them and wish members of my generation and the older generation would learn the lesson equally well.

Miss Quill

I am strongly convinced that drinking and driving make bad bedfellows. This principle should be reflected in our legislation which should be consistently and rigidly enforced and implemented, not just around Christmas time and Easter time but every day of the year. Leaders in society ought to use the means at their disposal, particularly the media and education, to change public attitude and try to establish a culture where it is the norm for drinkers to leave the driving to others. Young adults are much more responsible in their behaviour and attitude in this regard than are members of my generation. I endorse what Deputy Dempsey said on the matter. I salute them for it and encourage them in the practice. I exhort them to set standards that they in time will be proud to pass on to their children.

The majority of today's young citizens have an enlightened attitude to fitness, health and recreation. This is part of what prompts them to have a more responsible attitude to drink and driving. We must not become complacent because it is also true that a minority of young people hold the opposite view on health and fitness. I refer to the almost 30 per cent of young people who, in one way or another, are caught up in a drug culture. How can we blame young people for being caught up in a culture of substance abuse if what they see, sometimes in their homes, neighbourhoods and localities is alcohol abuse by adults? What right have we to scold them if that is the kind of example they get from their elders? Why must we wonder if they say to their elders as one famous character in Hamlet said to another: "Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven, Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,". We must try harder to change our attitude, otherwise the consequences will be horrendous.

I support the reduced alcohol limit introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Smith, and upheld by the Minister, Deputy Howlin, from 100 milligrams to 80 milligrams. The legislative package of which that was a measure was the outcome of the deliberations of an inter-ministerial group set up by Deputy O'Malley when we were part of a Coalition Government in an effort to reduce the cost of motor insurance. Unfortunately, that effort did not achieve its objective.

Mr. Howlin

Costs have been reduced.

Miss Quill

I acknowledge that but there is much scope for further effort in that direction. I urge the Minister to take on board that part of the agenda. The cost of insurance is a crippling burden, particularly on young drivers. A country with a relatively young population and an underdeveloped system of public transport cannot continue to ignore the implications of high insurance costs. Young workers in computer industries in my city have no option because of the timetable for shift work but to buy a car so that they can hold down a job. Most of them buy second-hand cars which are adequate in terms of getting them to work but in many cases the cost of insurance exceeds the cost of the car. This more than anything else illustrates the crippling cost of motor car insurance. If in the legislation we go part of the way towards dealing with that problem then it is very welcome and has to be endorsed on that point alone. I urge the Minister to continue with this effort as there is plenty of scope for further reductions.

A fairly intensive road safety campaign has been ongoing since 1991. I am confident that as a result of that campaign the public attitude to drinking and driving has changed dramatically for the better. I am also confident that lives have been saved, the number of life threatening injuries has been reduced and accidents averted. I congratulate the Garda for the efficient manner in which they have conducted this campaign. However, there is ample scope for its continuation and intensification. Old habits die hard. Every year more than 400 people die on our roads while 10,000 more are injured, many of whom are permanently incapacitated. I accept that all of these deaths are not caused by drunk driving but many of them are.

The legislation being amended today was the subject of severe and sustained criticism at the time of its introduction. Nevertheless it succeeded in focusing the minds of the nation on the issue and it had a profound effect on people's thinking. I salute the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, for having the courage to introduce that legislation. Nothing but good has come, and will continue to come, from it. The public owes him a debt of gratitude for having had the guts to tackle many strong vested interests and introduce the legislation. Having said that, I recognise that this Bill is essential. My part supports it and we will not seek to amend it.

The overall purpose of justice is best met when the punishment fits the crime and when it is seen to do so. That is what the Minister is seeking to achieve in the Bill. A graded system of penalties in accordance with the level of alcohol in the blood and taking into account previous convictions is the correct approach to adopt. I am in favour of due leniency for a first offence provided, of course, that the limit is not breached to a substantial amount. Second and subsequent offences must be severely dealt with and the Minister has my full support in this regard. My clear understanding is that the majority of drivers tested for blood alcohol show an excess of 150 milligrammes. The penalties for people with that level of alcohol in their blood should be severe and I am heartened by the Minister's announcement that the highest band will apply for people over that level. There will be an automatic two year ban for the first offence and a four year ban for the second offence. I fully support this proposal; it is my understanding of a punishment which fits the crime. People in charge of a vehicle with that level of alcohol in their blood are acting in an outrageous way and if they are found with a similar level of alcohol in their blood a second time then they deserve the punishment proposed.

The Minister has struck a fair and worthwhile balance in the Bill. I support the decision to limit the requirement to sit a driving test to two of the most serious offences as set out in sections 53 and 106 of the 1961 Act. Under section 53 this punishment will apply to dangerous driving where death or serious bodily harm is caused. This is a fitting punishment and I am very glad it is being retained. Under section 106 the requirement to sit a driving test will apply in hit and run cases where death or injury is caused. It is very fitting that that punishment is being retained for those two very serious offences.

I was amazed at the fear the requirement to resit a driving test caused among people over 45 years. This might force legislators, many of whom are in the category of terror stricken adults, to look at the way in which we organise our driving tests. It never ceases to amaze me how bright and intelligent young people who get enough points to study physics, medicine etc. in college manage to fail a simple driving test. There is something wrong with the way in which driving tests are organised and there is something fundamentally wrong with a law which does not impose stricter controls and regulations on driving schools. I appeal to the Minister to give further consideration to this area and to see in what way driving tests can be improved in terms of how they are applied and adjudged. He should carry out a review of driving schools and the qualifications of instructors with a view to putting at the disposal of young drivers the kind of driving instruction which merits the fees charged and which prepares them for a driving test. He must also introduce new legislation to control driving schools and to compel them to provide that kind of driving instruction. That is the minimum we should do for our young people in the context of promoting road safety.

I have paid tribute to the responsible attitude of young people in respect of driving and drinking. It is also a fact that the majority of road accidents are caused by young people. If our aim is to minimise the number of road accidents and to reduce the cost of car insurance, we should examine the reason so many accidents are caused by young people. We should then take action to minimise the number of accidents. One of the ways we can attempt to do that is to examine the whole area of driving instruction, driving schools and driving tests.

My party and I support this Bill.

Mr. Dukes

I regard this Bill as a perfectly sensible measure. It is part of a very sensible campaign aimed at reducing the frequency with which people drive under the influence of alcohol. It is important to make the point that the campaign, which I think has the support of all Members of the House, is not in itself aimed at discouraging people from drinking and driving which is by far the more important part of the objective of the Bill. It was a well justified campaign and one which we all hope will be successful. I suppose if we are a little sanguine about it all we would hope the Minister would be able to report to us from time to time that the number of alcohol related deaths, injuries and accidents had declined, that the Garda were finding fewer and fewer people driving and making themselves amenable — as the Garda say — to the provisions of this Bill and of the previous Act it amends. We all hope that will happen and to the best of our ability our concern in this House is to make sure it does.

I welcome this Bill. It is a sensible provision but it would not have been necessary if the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith and, indeed, the former Government, had taken the advice given to them by the Fine Gael Party, late in 1993 and early 1994, during the debate on the Bill that became the Road Traffic Act, 1994. If that Minister and that Government had had the wit to take the advice given to them in the autumn of 1993 this whole matter would have been satisfactorily resolved early last year. That would have saved us a great deal of unnecessary controversy and it would have saved a good many people a fair deal of worry. I must be fair and say it might also have saved us a few of the more lurid and amusing stories we heard during the few months that followed the passage of that Act in 1994.

Members will have heard some of the more entertaining stories. I was told as gospel truth that a lady on her way home from a child's birthday party, with her child in the car, was breathalysed and found to be over the limit. She protested to the garda that for the whole afternoon she had drunk one glass of wine and claimed there must be something wrong with the breathalyser. To demonstrate her bona fides she suggested to the garda that he breathalyse the child. The story goes that the garda breathalysed the child who was also over the limit. Both the lady and the garda decided there was definitely something wrong with the bag. She went home and the garda said: "we will forget this ever happened". When she got home she checked with the lady in whose house the birthday party had been and found that her child, while all the ladies were saying good-bye to each other, had gone around and emptied the dregs out of the five or six glasses their mothers had consumed during the afternoon.

I do not know whether as a nation we have a talent for inventing stories like this but that was perhaps the more amusing side of some of what went on during that debate. There were worse sides to it as has already been said here. A great many people are worried by this, many of whom have no particular reason to be worried because they do not behave in a way that would have led them into trouble with the law. We went through all that and indulged our national talent and fixation with hyperbole to beat the band. Finally, after much unnecessary worry, hassle and struggle we have this Bill before us which, I think, rectifies the position. We could have done without all that nonsense and pain over a period of months.

The advice given by Fine Gael at the time, in particular by my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Avril Doyle, was that the penalties attached to drunken driving and driving under the influence of alcohol should be graded as a function of the degree of intoxication as measured by the levels of alcohol detected in blood, urine or in breath. That is what the Bill now provides, months after the advice was first given.

I am not sure whether we will ever get a complete explanation but I gather that at the time the 1994 Bill was going through the House it was said that the advice that was given from high legal circles was that grading of penalties in this way was not possible. Now it appears there has been a change of view on that. Frankly, I never believed that grading penalties in this way was not possible. I did not hear one single explanation, during all that time, as to why that might be the case. I am pleased to see we now have graded penalties.

As a general rule, Sir, I object to the notion of mandatory penalties. The dispensing of justice, in my view, can never be a precise mechanical matter of cause and effect. It is worth reflecting, when we look at other legal systems, that those we find most objectionable have mandatory penalties for offences where our courts have a much greater degree of discretion.

In our system the application of the law and dispensing justice can never be a mechanical matter. No matter how trivial the misdemeanour, no matter how grave the felony, every case is different. We have always taken the view that judicial discretion is essential to build the bridge required between the administration of the law and dispensing justice. Justice cannot ignore the law but the mechanical application of the law on its own very frequently does not dispense justice. That is why our system provides — rightly I think — for a fairly wide measure of judicial discretion. It is worth making that point in this context because we often find, in response to situations which people see developing in the area of crime, that there is a new resurgence in the demand for mandatory penalties. That is fine. Mandatory penalties seem always to be a good idea to the people who are not involved, and yet we find, time after time, that people see injustices in the application of mandatory penalties. I am glad that so far we have resisted the generalisation of mandatory penalties. I hope we continue to do so because it is a very wise feature in our law. Having said that, I will admit I can see a good reason for taking a slightly different view of mandatory elements in penalties relating to offences defined in terms that lend themselves to objective measurement, and that is the case in drink driving offences covered by this Bill. As part of a fairly hysterical debate that went on some time ago, many claims were made to the effect that mandatory penalties of the type included here were unconstitutional and in some way made people who drank a couple of pints of beer and drove home amenable to a more oppressive system of justice than people who carry out assaults, robberies, etc. That was part of the hyperbole for which we are widely famed. The difference is that we have defined in our law an offence — being in charge of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol — and we have devised methods for measuring the degree to which people are under the influence of alcohol. There are objective measurements that can be carried out. I know we do not always agree with all of them and there are still arguments going on but, on the whole, they are fairly good guides to the level of capacity to be in charge of a motor vehicle. For that reason it is wise to include the provisions in section 2. I am happy to be able to support them, and to support the approach that leads to the table contained in section 2.

I have only one criticism to make of that table, and the Minister will not be surprised to hear it. The proposal for mandatory disqualification from driving for three months on the first conviction of being in charge of a vehicle with up to 100 milligrams of alcohol seems unnecessarily severe. I say that because I am conscious that in section 2 and in the table we are not talking of cases where injury to other persons or damage to property is involved. Where there is injury to other persons or damage to property, section 2 does not apply. It is a different part of the legislation that applies in those cases. The penalty of three months embodied in the section and in the table is a minimum penalty. That penalty should be a maximum, not a minimum penalty. Apart from that, I am quite happy to let the table stand with the measures as set out.

Although I favour judicial discreation, and I am glad to be able to take this opportunity to make that point, I object very strongly to some recent statements from judicial quarters about the petitions procedure, which is not a million miles away from our minds when we talk about these issues. I object to some recent statements from judicial quarters about allegedly objectionable interference by politicians in the judicial process. Judicial independence is an essential component of our constitutional system, but it carries with it an obligation for people on the Bench to ensure that they are as fully informed as they can be about the matters coming before them. That obligation is diligently and conscientiously fulfilled in the vast majority of cases. However, there were occasions when, as Minister for Justice, I found that was not the case, that matters that seemed to me to be relevant to the determination of a penalty had not only not been taken into account by the court but had not even been inquired into either by the Garda Síochána or by the court. The cases in question were not momentous; they were not cases of major felony but they were, nevertheless, cases that properly came before the court. One that comes to mind to illustrate my concern and the reason I object to those recent statements, concerns a lorry driver who was prosecuted, brought to court and convicted of driving an untaxed lorry with bald tyres and without reflecting strips down the sides. He had clearly committed several offences. He was convicted of the offences and fined a sum equal to several multiples of his weekly wage.

A Member of this House sent a petition to me and I dealt with it in the way I normally dealt with such petitions, by taking them home with me at weekends and allowing myself to be distracted from "The Late Late Show" and other trivialities to deal with them. On examining the file it quickly became clear to me that the driver was not the owner of the lorry. I put a question on the file asking who was the owner of the lorry. I also asked if the owner had been charged with the offences because, on the evidence presented to the court, and which was not disputed, the owner of the lorry also had committed several offences. The replies I got indicated to me that neither the Garda nor the court had taken the trouble to ask that simple question. They had the driver, the lorry, and the evidence. They brought him to court, he was convicted and fined, and that was the end of that. I confess, I was somewhat annoyed by that because, looking at the other circumstances of the case, the fine imposed and the evidence given on behalf of the driver about his weekly wage and his family circumstances, it seemed most unlikely that that person was in a position to tell his employer, the owner of the lorry, that he would not drive it until he, the owner, had put proper tyres on it, reflective strips on the side, and taxed it. I know, as do other Members of this House about conditions in some sectors of our transport industry. If that driver had insisted on compliance with the law, he probably would have been invited to leave the premises immediately and told not to present himself for work again the following morning. He was not, therefore, in a position to insist and, although he was guilty of having infringed the law in several respects, he was not the only person who was guilty. In many ways he was not even the main culprit in the case. However, the Garda, the court and the district justice had not taken the trouble to inquire. It seemed to me in that case, although the court had administered the law, it certainly had not done justice to that man. I, therefore, reduced the fine substantially, and if I had the opportunity this evening I would do it again if presented with similar circumstances. The district justice and the Garda should have asked who was the owner of the lorry. They should have prosecuted the owner, and he should have been in court beside the driver at the same session, but he was not.

I am not one of those people who claim that members of our Judiciary are divorced from society. That is certainly not so in the case of the vast majority of our Distict Court judges, our Circuit Court judges or, indeed, other members of the Judiciary. There were some, former ones at least, who claimed to have a direct line to God. Unfortunately they were not entirely divorced either, to use a malapropism, from society because they represent, happily, a very small section of our society. They represent a point of view that was defended last night with great obduracy by Father Denis Faul. However, that is unusual. Members of our Judiciary are linked to our society. In my experience the majority of District Court judges and prosecuting gardaí responded to the inquiries and in many cases recommended reduction of penalties even where a decision had not been appealed to the Circuit Court because they knew the petitioners did not have the means to fund an appeal.

We praise investigative journalism. We should praise now and again investigative politics in the interests of fairness, justice and equity in society. We have experienced heavy sniping both inside and outside the House from the politically correct about this issue. They have targeted politicians and successive Ministers for Justice in particular but they have targeted the wrong people. If they targeted the right people, those who sit on the Bench would make sure they did not hear cases in a way which would give rise to the natural desire to right an injustice in cases where justice is only partially administered.

Dr. O'Hanlon

While I am sure Deputy Dukes is correct in saying that if we had listened to Fine Gael this legislation would not be before the House, I am not sure that the 1994 Act was bad legislation in that an important debate on the question of the abuse of alcohol and drink driving was initiated and as a consequence people were made more aware of the associated dangers.

The 1994 legislation had two main objectives, to reduce the permitted level from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and to lengthen the period of disqualification and, in certain circumstances, to make it mandatory to repeat the driving test. The decision to reduce the permitted level to 80 milligrammes was correct although this is still the highest level within the European Union. I commend the Minister for not increasing it to the previous figure of 100 milligrammes although he was under some pressure to do so.

I understand what the Minister is trying to achieve in grading the penalties to fit the offence. As has been stated, the decision that it would be mandatory to repeat the driving test was the source of great concern in rural Ireland, particularly for the elderly who obtained a driving licence before driving tests were introduced and who felt that they would not pass the test if they were convicted of drink driving.

We have to accept that the permitted level is moving downwards worldwide. In some countries in Eastern Europe there is a zero level while the level in Sweden is ten milligrammes. I understand that if the figure reaches 80 milligrammes there is a mandatory jail sentence. As everyone is aware, the scientific evidence shows that as the level of alcohol in the blood stream increases judgement becomes impaired, particularly when driving.

It is important that we do not forget the statistics for road deaths. During the troubles in Northern Ireland 3,000 people were killed as a result of political violence. In the same 25 year period 10,000 people were killed in road accidents in the Twenty-Six Counties. I am not suggesting that all of these accidents were alcohol related but I have no doubt that alcohol was a contributory factor in a significant number. In my earlier years I worked in a hospital and in my later years in general practice and saw the effect drink can have, in terms of road fatalities and injuries. Each year 10,000 people are injured on our roads and in a significant number of those cases the abuse of alcohol is a contributory factor. The sad thing is that each Saturday night when I was on duty in my general practice I saw someone who was maimed or scarred for life as a result of unnecessary accidents.

It is recognised that drink is not the sole cause of road accidents. I appeal to the Minister to consider each contributory factor to ensure that we reduce the number killed on our roads. I do not like to hear announcements that the figures for a particular month are five less than the figure for the corresponding month in the previous year as one death is one too many and we can become too complacent if it is announced that the figures are decreasing. There is no such thing as a tolerable level of road deaths. We must work together to ensure in so far as possible that we prevent road deaths and injuries. I ask the Minister to consider the issues of speed, quality of cars and the condition of our roads. The use of seat belts is also important in preventing loss of life and injuries.

I would like to raise a new issue in this debate, that is the provision of wipers on the headlamps of cars. These are provided on Swedish cars in particular. I know from experience in commuting 55 miles to Dublin each day that on a rainy day the dirt clings like a sheet of brown paper on the headlamps of the car by the time one reached Dublin. If I drive home on a wet night it is necessary to stop to clean the headlamps. I cannot understand why so much chrome is used on the sides of cars and why wipers are not provided on headlamps. It would be very simple to do this.

I agree with the decision to introduce graded penalties. While I note that in certain circumstances it will be mandatory to repeat the driving test section 2 states that this provision may not be applied if there are special reasons for not doing so. Will the Minister indicate what these special reasons might be?

While I agree with the new penalties to be imposed where the figure is between 80 and 100 milligrammes, it appears that the Minister has decided, where the figure is over 100 milligrammes, to restore the penalties which were imposed before the 1994 legislation was introduced. Where the figure is between 100 and 150 milligrammes the mandatory penalty for the second offence was a three year suspension but I note that the penalty of a two year suspension is provided for in the Bill. I am not suggesting that the Minister should change the figures but I am drawing attention to the fact that there are differences with the figures in previous legislation.

Judges will have discretion to restore a licence after a period of six months. I would like to see the legislation copper-fastened so that the licence will not be returned to a person who is known to have a problem with alcohol. It is a farce that a licence that has been mandatorily removed for 12 months is returned in six months when it is known the person involved has a problem with alcohol.

Debate adjourned.